https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Delbatros 2024-10-20T07:47:50Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.43.0-wmf.27 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gebzespor&diff=1228084948 2024-06-09T11:17:34Z

<p>Delbatros: New chairman</p> <hr /> <div>{{short description|Turkish sports club}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> |clubname = Gebzespor<br /> |image = [[Image:Gebze.jpg|250px]]<br /> |fullname = Gebzespor Kulübü<br /> |nickname = Violets<br /> |founded = 19 May 1955<br /> |ground = Alaettin Kurt Stadium, [[Gebze]]<br /> |capacity = 15,462<br /> |chairman = Recep Avcı<br /> |manager = Sertaç Gezer<br /> |league = [[Turkish Regional Amateur League]]<br /> |season = 2023-24<br /> |position = [[Turkish Regional Amateur League]], Group 2, 2nd<br /> |pattern_la1 =<br /> |pattern_b1 = _whitestripes<br /> |pattern_ra1 =<br /> |leftarm1 = 800080<br /> |body1 = 800080<br /> |rightarm1 = 800080<br /> |shorts1 = 800080<br /> |socks1 = 800080<br /> |pattern_la2 =<br /> |pattern_b2 = _keciorengucu1920t<br /> |pattern_ra2 =<br /> |leftarm2 = ffffff<br /> |body2 = ffffff<br /> |rightarm2 = ffffff<br /> |shorts2 = ffffff<br /> |socks2 = ffffff<br /> |body3 = 800080<br /> |rightarm3 = 800080<br /> |socks3 = 800080<br /> |leftarm3 = 800080<br /> |shorts3 = 800080<br /> |pattern_b3 =<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Gebzespor''' is a Turkish [[sports]] club located in [[Gebze]], [[Kocaeli Province]]. The football club plays in the [[Turkish Regional Amateur League]]. They have a local rivalry with [[Kocaelispor]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.ultras-tifo.net/photo-news/4046-kocaelispor-gebzespor-23012016.html | title=Kocaelispor - Gebzespor 23.01.2016 }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==League participations==<br /> * [[TFF Second League]] (5): 2006–11<br /> * [[TFF Third League]] (24): 1984–2006, 2011–12, 2018–19<br /> * [[Turkish Regional Amateur League|TFF Regional Amateur League]] (12):<br /> 2012–18, 2019-<br /> * [[Turkish Amateur League]] (29): 1955-84<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3616 Gebzespor on TFF.org]<br /> * {{Facebook|1955gebzespor}}<br /> * {{Instagram|gebzesporresmi}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Gebzespor| ]]<br /> [[Category:Sport in Gebze]]<br /> [[Category:Sport in İzmit]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1955]]<br /> [[Category:1955 establishments in Turkey]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Turkey-footyclub-stub}}</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gebzespor&diff=1225724728 2024-05-26T09:12:48Z

<p>Delbatros: </p> <hr /> <div>{{short description|Turkish sports club}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> |clubname = Gebzespor<br /> |image = [[Image:Gebze.jpg|250px]]<br /> |fullname = Gebzespor Kulübü<br /> |nickname = Violets<br /> |founded = 19 May 1955<br /> |ground = Alaettin Kurt Stadium, [[Gebze]]<br /> |capacity = 15,462<br /> |chairman = Resul Tat<br /> |manager = Sertaç Gezer<br /> |league = [[Turkish Regional Amateur League]]<br /> |season = 2023-24<br /> |position = [[Turkish Regional Amateur League]], Group 2, 2nd<br /> |pattern_la1 =<br /> |pattern_b1 = _whitestripes<br /> |pattern_ra1 =<br /> |leftarm1 = 800080<br /> |body1 = 800080<br /> |rightarm1 = 800080<br /> |shorts1 = 800080<br /> |socks1 = 800080<br /> |pattern_la2 =<br /> |pattern_b2 = _keciorengucu1920t<br /> |pattern_ra2 =<br /> |leftarm2 = ffffff<br /> |body2 = ffffff<br /> |rightarm2 = ffffff<br /> |shorts2 = ffffff<br /> |socks2 = ffffff<br /> |body3 = 800080<br /> |rightarm3 = 800080<br /> |socks3 = 800080<br /> |leftarm3 = 800080<br /> |shorts3 = 800080<br /> |pattern_b3 =<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Gebzespor''' is a Turkish [[sports]] club located in [[Gebze]], [[Kocaeli Province]]. The football club plays in the [[Turkish Regional Amateur League]]. They have a local rivalry with [[Kocaelispor]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.ultras-tifo.net/photo-news/4046-kocaelispor-gebzespor-23012016.html | title=Kocaelispor - Gebzespor 23.01.2016 }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==League participations==<br /> * [[TFF Second League]] (5): 2006–11<br /> * [[TFF Third League]] (24): 1984–2006, 2011–12, 2018–19<br /> * [[Turkish Regional Amateur League|TFF Regional Amateur League]] (12):<br /> 2012–18, 2019-<br /> * [[Turkish Amateur League]] (29): 1955-84<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3616 Gebzespor on TFF.org]<br /> * {{Facebook|1955gebzespor}}<br /> * {{Instagram|gebzesporresmi}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Gebzespor| ]]<br /> [[Category:Sport in Gebze]]<br /> [[Category:Sport in İzmit]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1955]]<br /> [[Category:1955 establishments in Turkey]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Turkey-footyclub-stub}}</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&diff=1225724477 2024-05-26T09:10:02Z

<p>Delbatros: </p> <hr /> <div>{{short description|Turkish sports club}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Karşıyaka<br /> | image = Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png<br /> | image_size = 170px<br /> | fullname = Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü<br /> | nickname = Kaf Kaf, Kaf Sin Kaf, The 35 and half<br /> | founded = {{Start date and years ago|df=yes|1912|11|1}}<br /> | ground = [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]]<br /> | capacity = 15,000<br /> | chairman = İlker Mehmet Ergüllü&lt;ref&gt;https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> | manager = [[Erkan Sözeri]]<br /> | league = [[TFF Third League ]]<br /> | season = 2023-24<br /> | position = [[TFF Third League ]], Group 2, 3th<br /> | website = http://www.ksk.org.tr/<br /> | pattern_la1 = _greenborder<br /> | pattern_b1 = _redhalf2<br /> | pattern_ra1 = _redborder<br /> | leftarm1 = FF0000<br /> | body1 = 006600<br /> | rightarm1 = 006600<br /> | shorts1 = FF0000<br /> | socks1 = FF0000<br /> | pattern_la2 = <br /> | pattern_b2 = <br /> | pattern_ra2 = <br /> | leftarm2 = FF0000<br /> | body2 = FFFFFF<br /> | rightarm2 = 006600<br /> | shorts2 = FFFFFF<br /> | socks2 = FFFFFF<br /> |pattern_la3 =<br /> |pattern_b3 =<br /> |pattern_ra3 =<br /> |leftarm3 = <br /> |body3 = <br /> |rightarm3 = <br /> |shorts3 = <br /> |socks3 =<br /> | current = 2023-24 [[TFF Third League]] Group 2<br /> | kit_alt1 = Red and Green vertical boxes with white shorts and socks<br /> }}<br /> '''Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü''' (English: Karşıyaka Sports Club) also known as '''Karşıyaka''' is a Turkish sports club located in [[Karşıyaka]], [[İzmir]]. Founded in 1912, they are İzmir's oldest club. Like others in Turkey, the &quot;SK&quot; suffix refers to the establishment being a ''sports club'', as, besides football, the club has sports branches in [[Karşıyaka Basket|basketball]], [[Karşıyaka Women's Volleyball Team|volleyball]], [[handball]], [[tennis]], [[Swimming (sport)|swimming]], [[sailing (sport)|sailing]], [[billiards]], and [[bowling]]. The club's football team currently competes in the [[TFF Third League]], the fourth tier of the Turkish football league system. The basketball team currently competes in the [[Turkish Basketball League]] and the women's volleyball team in the Turkish Women's Second League.<br /> <br /> Karşıyaka has a very large fanbase in Northern İzmir, and have a fierce rivalry with [[Göztepe S.K.|Göztepe]]; matches between the two teams are known as the [[Göztepe–Karşıyaka rivalry|İzmir Derby]]. Other rivalries are with [[Altay S.K.|Altay]] and [[Bucaspor]].<br /> [[File:Karsiyaka 1912.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Karşıyaka in 1912.]]<br /> <br /> ==European participations==<br /> {{updated|29 September 1992}}<br /> <br /> '''Statistics''':<br /> <br /> {|class=&quot;wikitable sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Competition!!Pld!!W!!D!!L!!GF!!GA!!GD<br /> |-<br /> |align=center|[[Balkans Cup]]<br /> |2||1||0||1||5||6||{{nowrap|–1}}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;'''Pld''' = Matches played; '''W''' = Matches won; '''D''' = Matches drawn; '''L''' = Matches lost; '''GF''' = Goals for; '''GA''' = Goals against; '''GD''' = Goal Difference. &lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> '''[[Balkans Cup]]:'''<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Season<br /> !Round<br /> !Club<br /> !Home<br /> !Away<br /> !Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1992–93 Balkans Cup|1992-93]]<br /> | '''Quarter-finals'''<br /> |{{flagicon|BUL}} [[FC Etar (Veliko Tarnovo)|Etar]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 4–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 1–5<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''5–6'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Current squad==<br /> {{updated|For the 2023-24 season [[TFF Third League]] Group 2|&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageID=535&amp;kulupID=3598 | title=KARŞIYAKA - Club Details TFF }}&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> {{fs start}}<br /> {{fs player|no=1|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=[[Haydar Yılmaz]]}}{{Football squad player|nat=TUR|pos=DF|name=Ferdi Burgaz|no=3}}<br /> {{fs player|no=4|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Erdi̇nç Çepoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=5|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Alpay Koldaş}}<br /> {{fs player|no=6|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Emre Keleşoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=8|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Efe Tatli|other={{small|on loan from [[Fatih Karagümrük S.K.]]}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=9|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Fatih Taşdelen}}<br /> {{fs player|no=10|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Emre Gemici}}<br /> {{fs player|no=11|pos=MF|nat=GER|name=Yasi̇n Ozan}}<br /> {{fs player|no=15|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=Hasan Sürmeli̇}}<br /> {{fs player|no=17|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Enes Nalbantoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=18|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=Enes Kalyoncu}}<br /> {{fs mid}}<br /> {{fs player|no=20|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Hakan Erçeli̇k}}<br /> {{fs player|no=21|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Mustafa Durgun}}<br /> {{fs player|no=22|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Bi̇lal Ceylan|other={{small|on loan from [[Beşiktaş J.K.]]}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=24|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Sefa Küpeli̇}}<br /> {{fs player|no=25|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Ömer Alper Tatlisu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=33|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Emre Can Heptazeler}}<br /> {{fs player|no=41|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Mertcan Koç}}<br /> {{fs player|no=77|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Fati̇h Çi̇plak}}<br /> {{fs player|no=80|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Adem Büyük|other=}}<br /> {{fs player|no=94|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Bariş Sağir}}<br /> {{fs player|no=99|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Cenk Ahmet Alkılıç}}<br /> {{fs end}}<br /> <br /> == League participations in football ==<br /> * [[Turkish Super League|Turkish Premier Division]]: 1958–64, 1966–67, 1970–72, 1987–91, 1992–94, 1995–96<br /> * [[TFF First League|Turkish First Division]]: 1964–66, 1967–70, 1972–73, 1980–87, 1991–92, 1994–95, 1996–01, 2003–2016<br /> * [[TFF Second League|Turkish Second Division]]: 1973–80, 2001–03, 2016–18<br /> * [[TFF Third League|Turkish Third Division]]: 2018–present<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> {{Commons category|Karşıyaka SK}}<br /> * [[Karşıyaka Basket|Pınar Karşıyaka]]<br /> * [[Karşıyaka Women's Volleyball Team]]<br /> * [[Göztepe-Karşıyaka rivalry]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *{{oweb|http://www.ksk.org.tr/}}<br /> *[http://www.tff.org.tr/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3598 Karşıyaka] on TFF.org<br /> <br /> {{Karşıyaka S.K.}}<br /> {{TFF Third League}}<br /> {{Football in Turkey}}<br /> <br /> {{Authority control}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=February 2021}}<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Karsiyaka S. K.}}<br /> [[Category:Karşıyaka S.K.| ]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1912]]<br /> [[Category:Multi-sport clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1912 establishments in the Ottoman Empire]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Turkey-footyclub-stub}}</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amed_S.F.K.&diff=1224916384 2024-05-21T07:51:18Z

<p>Delbatros: </p> <hr /> <div>{{Short description|Turkish sports club}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=March 2023}}<br /> {{for|the women's football team|Amed S.K. (women)}}{{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Amed S.F.K.<br /> | image = <br /> | caption = <br /> | fullname = Amed Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü<br /> | nickname = Amedspor<br /> | founded = 1972; 51 years ago{{efn|It got its current name in 1990}}<br /> | dissolved = <br /> | ground = [[Diyarbakır Stadium]], [[Diyarbakır]]&lt;ref name=TFF&gt;[https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupId=3678 Club details] tff.org. Retrieved 16 April 2024.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> | capacity = 33,000&lt;ref name=TFF/&gt;<br /> | coordinates = <br /> | owntitle = <br /> | owner = <br /> | chrtitle = <br /> | chairman = Aziz Elaldı&lt;ref name=TFF/&gt;<br /> | mgrtitle = <br /> | manager = [[Mesut Bakkal]]<br /> | league = {{Turkish football updater|Amed SK}}<br /> | season = {{Turkish football updater|Amed SK2}}<br /> | position = {{Turkish football updater|Amed SK3}}<br /> | website = http://www.amedspor.com.tr/<br /> | pattern_la1 = _greenborder<br /> | pattern_b1 = _greenstripes<br /> | pattern_ra1 = _greenborder<br /> | pattern_sh1 = _nikewhite<br /> | pattern_so1 = _nikewhite<br /> | leftarm1 = FF0000<br /> | body1 = FF0000<br /> | rightarm1 = FF0000<br /> | shorts1 = 008000<br /> | socks1 = 008000<br /> | pattern_la2 = _greenborder<br /> | pattern_b2 = _redgreenvertical<br /> | pattern_ra2 = _redborder<br /> | pattern_sh2 = _nikered<br /> | pattern_so2 = _nikered<br /> | leftarm2 = ffffff<br /> | body2 = ffffff<br /> | rightarm2 = ffffff<br /> | shorts2 = ffffff<br /> | socks2 = ffffff<br /> | pattern_la3 = _greenborder<br /> | pattern_b3 = _nike_white<br /> | pattern_ra3 = _greenborder<br /> | pattern_sh3 = _greenbottom<br /> | pattern_so3 = _nikewhite<br /> | leftarm3 = FF0000<br /> | body3 = FF0000<br /> | rightarm3 = FF0000<br /> | shorts3 = FF0000<br /> | socks3 = FF0000<br /> | current = TFF Second League#League history<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Amed S.F.K.''',&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=http://amkspor.sozcu.com.tr/2015/08/14/diyarbakir-buyuksehir-bldnin-adi-degisti-435214/|title=Diyarbakır Büyükşehir BLD'nin adı değişti}}&lt;/ref&gt; ('''Amed Sports Activities Club''') formerly '''Diyarbakır Büyükşehir Belediyespor''', is a [[sports club]] based in [[Diyarbakır]], [[Turkey]]. The [[Association football|football]] club plays in the [[TFF Second League]] since the 2013–14 season.<br /> <br /> == History ==<br /> The club was established in 1972 and competed in the amateur leagues for many years as ''Melikahmet Turanspor'', because of a sponsorship with Turan Gazozlar. The club colours were red and white. In 1985 the club name changed into ''Melikahmetspor'' after the [[naming rights]]/sponsorship had ended.&lt;ref&gt;[https://www.amedspor.com.tr/kulup/tarihce/ History] ''amedspor.com.tr'' {{in lang|tr}}, accessed 6 February 2022.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> The Diyarbakır [[municipality]] bought the club in 1990 and changed its name to ''Diyarbakır Belediyespor''. In 1993 the club changed its name into ''Diyarbakır Büyükşehir Belediyespor'', after becoming a [[metropolitan municipality]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/main.aspx?home=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/21693.pdf&amp;main=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/21693.pdf| title=Karar Sayısı: KHK/504 |access-date=16 April 2024|language=tr}}&lt;/ref&gt; [[Democratic People's Party (Turkey)|DEHAP]] mayor [[Feridun Çelik]] changed the club name in 1999 to ''Diyarbakır Büyükşehir Belediyesi DİSKİspor'' in order to generate income from Diyarbakır Büyükşehir Belediyesi Su ve Kanalizasyon İdaresi ([[Water board|DİSKİ]]). At the beginning of the 2010–11 season the [[general assembly]] decided to alter the name once again into ''Diyarbakır Büyükşehir Belediyespor''.<br /> <br /> In October 2014, they changed their name to ''Amedspor'' without official approval, and therefore had been fined by the [[Turkish Football Federation]] (TFF).&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-football-federation-fines-diyarbakir-club-for-giving-itself-citys-kurdish-name-77026|title=Turkish Football Federation fines Diyarbakır club for giving itself city's Kurdish name|website=Hürriyet Daily News}}&lt;/ref&gt; The objection of the TFF was because of the existence of the original ''Amedspor'', which later on changed its name into ''Amidaspor''.&lt;ref&gt;[https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageID=535&amp;kulupID=6831 Amidaspor] ''tff.org'', accessed 6 February 2022&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[https://www.yenisafak.com/spor/amedspora-tffden-kotu-haber-2167103 Amedspor'a TFF'den kötü haber] ''Yenisafak.com'' {{in lang|tr}}, accessed 6 February 2022.&lt;/ref&gt; However, when the team changed its name to ''Amed Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü'', TFF announced that it accepted this new name.<br /> <br /> == Crest and colours ==<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> !Season<br /> !Manufacture<br /> !Kit Colours<br /> |-<br /> | –2013<br /> |Umbro<br /> |Red-Green<br /> |-<br /> |2013–2016<br /> |Lotto<br /> |Red-Green, White, Black<br /> |-<br /> |2016–2017<br /> |Nike&lt;ref&gt;{{Cite web|url=https://amedstore.com.tr/|title=Amed Store - Amed Spor Resmi Forma ve Aksesuar Satış Sitesi|website=amedstore.com.tr|language=en-US|access-date=8 October 2019}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |White, Red, Black<br /> |-<br /> |2018–2019<br /> |Nike<br /> |Red-Green, White, Green, Red<br /> |-<br /> |2021–2022<br /> |Nike<br /> |Red-Green, White, Black<br /> |-<br /> |2022–2023<br /> |Nike<br /> |Red, Black-Gold, White-Red<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Support and rivalries==<br /> In early 2016, Amedspor pulled off an upset win over [[Bursaspor]] to make it into quarterfinals of the [[Turkish Cup]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.todayszaman.com/sports_amedspor-fener-set-for-tense-turkish-cup-clash_411786.html |title=Amedspor, Fener set for tense Turkish Cup clash |access-date=9 February 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160208175540/http://www.todayszaman.com/sports_amedspor-fener-set-for-tense-turkish-cup-clash_411786.html |archive-date=8 February 2016 }}&lt;/ref&gt; After this victory their fans were banned from the following match against [[Fenerbahçe S.K. (football)|Fenerbahçe S.K.]] by the TFF. The TFF also suspended their midfielder [[Deniz Naki]] 12 games for supporting the peace in the Kurdish-Turkish conflict in a tweet&lt;ref&gt;{{Cite web |date=5 February 2016 |title=Zum Frieden aufgerufen: Ex-Hamburger Naki für zwölf Spiele gesperrt |url=https://www.focus.de/sport/fussball/int_ligen/international-zum-frieden-aufgerufen-ex-hamburger-naki-fuer-zwoelf-spiele-gesperrt_id_5264806.html |website=Focus}}&lt;/ref&gt; and fined him with 19.500 [[Turkish lira|TL]] (~6500$).&lt;ref&gt;[https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=200&amp;ftxtId=24525 Tahkim Kurulu Kararları - 08.02.2016] ''tff.org'' {{in lang|tr}}, accessed 6 February 2022.&lt;/ref&gt; Also the police raided the club's offices taking their computers on suspicion that a politically controversial Tweet might possibly have originated from there.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.middleeasteye.net/Turkey%20football%20politics%20Amedspor Kurdish club becomes political football as it chases Turkish cup dream] [[Middle East Eye]]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> According to an interview which the German newspaper ''[[Die Zeit]]'' held with their representatives, the club experienced difficulties as the club was seen as a symbol of [[Kurdish nationalism|Kurdish nationalist]] identity by the TFF and Turkish authorities. The [[flag of Kurdistan]] is banned from the stadiums and since December 2015 the fans of Amedspor were banned from watching the away games in the regular season. After the ban about 500 fans went to watch their team without showing the colors of their team, but as they showed their emotions for their team when it scored a goal, they had trouble with the fans from the opposite team and the police and they had to leave before the end of the match.&lt;ref name=&quot;:0&quot; /&gt; From January 2016 to February 2019 the fans were banned to watch away games from the male football team for 64 games. Fans of the [[Amed S.K. (women)|Amed S.K. women's]] team were not allowed to watch away games from 2018 to February 2019.&lt;ref&gt;{{Cite web|url=https://anfdeutsch.com/kultur/amedspor-spielt-wieder-mit-fans-9728|title=Amedspor spielt wieder mit Fans|website=ANF News|language=de|access-date=9 March 2019}}&lt;/ref&gt; Also merchandise articles of the fans are also often seized by the police.&lt;ref name=&quot;:0&quot;&gt;{{Cite news|url=https://www.zeit.de/sport/2019-02/fussball-kurden-tuerkei-amedspor-interview|title=Fußball in der Türkei: &quot;Unsere Spieler werden sogar von Balljungen bepöbelt&quot;|last=Lopez|first=Edgar|date=5 February 2019|work=Die Zeit|access-date=9 February 2019|language=de-DE|issn=0044-2070}}&lt;/ref&gt; Amedspor also has a women's volleyball Team.&lt;ref&gt;{{Cite web|url=https://www.amedspor.com.tr/sportif-branslarimiz/kadin-voleybol/|title=Kadın Voleybol – Amed SFK|language=tr|access-date=9 February 2019|archive-date=2 November 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191102161413/https://www.amedspor.com.tr/sportif-branslarimiz/kadin-voleybol/|url-status=dead}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> In October 2022, [[Diyarbakır Bar Association|Diyarbakir Bar Association]] has filed a criminal complaint against a military officer who is the commander of the gendarmerie force in the central province of Afyon, told the players of [[Afjet Afyonspor]] that he hoped, especially after a PKK terror attack in [[Mersin]], that they would crush the opponent.&lt;ref&gt;{{Cite web |title=Turkish military officer targets Kurd's popular football team, sparks reactions |url=https://www.gerceknews.com/turkey/turkish-military-officer-targets-kurds-popular-football-team-sparks-reactions-217056h |access-date=5 March 2023 |website=Gercek News |language=en}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Before the Bursaspor match played on 5 March 2023, Amedspor players were attacked and some Bursaspor fans unfurled banners of [[Mahmut Yıldırım]], codenamed as Yeşil ([[Turkish language|Turkish]] for &quot;Green&quot;), a Turkish rogue [[Espionage#Agents in espionage|agent]] who is responsible for unresolved murders and photos of &quot;Renault Toros&quot; automobile, symbolizing [[Forced disappearance|forced disappearances]] and [[Political murder|political murders]] in Turkey in 1990s. HDP said: “We condemn the racist attacks against Amedspor in Bursa. The atmosphere in which the spirits of the murderers of the 1990s and the residues of [[JİTEM]] roam will neither prevent Amedspor nor end the hope for peace. Those responsible must be held accountable before the law. We are the millions who will not kneel against fascism.”&lt;ref&gt;{{Cite news |date=5 March 2023 |title=HDP: 90’ların katilleri Amedspor’u engelleyemeyecek |work=SoL |url=https://haber.sol.org.tr/haber/hdp-90larin-katilleri-amedsporu-engelleyemeyecek-367794 |access-date=5 March 2023}}&lt;/ref&gt; [[Diyarbakır Bar Association]], in its criminal complaint regarding the events in the match, stated that crimes of inciting or humiliating the public to hatred and hostility, intentionally endangering general security, insulting and abuse of office were committed.&lt;ref&gt;{{Cite news |date=5 March 2023 |title=Diyarbakır Barosu'ndan Amedsporlu futbolculara saldırıya suç duyurusu |work=SoL |url=https://haber.sol.org.tr/haber/diyarbakir-barosundan-amedsporlu-futbolculara-saldiriya-suc-duyurusu-367793 |access-date=5 March 2023}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==League participations==<br /> * [[TFF First League]]: 2024–<br /> * [[TFF Second League]]: 2007–2010, 2013–2024<br /> * [[TFF Third League]]: 1994–2007, 2010–2013<br /> * [[Super Amateur Leagues|Amateur League]]: 1972–1994<br /> == Honours == <br /> * '''[[TFF Second League]]'''<br /> : '''Winners (1):''' 2023–24 (Red Group)<br /> * '''[[TFF Third League]]'''<br /> : '''Winners (2):''' 2006–07 (Group 1), 2012–13 (Group 1)<br /> ==Current squad==<br /> {{updated|12 January 2023}}<br /> {{Fs start|nonumber=|bg=FF0000|color=008000|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 1|nat=TUR|pos=GK|name=Veysel Sapan}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 3|nat=TUR|pos=MF|name=[[Taşkın Çalış]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 5|nat=TUR|pos=MF|name=Serkan Odabaşoğlu}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 7|nat=TUR|pos=FW|name=Taner Gümüş}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 8|nat=TUR|pos=MF|name=Yusuf Tursun}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=10|nat=TUR|pos=MF|name=[[Çekdar Orhan]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=12|nat=TUR|pos=MF|name=Arda Ertekin}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=13|nat=TUR|pos=FW|name=Yılmaz Ceylan}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=14|nat=TUR|pos=FW|name=[[Berk İsmail Ünsal]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=17|nat=TUR|pos=FW|name=[[Muhammed Enes Durmuş]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=18|nat=TUR|pos=GK|name=[[Aykut Özer]]}}<br /> {{Fs mid|nonumber=|bg=FF0000|color=008000|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=21|nat=TUR|pos=MF|name=Abdullah Dijlan Aydın}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=22|nat=TUR|pos=MF|name=Eyüp Oskan}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=24|nat=TUR|pos=DF|name=Batuhan Tur}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=30|nat=TUR|pos=MF|name=Yunus Tarhan}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=35|nat=TUR|pos=DF|name=Veli Çetin}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=65|nat=TUR|pos=MF|name=Oktay Aydın}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=67|nat=TUR|pos=FW|name=[[Onur Karakabak]]}} {{Captain}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=74|nat=TUR|pos=MF|name=Mert Çapar}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=77|nat=TUR|pos=DF|name=Erkan Sasa}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=83|nat=TUR|pos=GK|name=Oğul Kaan Doğan}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=99|nat=TUR|pos=FW|name=Yakal Taylan}}<br /> {{Fs end}}<br /> <br /> ===Out on loan===<br /> {{Fs start|nonumber=|bg=FF0000|color=008000|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|nat=AZE|pos=DF|name=Metin Güler|other={{small|at [[Pazarspor]] until 30 June 2023}}}}<br /> {{Fs end}}<br /> <br /> == Notes ==<br /> {{notelist|30em}}<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> {{Reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3678 Amed SK on TFF.org]<br /> <br /> {{Diyarbakır}}<br /> {{TFF Second League}}<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Diyarbakir Buyuksehir Belediyespor}}<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1990]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1990 establishments in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:Sport in Diyarbakır|Amed S.K.]]</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adana_Demirspor&diff=1220517438 2024-04-24T07:50:20Z

<p>Delbatros: New president</p> <hr /> <div>{{Short description|Multi-sports club in Turkey}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=August 2022}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Adana Demirspor<br /> | image = Adana Demirspor logo.png<br /> | upright = 1.1<br /> | fullname = Adana Demirspor Kulübü [[S.A. (corporation)|A.Ş.]]<br /> | nickname = ''Mavi Şimşekler'' &lt;br&gt;(Blue Lightnings)<br /> | short name = ADS<br /> | founded = {{start date and age|1940|12|28|df=y}}&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.adanademirspor.org.tr/kulubumuz/tarihce/|title=Tarihçe|website=Adana Demirspor Kulübü|access-date=8 June 2021|language=tr|archive-date=29 September 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220929124944/https://www.adanademirspor.org.tr/kulubumuz/tarihce/|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> | formernames = <br /> | dissolved = <br /> | ground = [[New Adana Stadium]]<br /> | capacity = 33,543<br /> | owntitle = Member-owned<br /> | owner = <br /> | chrtitle = President<br /> | chairman = Metin Korkmaz<br /> | director = <br /> | manager = [[Hikmet Karaman]]<br /> | mgrtitle = Coach<br /> | league = {{Turkish football updater|Adana Demirspor}}<br /> | season = {{Turkish football updater|Adana Demirspor2}}<br /> | position = {{Turkish football updater|Adana Demirspor3}}<br /> | current = 2023–24 Adana Demirspor season<br /> | website = http://www.adanademirspor.org.tr/<br /> | pattern_la1 = _adanademir2324h<br /> | pattern_b1 = _adanademir2324h<br /> | pattern_ra1 = _adanademir2324h<br /> | shorts1 = 0e0f3d<br /> | socks1 = 0e0f3d<br /> | pattern_la2 = _adanademir2324a<br /> | pattern_b2 = _adanademir2324a<br /> | pattern_ra2 = _adanademir2324a<br /> | shorts2 = FFFFFF<br /> | socks2 = FFFFFF<br /> | pattern_la3 = _adanademir2324t<br /> | pattern_b3 = _adanademir2324t<br /> | pattern_ra3 = _adanademir2324t<br /> | shorts3 = 030512<br /> | socks3 = 030512<br /> }}<br /> '''Adana Demirspor Kulübü''' is a [[multi-sports club]] based in [[Adana]], [[Turkey]]. The football department is the most popular department which secured 4th place at the [[2022–23 Süper Lig]] and qualified for [[2023–24 UEFA Europa Conference League|European competitions]] for the first time in their history. The club also competes in [[Rowing (sport)|rowing]], [[table tennis]], [[taekwondo]] and [[volleyball]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/sporarena/avrupa-kupalarina-gidecek-takimlar-belli-oldu-fenerbahce-kazandi-adana-demirspor-42282373|title=Avrupa kupalarına gidecek takımlar belli oldu! Fenerbahçe kazandı, Adana Demirspor|website=Hürriyet|access-date=12 June 2023|language=tr|archive-date=11 June 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230611214318/http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/sporarena/avrupa-kupalarina-gidecek-takimlar-belli-oldu-fenerbahce-kazandi-adana-demirspor-42282373|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> Founded by railway workers of [[Turkish State Railways]] (TCDD) in 1940, The football team's success at the [[Çukurova Football League|Adana League]] and the [[water polo]] team's unbeaten [[Türkiye Sutopu 1. Ligi|National League]] titles in the club's first three decades built a large worker fan base in the city. Some supporters who are unhappy with the management of the club, founded [[Adanaspor]] in 1954 and competition among the two clubs for the citywide support and domination since then, created one of the fiercest rivalries of [[Football in Turkey|Turkish football]] which continues to this day as the [[Adana football derby|Adana derby]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.altinsehiradana.com/Makale/adana-derbisinin-tarihi-2/965/|title=Adana Derbisin Tarihi|date=30 April 2016|website=Altınşehir Adana|access-date=23 January 2020|language=tr|archive-date=17 May 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230517063455/https://www.altinsehiradana.com/Makale/adana-derbisinin-tarihi-2/965/|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt; From the 1970s to the late 2010s, the club had less success than their archrival, did not win a major title and had not participated in any European competitions, though it continued to gain wider support than Adanaspor{{citation needed|date=October 2023}} and became one of the most supported clubs in Turkey. The club's recent success at the Super Lig and qualification for the [[UEFA Europa Conference League|UEFA Conference League]] and Adanaspor's decline is widening the gap between two clubs further in terms of fan support and club value.<br /> <br /> Adana Demirspor was the first club based outside of [[Istanbul]], [[Ankara]], or [[İzmir]] to join the [[1960–61 Turkish National League|National Football League]] in the 1960–61 season, before this the league games were only hosted in the three cities.&lt;ref name=kupatarihce&gt;{{cite web|last=Sivritepe|first=Erdinç|url=http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/artk.html|title=Türkiye Kupasi&amp;nbsp;– Turkish Cup|website=Turkishsoccer|access-date=4 June 2010|language=en|archive-date=11 November 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121111114748/http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/artk.html|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref name=1lig8182&gt;{{cite web|last=Sivritepe|first=Erdinç|url=http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/artl8182.html|title=1981–1982 1.Lig|website=Turkishsoccer|access-date=4 June 2010|language=en|archive-date=19 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151119084024/http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/artl8182.html|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt; The water polo team was the first champions of the [[Türkiye Sutopu 1. Ligi|Turkish Water Polo League]] and had dominated the first three decades of the league, winning 21 league titles in 25 years, from the early 1940s to mid 1960s.<br /> <br /> Adana Demirspor are by far the most successful of the 38 [[Demirspor]] clubs that are founded by the employees of the Turkish State Railways (TCDD).&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.tribundergi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=55060&amp;f=9|title=İçinden Demiryolu geçen kulüpler: Demirsporlar|website=Tribun Dergi|access-date=22 May 2016|archive-date=17 May 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210517010016/https://www.tribundergi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=55060&amp;f=9|url-status=unfit|language=tr}}&lt;/ref&gt; Most ''Demirspor'' clubs have jersey colours identical to Adana Demirspor, and bear the TCDD symbol on their logo. [[Ankara Demirspor]] are the only other ''Demirspor'' club that compete in the Turkish professional football league system, and the only ones still affiliated with the TCDD.<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> [[File:Adana Demirspor eski logoları.png|thumb|right|125px|Former club logos]]<br /> [[File:Adana Demirspor Wagon.jpg|thumb|Players arriving home with the wagon designated for the club]]<br /> Turkish State Railways (TCDD) had begun sports activities in 1930 with the foundation of [[Eskişehir Demirspor]]. [[İzmir Demirspor]], [[Ankara Demirspor]], Kayseri Demirspor and Istanbul (Haydarpaşa) Demirspor were founded in following years.&lt;ref name=Eskisehir&gt;{{cite web|last=Melikşah|first=Cengiz|url=https://misakizafer.com/2019/08/18/tarihin-ilk-demirsporu-eskisehir-demirspor/|title=Tarihim İmk Demİrspor'u: Eskişehir Demİrspor|date=19 August 2019|website=Misak-ı Zafer|access-date=19 August 2023|language=tr|archive-date=19 August 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230819221204/https://misakizafer.com/2019/08/18/tarihin-ilk-demirsporu-eskisehir-demirspor/|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> [[File:Adana Demirspor Museum.JPG|thumb|175px|left|First club office at the [[Adana railway station|Railway Station]] (now Football Academy)]]<br /> Turkish law of ''National Defence Obligation'' came into effect with the upcoming [[World War II|Second World War]] to prepare civil youth for the possible entry of Turkey to war. The law required the institutions, that have over 500 employees to found sports clubs. This law accelerated the sports activities of TCDD and 33 more Demirspor clubs were founded in almost every major station. The foundation of Adana Demirspor was laid down in 1938 by [[Turkish State Railways|TCDD]] Adana Headquarters (6th Region). First Club General Meeting was held at the Station building on 12 January 1940. After 2 years' preparation, Region Chief Eşref Demirağ, Vasfı Ramzan, Hasan Silah, Hikmet Tezel, Feridun Kuzeybay, Seha Keyder, Emin Ersan, Esat Gürkan, Kenan Gülgün and 500 TCDD employees founded the club on 28 December 1940. Eşref Demirağ was elected the first President and held this position until 1946. TCDD 6th Region Chiefs held the president seat until 1969 and Board of Directors were formed from the directors, supervisors and other employees of the 6th Region.<br /> <br /> Football, Athletics, Cycling, Wrestling, Swimming and Waterpolo departments were opened with the foundation. A building at the [[Adana Railway Station]] was converted into Club House and a training ground was built next to it. A TCDD wagon was designated for Adana Demirspor which was connected to trains that take club teams to away games.&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=https://adanademirspor.org.tr/kulubumuz|title=Kulübümüz|website=Adana Demirspor Kulubu|access-date=14 August 2023|language=tr|archive-date=15 August 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230815170443/https://adanademirspor.org.tr/kulubumuz|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> === 1941 to 1960: Waterpolo Unbeatables &amp; Adana Football Masters ===<br /> [[File:Adana Demirspor Waterpolo team in 1940s.jpg|thumb|175px|left|Waterpolo team in 1940s. Muharrem Gülergin, standing first left]]<br /> Adana Demirspor waterpolo team joined the Turkish Waterpolo League in 1942 at the same year, Turkey's newest Swimming Complex had opened in Adana. From 1942 to 1965, Adana Demirspor had won the Waterpolo League title for 21 times, without losing a game at 17 of the 21 seasons. Under the leadership of club legend Muharrem Gülergin, 40 players, who earlier developed their swimming skills at water canals of Adana and then joined the club at the swimming complex, became known as the ''Unbeatables'' nationwide. Other than waterpolo, these players also broke national and international records in swimming.<br /> [[File:Adana Demirspor football team in 1940s.jpg|thumb|Football team in early 1940s was formed from railway workers]]<br /> Adana Demirspor joined the [[Çukurova Football League|Adana Football League]] in 1941. The league, which also known as Çukurova League, was founded as a first-tier semi-professional league in 1924 consisting clubs from [[Adana Province|Adana]], [[Mersin Province|Mersin]] and later [[Hatay Province|Hatay]], [[Kahramanmaraş Province|Maraş]] and [[Malatya Province|Malatya]] Provinces. Adana Demirspor won the league title for the first time at 1942–43 season. ADS won the league title a record of 15 times in 17 seasons from 1942 to 1959.&lt;ref name=amator&gt;{{cite web|last=Sivritepe|first=Erdinç|url=http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/5758/artlADA.html|title=Prior to Turkish League:Adana|publisher=Turkishsoccer|access-date=15 October 2010|language=en|archive-date=18 February 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100218143514/http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/5758/artlADA.html|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[File:Adana Demirspor team at the Locomotive.jpg|thumb|175px|left|Team having the classic locomotive pose]]<br /> Adana Demirspor was qualified for the [[Turkish Amateur Football Championship|Turkish Amateur Championship]] for the first time in 1943 and joined every year that they won the Adana title. The club secured the National Third Spot in 1947 at the finals in Ankara, behind Ankara Demirspor and [[Fenerbahçe S.K. (football)|Fenerbahçe]]. ADS were the National Third again in 1951 at the finals in [[Balıkesir]], behind [[Beşiktaş J.K.|Beşiktaş]] and [[Altay S.K.|Altay]]. ADS won the Turkish Amateur Championship in 1954 after defeating [[Keçiörengücü|Hacettepe]] 1–0, with Selami Tekkazancı (Füze Selami) scoring the only goal. Adana League was upgraded to fully professional league in 1955, thus Adana Demirspor football team upgraded to a pro-team. As [[1959 Turkish National League|Turkish National League]] was founded in 1959, Adana League was downgraded to a Second Tier League.<br /> &lt;ref name=tarihce&gt;[http://www.adanademirspor.org.tr/tarihcemiz TARİHÇE] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100312092322/http://www.adanademirspor.org.tr/tarihcemiz |date=12 March 2010 }} Adana Demirspor {{in lang|tr}}, accessed 4 June 2010&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> === 1961 to 1984: Multi-sports success===<br /> [[File:Adana-Demirspor-1966-67.jpg|thumb|right|Adana Demirspor in 1966-67]]<br /> Turkey did not have a nationwide professional league until 1959, instead, teams competed in regional leagues like [[Adana]], [[Ankara]], [[Eskişehir]], [[İzmir]], [[Kayseri]], and [[Trabzon]].&lt;ref name=beforethelig&gt;{{cite web|last=Sivritepe|first=Erdinç|url=http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/5758/tl.html|title=Before the Turkish Leagues|website=Turkishsoccer|access-date=4 June 2010|language=en|archive-date=31 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180531114942/http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/5758/tl.html|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt; The Milli Lig, known today as the [[Süper Lig]], was founded in 1959. The league consisted of eight clubs from Istanbul, and four clubs each from Ankara and İzmir.&lt;ref name=ilkmilli&gt;{{cite web|last=Sivritepe|first=Erdinç|url=http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/5859/tl.html|title=1959 Milli Lig|website=Turkishsoccer|access-date=4 June 2010|language=en|archive-date=21 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190421200212/http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/5859/tl.html|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt; Adana Demirspor had promoted to the Milli Lig at the third season (1960–61), becoming the first club outside the three largest cities. The rules at that time, did not allow games to be played outside of Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, thus Adana Demirspor had to play their home games in Ankara, turning every game into an away game. Without fan support and with difficulties of long trips, ADS could not stay long at the National League, as they relegated back to Adana League, after finishing last place with 18 points in the first season.&lt;ref name=196061milli&gt;{{cite web|last=Sivritepe|first=Erdinç|url=http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/6061/tl.html|title=1960–61 Milli Lig|website=Turkishsoccer|access-date=4 June 2010|language=en|archive-date=8 August 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190808035247/http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/6061/tl.html|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt; The club returned to Adana League at 1961–62 season, where they competed for another two years.<br /> <br /> [[File:Adana Demirspor 1973 74-1.jpg|thumb|left|Adana Demirspor in 1973. [[Fatih Terim]] standing third, club loyal Rasin Gürcan sitting second, both from left.]]<br /> [[File:Erdal Acet.jpg|thumb|left|220px|Erdal Acet broke the record of swimming [[English Channel|La Manche]]]]<br /> The second tier ([[TFF First League|2.Lig]]) of the Milli Lig &lt;ref&gt;During this season, the Milli Lig became the 1.Lig, and the newly created Second Division was titled the 2. Lig. However, the second level league is now known as the 1. Lig (First League), and the top-level league is now the [[Süper Lig]].&lt;/ref&gt; was founded in 1963, and Adana Demirspor were one of the founder clubs of the league. ADS were the Runner-up of the [[1963–64 in Turkish football|first season (1963-64)]] of the 2.Lig, though could not promote to top tier.&lt;ref name=ilk2lig&gt;{{cite web|last=Sivritepe|first=Erdinç|url=http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/6364/tl.html|title=1963–1964 2.Lig|website=Turkishsoccer|access-date=4 June 2010|language=en|archive-date=11 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190411110308/http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/6364/tl.html|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt; TCDD put an end to governing ADS, and in 1969, businessmen Mahmut Karabucak was elected the first president outside of TCDD. Adana Demirspor had competed in the 2. Lig for nine years and had promoted to 1. Lig for the second time at the 1972–73 season. They secured promotion after defeating [[Uşakspor]] 2–0, with goals from [[Fatih Terim]] and Bektaş Yurttasın.&lt;ref name=tarihce /&gt;&lt;ref name=1973promo&gt;{{cite web|last=Sivritepe|first=Erdinç|url=http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/7273/tl.html|title=1972–1973 1.Lig|website=Turkishsoccer|access-date=4 June 2010|language=en|archive-date=22 April 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090422024006/http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/7273/tl.html|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> [[File:Coşkun Özarı Coach.jpg|thumb|right|150px|[[Coşkun Özarı]] carried ADS to 6th in football]]<br /> [[File:Demiray Sayılır.jpg|thumb|right|135px|Demiray Sayılır led ADS basketball to First Tier]]<br /> Adana Demirspor secured the 10th position at the Turkish Top Tier [[1973–74 1.Lig|1973-1974 season]] and with Adanaspor already at the Top Tier, Adana was the first city, outside the three league founder cities, to hold two clubs and to host derby games at the top tier. ADS secured mid-positions at the top tier until 1981 and reached the finals of the [[1977–78 in Turkish football|1977–78]] [[Turkish Cup]]. Demirspor lost the first leg of the final with a 3–0 score, and failed to comeback in the second leg, drawing 0–0 with [[Trabzonspor]]. They met Trabzonspor in a cup final once more that year, this time in the [[Prime Minister's Cup]], but would go on to lose 2–1.&lt;ref name=kupatarihce /&gt;&lt;ref name=baskankupa&gt;{{cite web|last=Pekin|first=Cem|url=http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/CP/BB.html|title=Year 18&amp;nbsp;– 1978&amp;nbsp;– Trabzonspor|website=Turkishsoccer|access-date=4 June 2010|language=en|archive-date=31 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140831013001/http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/CP/BB.html|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt; Hacı Döner was elected the President in 1979 and soon after [[Coşkun Özarı]] was hired as the Head Coach. ADS reached its apex when the club finished sixth in the [[1981–82 1.Lig|1981–82 season]] with Coşkun Özarı.&lt;ref name=1lig8182 /&gt; This season was Adana Demirspor's the best result till finishing fourth in the 2022–23 season. ADS had also performed well at the [[1981–82 1.Lig|following season]] securing the 7th position. Adana Demirspor were at the Top Tier straight for 11 years, after relegating to Second Tier at [[1983–84 1.Lig|1983–84 season]] with a goal difference.<br /> <br /> Adana Demirspor water polo team won the 21st title of Turkish Water polo First Tier in 1965. This was the last title and ADS continued competing at water polo throughout 1970s. ADS swimmer Erdal Acet broke the record of swimming [[English Channel|La Manche]] in 9 hours 12 minutes on 1 September 1976. He improved the record by 8 minutes a year later. ADS basketball promoted to the [[Basketbol Süper Ligi|Turkish Basketball First Tier]] in 1973. After playing one season, basketball team relegated to Second Tier. ADS promoted to First Tier again in 1976.&lt;ref name=sozcu&gt;{{cite web|last=Serbes|first=Mehmet|url=https://www.sozcu.com.tr/hayatim/yasam-haberleri/bir-zamanlar-havuzlara-sigmiyorlardi/|title=Bir zamanlar havuzlara sığmıyorlardı|website=www.sozcu.com.tr|access-date=8 November 2023|language=en|archive-date=8 November 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231108072737/https://www.sozcu.com.tr/hayatim/yasam-haberleri/bir-zamanlar-havuzlara-sigmiyorlardi/|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> === 1984 to 1995: First-Second Tier fluctuations===<br /> [[File:Metin Türel - genc.png|thumb|150px|right|[[Metin Türel]] coached football team at four spells.]]<br /> Adana Demirspor were grouped into 2.Lig Group A with other clubs east of Ankara at the 1984–85 season. ADS could not start the Second Tier journey well as they finished 9th that season. Next season, [[Metin Türel]] was hired as the coach and ADS had a head to head to run for promotion with [[Diyarbakırspor]]. On the 28th match week, 4 games to the end, ADS was the group leader, and had a game against Diyarbakırspor at a rough environment in Diyarbakır. ADS played with fear and were attacked on the field. Diyarbakırspor won the game with a 2–1 score, took the group leadership and promoted to top tier at the end of the season. ADS had an excellent performance at the following 1986–87 season, again at Group A, promoting to First Tier at the end of the season with 10 point lead. Ali Hoşfikirer coached the team at the second half-season.<br /> <br /> [[File:Adana-Demirspor-1987-88.jpg|thumb|left|Adana-Demirspor in 1988. [[Zijad Svrakic]] standing first, club product Tekin İncebaldır sitting third, both from right.]]<br /> Adana Demirspor hired [[Fuad Muzurovic]] as the new coach at the third First Tier spell. ADS had completed the [[1987–88 1.Lig|1987–88]] season at 10th position and [[Zijad Svrakic]] scored 22 goals. Scoring 16 more goals at the following season, Svrakic is the all-time First Tier goal scorer of ADS, in one season and in total. ADS barely saved from relegation at the following [[1988–89 1.Lig|1988–89]] season after defeating [[Karşıyaka S.K.|Karşıyaka]] 2–1 at the last game. ADS had a very low performance at the [[1989–90 1.Lig|1989–90]] season, getting locked at the relegation zone most of the time and relegating to Second Tier weeks before the season end.<br /> <br /> [[File:Muhammet Kaymak.jpg|thumb|125px|right|Former president Muhammet Kaymak]]<br /> Adana Demirspor was placed into Group C at the Second Tier 1990–91 season, with other clubs from Eastern Turkey. Under the leadership of coach Ali Hoşfikirer, ADS had a very successful season, winning all the home games except one and having several away wins. ADS led the group most of the season and won the League title with 8-points ahead of [[Malatyaspor]]. Adana Demirspor did not start their fourth spell of the First Tier well and performed poorly throughout the [[1991–92 1.Lig|1991-92 season]], winning only 5 times and relegating back to Second Tier with 8-points short to relegating zone.<br /> <br /> Second Tier 1992–93 season has gone through structural changes, where clubs were placed into 5 groups, first two of each group to be qualified to the Promotion Group. ADS was placed at Group 5 and finished the group third and could not qualify to Promotion Group with goal difference. At Second Tier's 1993–94 season, ADS was again at Group 5, this time qualifying to the Promotion Group. After securing the fifth position at the Promotion Group, ADS had promoted again to First Tier after defeating [[Çanakkale Dardanelspor]] at the play-off final. Adana Demirspor's fifth spell of Turkish First Tier at [[1994–95 1.Lig|1994–95]] season had started good. ADS found themselves at the 5th position at the 5th week, with 3 wins and [[Fernand Coulibaly]] starring with 4 goals, in 5 games. On 2 October 1994, at the 7th match week, ADS had a game against [[Ankaragücü]]. ADS played good at the first 60 minutes and lead the game with 2–1 score. The biased referee, Nedim Göklü, sent off 2 ADS players at 42nd and 52nd minutes which lead to ADS to concede 2 goals in the last 30 minutes and losing the game with 2–3 score. ADS fans rioted after the game which caused ADS to have 2 home games ban. ADS could not relieve from the effects of the Ankaragücü game rest of the league, and could only get 6 points in 27 games and relegated to Second Tier weeks before the league end. 15 points that ADS received at the 1994–95 season was the lowest season points ever at the First Tier.&lt;ref name=tarihce /&gt;&lt;ref name=1lig9495&gt;{{cite web|last=Sivritepe|first=Erdinç|url=http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/artl9495.html|title=1994–1995 1.Lig|website=Turkishsoccer|access-date=4 June 2010|language=en|archive-date=17 October 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017184227/http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/artl9495.html|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===1995 to 2018: Second-Third Tier fluctuations===<br /> [[File:Aytac Durak.jpg|thumb|right|150px|[[Aytaç Durak]] is the longest serving President.]]<br /> Adana Demirspor's decline that started at the First Tier 1994–95 season, continued to the club's fifth spell of the Second Tier. At the 1995–96 season, ADS finished Group 3 closer to the relegation zone. The next season (1996-97 season) at the Second Tier, ADS was closer to relegation zone at the start, but improved at the second half-season and missed the play-off chance for promotion. 1997–98 season was another season that ADS could not qualify for the Promotion Group and did poorer at the second half-season and slightly relieved from relegation. At the next season (1998-99 season), ADS's decline continued, performed poorly towards the end of the season and relegated to Third Tier (then [[TFF Third League|3. Lig]]) for the first time in the history.<br /> <br /> [[File:Ercan Albay.jpg|thumb|left|175px|[[Ercan Albay]] is the longest serving football coach.]]<br /> Adana Demirspor could not recover much at the start of the first spell of the Third Tier (3.Lig) and finished the 1999–00 season at middle position. Aytaç Durak was elected the President at end of the season, and [[Ercan Albay]] was appointed as the coach soon after. With the new management, ADS could relieve from the decline and performed well throughout the 2000–01 season and qualified to the newly created 2.Lig Category B. At the 2001–02 season, 2.Lig Category B became the new Third Tier, and 3.Lig was downgraded to a Fourth Tier league. This was not a promotion for ADS as they were still at the Third Tier. With Ercan Albay's leadership, Adana Demirspor had a good start to the Group 3 of the new league's 2001–02 season and finished fourth at the first half-season. ADS finished the second half-season of Group 3 at the top, after a very close race with [[Sarıyer S.K.|Sarıyer]], and qualified to play-off stage. After defeating [[Şanlıurfaspor]] at the quarter-finals and [[Türk Telekom GSK|Türk Telekom]] at the semi-finals, ADS played the final game in Denizli against Karşıyaka. Adana Demirspor defeated Karşıyaka with a fine golden goal from [[Taner Demirbaş]] at the extra-time and returned to Second Tier (then 2.Lig Category A) after three years.<br /> <br /> Adana Demirspor secured a mid-position at the first season (2002-03 season) of the sixth spell of the Second Tier. At the 2003–04 season, Adana Demirspor did not perform well, sacked Ercan Albay after 4 years of service, though still faced relegation to Third Tier with 1 point short of [[Mersin İdman Yurdu]]. Taner Demirbaş was the top figure during these years, scoring 84 goals in 90 games for ADS from 2000 to 2003.<br /> <br /> Adana Demirspor's second spell of the Third Tier started with an average performance, finishing fifth at the 2004–05 season and fifth again at the 2005–06 season. At the 2006–07 season, ADS qualified to the Promotion Group after finishing Group 5 at the top. ADS qualified to the play-off stage after missing promotion with a goal difference. At the play-off stage, ADS reached the final, though lost 5–1 to [[Giresunspor]] at the final game. The 2007-08 was similar to the previous season for ADS who again qualified to the Promotion Group and finished the Promotion Group third. At the play-off stage, ADS reached the final again, this time losing 1–0 to [[İstanbul Güngörenspor|Güngören Belediyespor]] with a last minute goal. Mehmet Gökoğlu was elected the President and Metin Yıldız was hired as coach at the start of the 2008–09 season. The new board wanted to start from scratch, dismissing more than 25 players and forming a brand new team. ADS had an average performance at this season and finished at mid-position. At the start of the 2009–10 season, [[Bekir Çınar]] was the new president and Hüseyin Özcan was the new coach. ADS qualified to the Promotion Group after finishing the group stage at the top. ADS reached the play-off stage for the third time, though got knocked out after losing to [[TKİ Tavşanlı Linyitspor|Tavşanlı Linyitspor]] at the first round. At the 2010–11 season, Third Tier was reformed and the league was renamed as 2.Lig. Groups were reduced to two and Promotion Group was scrapped. ADS finished the Kırmızı Group fifth and qualified to the play-off stage for the fourth time. After defeating Yeni Malatyaspor at the first round, ADS lost to Bandırmaspor at the second round and knocked out of play-offs. Lig. At the 2011–12 season, ADS finished the Kırmızı Group third and qualified to the play-off stage for the fifth time at this Third Tier spell. After defeating [[Balıkesirspor]] and [[Mamak FK|Bugsaşspor]] at the play-off first and second rounds, ADS was at the final game again in [[Denizli]]. ADS defeated [[Fethiyespor]] 2–1 on 31 May 2012 and got promoted to the Second Tier after eight years.&lt;ref name=&quot;tarihce&quot; /&gt;&lt;ref name=&quot;1lig9495&quot; /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[File:Adana Derby 2012 fall.jpg|thumb|right|375px|'Adana supports Demirspor' discourse at the 2012 [[Adana football derby|Adana Derby]]]]<br /> [[File:Ilham_Aliyev_and_Jülide_Sarıeroğlu_(cropped).jpg|thumb|right|125px|[[Jülide Sarıeroğlu]] saved the club from bankruptcy.]]<br /> After poor results at the first five week of the [[2012–13 TFF First League|2012-13 season]], ADS' seventh spell of the Second Tier, Adana Demirspor hired [[Mustafa Uğur]] as the new coach. The following game was against Adanaspor, ADS won the derby 4–2, bringing the score to 4-0 just in 39 minutes. Good results continued after and ADS had gained qualification to the play-off round at the first season of this spell. ADS lost to [[Manisaspor]] at the semi-final and missed promotion. [[2013–14 TFF First League|2013-14 season]] of ADS did not go well, as the club changed three coaches and finished the season at 13th spot. At the end of the season, Selahattin Aydoğdu was elected the president and ADS formed a brand new team with many loaned young players. [[Ünal Karaman]] was hired as the new coach. ADS had a good [[2014–15 TFF First League|2014-15 season]] and competed for the two spots for direct promotion until the 29th week. Poor results afterwards, took ADS to the play-off rounds for promotion. ADS lost to [[Antalyaspor]] at the semi-finals. Adana Demirspor had a good start to the [[2015–16 TFF First League|2015-16 season]] with coach [[Osman Özköylü]]. ADS finished the season fourth with up and down performance and twice coach change. At the play-off round with coach [[Yılmaz Vural]], ADS knocked out [[Elazığspor]] at the semi-finals. At the final, ADS met [[Alanyaspor]] in [[Konya]] and missed promotion after penalty shoot-outs. ADS had a low performance at the following [[2016–17 TFF First League|2016-17 season]], could only go up the 9th spot throughout the season and barely relieved from relegation by finishing at 14th spot. During this season, the club was heavily in debt due to corruption, got a (-3) point fine and banned from transferring new players for the first time in the history.&lt;ref name=sikeci&gt;{{cite web|last=|first=|url=https://www.adanahaber.net/haber/sikeci-baskan-demirsporu-da-yakti-|title=Şikeci Başkan Demirspor'u da yaktı|website=www.adanahaber.net|access-date=3 November 2023|language=tr|archive-date=28 December 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231228110735/https://www.adanahaber.net/|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt; After two years' of Sedat Sözlü's presidency, Mehmet Gökoğlu was elected the president at the end of the season. ADS started the new [[2017–18 TFF First League|2017-18 season]] with an average performance, though found themselves at the relegation zone after the mid-season and gained momentum towards the end and finished the season at 13th spot. ADS faced eviction from the main training ground in Yüreğir as it was built on a state land. Then [[27th Parliament of Turkey|Adana MP]] [[Jülide Sarıeroğlu]] took responsibility with ongoing problems, solved the eviction issue as ADS signed a long-term lease agreement with Milli Emlak (National Property Foundation). She also convinced the business giant Murat Sancak to become the new president of the club for better management and to recover from bans, fines and liens.&lt;ref name=ADShikaye&gt;{{cite web|last=Karahan|first=Kaan|url=https://www.fanatik.com.tr/adana-demirspor/adana-demirsporun-hikayesi-karanliktan-aydinliga-hacizden-avrupaya-2514995|title=Adana Demirspor'un hikayesi: Karanlıktan aydınlığa, hacizden Avrupa'ya...|website=www.fanatik.com.tr|access-date=3 November 2023|language=tr|archive-date=3 November 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231103181958/https://www.fanatik.com.tr/adana-demirspor/adana-demirsporun-hikayesi-karanliktan-aydinliga-hacizden-avrupaya-2514995|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> === 2018 to date: Grade in Football ===<br /> [[File:Murat Sancak.jpg|thumb|left|160px|Murat Sancak revived the club]]<br /> Murat Sancak was elected the President on 4 July 2018. Adana Demirspor formed a brand new team within a short time by spending heavy, bringing world known players to Second Tier. At the [[2018–19 TFF First League|2018-19 season]], ADS worked with 3 coaches and could hardly qualify for the play-off round with coach [[Ümit Özat]]. ADS was knocked out by losing to [[Hatayspor]] at the semi-final with a last minute goal. Next season ([[2019–20 TFF First League|2019-20 season]]), ADS was better than the previous season, even had the chance to directly promote to First Tier, unluckily finished the season 3rd and qualified to the play-off rounds for the fifth time at this Second Tier spell and 11th time at this millennium. ADS knocked out [[Bursaspor]] at the semi-final and though missed promotion after losing to [[Fatih Karagümrük S.K.|Karagümrük]] after penalty shoot-outs. ADS targeted first two spots for direct promotion at the following [[2020–21 TFF First League|2020-21 season]]. After getting 10 points apart from the 2nd spot, [[Samet Aybaba]] was hired as the coach. ADS collected 31 points in 11 games, finished the season 1st and promoted to the First Tier (Super Lig) after 26 years of absence. <br /> [[File:Montella Vincenzo.jpg|thumb|150x150px|[[Vincenzo Montella]] led the grade in football]]<br /> The promotion was the sixth promotion of Adana Demirspor who joined [[Göztepe S.K.|Göztepe]] and Karşıyaka in holding the record number of promotion to the First Tier. This promotion was also the 16th league fluctuation since 1960, playing six times at First Tier, seven times at Second Tier, twice at Third Tier and once at Adana League. ADS started the [[2021–22 Adana Demirspor season|2021-22 season]], the sixth spell of First Tier, with contracting many talented players including [[Mario Balotelli]] who re-gained his form and success after many years. The club started the season with the current coach [[Samet Aybaba]], though had a coach change at the fifth week, and [[Vincenzo Montella]] was hired as the new Head Coach. Montella carried the team to a spectacular era, reaching to third spot many weeks of the second half-season and finishing 9th at the end of the season. Adana Demirspor with Montella, reached its apex when the club finished 4th in the [[2022–23 Adana Demirspor season|2022–23 season]] and qualified for the [[UEFA competitions|European competitions]] for the first time in the history. Vincenzo Montella did not re-new his contract for the [[2023–24 Adana Demirspor season|2023–24 season]] and [[Patrick Kluivert]] was hired as the new coach of football. ADS had a good start to the [[2023-24 UEFA Europa Conference League|UEFA Conference League]], knocking out [[CFR Cluj|Cluj]] and [[NK Osijek|Osijek]] at the second and third round, though eliminated from the competition at the play-off round, after penalty shoot-out against [[K.R.C. Genk|Genk]].<br /> <br /> ==Stadium and facilities==<br /> [[File:The Marathon - West stands of Adana Demirspor.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Marathon (East) stands choreography show]]<br /> Adana Demir's homeground is the [[Adana Stadium]] since March 2021. The stadium has a capacity of 33,543 seats.&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.adanahaber.net/spor/koza-arenaya-ozel-cim-h8618.html|title=Koza Arena'ya Özel Çim|website=Adana haber|language=tr|date=27 February 2015|access-date=31 January 2020|archive-date=8 March 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150308110643/http://www.adanahaber.net/spor/koza-arenaya-ozel-cim-h8618.html|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt; The stadium's north seats are painted to Adana Demirspor's jersey colors and south seats are painted to Adanaspor's jersey colors. Şimşekler group gather at the North Stand, other fan groups tend to gather at the northern section of the East Stands. From 1940 to 2021, the football team played their home games at the now defunct [[Adana 5 Ocak Stadium|5 Ocak Stadium]]. The waterpolo team played their home games at the [[Atatürk Swimming Complex]] from 1940 to dissolution. [[Menderes Sports Hall]] hosted club's basketball and volleyball teams.<br /> <br /> [[File:Adana Demirspor Tesisleri - panoramio.jpg|thumb|left|175px|The main training ground in [[Yüreğir]]]]<br /> [[File:Adana Demir Store at the 5 Ocak Stadium.JPG|thumb|right|175px|Club Store in [[Reşatbey]]]]<br /> Adana Demir's main training ground is the &quot;Adana Demirspor Tesisleri&quot;, along the [[Seyhan River|Seyhan river]] bank in the [[Yüreğir]] district. The training ground was built by the [[Adana#Governance|Metropolitan Municipality]] on a state land in the early 2000s. It was named the ''[[Aytaç Durak]] Tesisleri'' to honour the long-time serving mayor of Adana, who lead the construction of the training ground. As it was built on a state land without a tenancy agreement, Milli Emlak (en:National Property Foundation) sent an eviction notice several times in the late 2010s. In March 2019, with the efforts of the [[27th Parliament of Turkey|Adana MP]] [[Jülide Sarıeroğlu]], a tenancy agreement is finally made between ADS and the Milli Emlak which secured the training ground for a long-term and at the same time the facility is renamed the ''Adana Demirspor Tesisleri.''&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.5ocakgazetesi.com/baskan-murat-sancak-5-yillik-sorunu-cozdu-15749|title=Başkan Murat Sancak 5 yıllık sorunu çözdü|website=5 Ocak Gazetesi|access-date=28 January 2020|language=tr|archive-date=28 January 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200128091155/https://www.5ocakgazetesi.com/baskan-murat-sancak-5-yillik-sorunu-cozdu-15749|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt; The main training ground hosts the club's Head Office and is made of 4 football fields, Club store, fitness center, swimming pool and the staff-player residences.<br /> <br /> Adana Demir youth teams train at the TCDD owned training ground at the [[Adana railway station|Central railway station]] in [[Kurtuluş, Seyhan|Kurtuluş]], [[Seyhan]]. The property, which is composed of a football field and Youth Office, is rented out to Adana Demir for free. ADS Club Museum which is next to the TCDD training ground, was the club's Head Office from 1940 to 2000. Adana Demir has three club stores, one at the main training ground, one at M1 mall and one at the Park Adana mall. The club store at the 5 Ocak Stadium in [[Reşatbey]], moved a little further and is now run by the supporter group, Şimşekler.<br /> <br /> ==Support and rivalries==<br /> [[File:Adanademirspor Alinteri.png|thumb|right|175px|A banner at a TCDD facility: 'Adana Demirspor are the brow sweat of the railway workers.']]<br /> Adana Demirspor draw support from all over the city and as well as from the districts of the [[Adana Province]]. As being founded as a railway club, they are supported by the railway workers in Turkey. Politically left leaning people also have sympathy for the club.<br /> <br /> The main [[supporters group]] is called ''Mavi Şimşekler'', which translates to ''Blue lightnings''.<br /> The fans are known to have a left-wing political stance, as result they have good relations with other left-wing teams such as [[Livorno Calcio|Livorno]] and [[FC St. Pauli|St Pauli]]. The archrivals are [[Adanaspor]], who share the [[Adana Stadium]] with Adana Demirspor.&lt;ref&gt;Kuhn, Gabriel &quot;Soccer Vs. the State: Tackling Football and Radical Politics&quot;, PM Press, 2011, p.172&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;{{cite news|last=|first=|url=http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/attacks-from-the-left-wing-in-adana.aspx?pageID=438&amp;n=attacks-from-the-left-wing-in-adana-2009-09-03|title=Attacks from the left wing in Adana|date=9 September 2009|publisher=Hürriyet Daily News|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20161011034303/http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/attacks-from-the-left-wing-in-adana.aspx?pageID=438&amp;n=attacks-from-the-left-wing-in-adana-2009-09-03|archive-date=11 October 2016|via=[[Wayback Machine]]}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Players==<br /> <br /> ===Football===<br /> Football department is the only department that survived the whole history of the club. The department is administered by Gökhan Göktürk.&lt;ref&gt;{{cite tweet|author=Adana Demirspor Kulübü|user=AdsKulubu|number=1675867047266246659|date=3 July 2023|title=Kulübümüzde daha önce Futbol Akademisi Direktörlüğü ve sonrasında Sportif Direktörlük görevlerinde bulunmuş olan Sayın Gökhan Göktürk, Başkan Danışmanı olarak göreve getirilmiştir. Kendisi özellikle uluslararası ilişkiler, oyuncu izleme ve transfer komitesinde görev alacaktır. Yeni görevinde başarılar dileriz.|access-date=8 July 2023}}&lt;/ref&gt; Özgür Zengin is the Head of Academy Coaching.<br /> <br /> ====Current squad====<br /> &lt;!----------------------------- READ THIS NOTICE FIRST BEFORE EDITING ----------------------------------<br /> – Do NOT add new players before their signing is officially announced by the club through their website, including medical and signing the contract. A transfer fee agreed doesn't mean the player will sign.<br /> – Do NOT remove players before their exit is officially announced by the club.<br /> – Do NOT add or change squad numbers until it is official on website<br /> – Only add numberless players that are likely to become part of the first team<br /> – Pre-season numbers can be added temporarily with A REFERENCE<br /> – This is Wikipedia, not a football newspaper. Anything unconfirmed and unsourced will be removed on sight<br /> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&gt;<br /> {{updated|25 February 2024|&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.adanademirspor.org.tr/kadro |title=A Takım Kadrosu |trans-title=A Team Roster |language=tr |publisher=Adana Demirspor |access-date=14 July 2023 |archive-date=4 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230804073640/http://www.adanademirspor.org.tr/kadro |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> {{Fs start|nonumber=|bg=000080|color=66AAFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 1|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=Yılmaz Aktaş}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 2|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=[[İsmail Çokçalış]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 4|pos=DF|nat=GER|name=[[Semih Güler]]|other=[[Captain (association football)|Vice-captain]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 5|pos=DF|nat=GLP|name=[[Andreaw Gravillon]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 6|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=[[Tayfun Aydoğan]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 7|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=[[Yusuf Sarı]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 8|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=[[Emre Akbaba]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 9|pos=FW|nat=ITA|name=[[Mario Balotelli]]|other=[[Captain (association football)|Captain]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=10|pos=MF|nat=FRA|name=[[Nabil Alioui]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=11|pos=FW|nat=COL|name=[[Stiven Mendoza]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=13|pos=DF|nat=IRN|name=[[Milad Mohammadi]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=14|pos=MF|nat=ESP|name=[[José Rodríguez (footballer, born 1994)|José Rodríguez]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=15|pos=DF|nat=MKD|name=[[Jovan Manev]]|}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=16|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=[[İzzet Çelik]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=17|pos=FW|nat=KAZ|name=[[Abat Aymbetov]]}}<br /> {{Fs mid|nonumber=|bg=000080|color=66AAFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=19|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=[[Mustafa Kapı]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=20|pos=MF|nat=FRA|name=[[Édouard Michut]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=21|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Abdulsamet Burak}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=26|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=[[Dorukhan Toköz]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=30|pos=FW|nat=POR|name=[[Nani (footballer)|Nani]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=31|pos=DF|nat=ALG|name=[[Youcef Atal]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=32|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=[[Yusuf Erdoğan]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=39|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=[[Vedat Karakuş]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=56|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=[[Yusuf Barası]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=58|pos=MF|nat=ANG|name=[[Maestro (footballer)|Maestro]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=60|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=[[Ozan Demirbağ]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=66|pos=DF|nat=SEN|name=[[Pape Abou Cissé]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=71|pos=GK|nat=AZE|name=[[Shakhruddin Magomedaliyev]]}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=77|pos=FW|nat=TUN|name=Motez Nourani}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=93|pos=FW|nat=FRA|name=Breyton Fougeu}}<br /> {{fs end}}<br /> <br /> =====Out on loan=====<br /> {{Fs start|nonumber=|bg=000080|color=66AAFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=Murat Eser|other=on loan at [[İstanbulspor]] until 30 June 2024}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Ertuğrul Eramil|other=on loan at [[Büyükçekmece Tepecikspor]] until 30 June 2024}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Tolga Kalender|other=on loan at [[Diyarbekir Spor]] until 30 June 2024}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=[[Aksel Aktaş]]|other=on loan at [[Tuzlaspor]] until 30 June 2024}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|pos=MF|nat=MLI|name=[[Mahamadou Ba]]|other=on loan at [[Tuzlaspor]] until 30 June 2024}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Bünyamin Balat|other=on loan at Adana 1954 FK until 30 June 2024}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Burhan Ersoy|other=on loan at Nevşehir Belediyespor until 30 June 2024}}<br /> {{Fs mid|nonumber=|bg=000080|color=66AAFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|pos=MF|nat=CMR|name=Samuel Nongoh|other=on loan at [[NK Slaven Belupo|Slaven Belupo]] until 30 June 2024}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|pos=FW|nat=BIH|name=[[Hamza Jaganjac]]|other=on loan at [[NK Istra 1961|Istra 1961]] until 30 June 2024}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Salih Kavrazlı|other=on loan at [[Nazilli Belediyespor]] until 30 June 2024}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=[[Ali Yavuz Kol]]|other=on loan at [[Esenler Erokspor]] until 30 June 2024}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|pos=FW|nat=ALB|name=[[Arda Okan Kurtulan]]|other=on loan at [[Diyarbekirspor]] until 30 June 2024}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|pos=FW|nat=ALB|name=Florent Shehu|other=on loan at [[NK Zrinski Osječko 1664|Zrinski Osječko]] until 30 June 2024}}<br /> {{Fs end}}<br /> <br /> ====Current technical staff====<br /> {|class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! style=&quot;color:#66AAFF; background:#000080; border:1px solid Black;&quot;|Role<br /> ! style=&quot;color:#66AAFF; background:#000080; border:1px solid Black;&quot;|Staff<br /> |-<br /> | Head coach<br /> | {{Flagicon|TUR}} [[Hikmet Karaman]]<br /> |-<br /> | Assistant coach<br /> | {{Flagicon|TUR}} Serkan Damla<br /> |-<br /> | Assistant coach<br /> | {{Flagicon|TUR}} [[Taşkın Aksoy]]<br /> |-<br /> | Assistant coach<br /> | {{Flagicon|TUR}} Ömer Faruk Karaman<br /> |-<br /> | Fitness coach<br /> | {{Flagicon|TUR}} Nedim Askeri &lt;br/&gt; {{Flagicon|TUR}} Alper Şemsi Edis<br /> |-<br /> | Goalkeeping coaches<br /> | {{Flagicon|TUR}} Ozan Özerkan<br /> |-<br /> | Match Analyst<br /> | {{Flagicon|TUR}} Erdoğan Kaynak<br /> |}<br /> * &lt;small&gt;Last updated: 29 February 2024&lt;/small&gt;<br /> * &lt;small&gt;Source:Technical staff&lt;ref&gt;{{Cite web|url=https://www.adanademirspor.org.tr/takimimiz/teknik-ekip/|title=Technical staff|access-date=21 September 2021|archive-date=21 September 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210921203226/https://www.adanademirspor.org.tr/takimimiz/teknik-ekip/|url-status=dead}}&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ====League affiliation====<br /> * '''[[UEFA Europa Conference League]]''':{{efn|Total of 1 seasons}} 2023–24<br /> *'''[[Turkish football league system|Turkish Football League]]''':{{efn|Total of 62 seasons}} 1960–61, 1963–<br /> ** [[Süper Lig|First Tier (Süper Lig)]]:{{efn|Total of 20 seasons}} 1960–61, 1973–1984, 1987–1990, 1991–92, 1994–95, 2021– <br /> ** [[TFF First League|Second Tier (1.Lig)]]:{{efn|Total of 31 seasons}} 1963–1973, 1984–1987, 1990–91, 1992–1994, 1995–1999, 2002–2004, 2012–2021<br /> ** [[TFF Second League|Third Tier (2.Lig)]]:{{efn|Total of 11 seasons}} 1999–2002, 2004–2012<br /> * '''[[Adana Football League]]''':{{efn|Total of 21 seasons}} 1941–1960, 1961–1963<br /> <br /> =====European Competitions=====<br /> {{updated|match played 31 August 2023&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.uefa.com/nationalassociations/uefarankings/club/#/yr/2024 |title=UEFA Club Coefficients |trans-title= |language=English |publisher=UEFA |access-date=29 July 2023 |archive-date=12 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230612083123/https://www.uefa.com/nationalassociations/uefarankings/club/#/yr/2024 |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Competition!!P!!W!!D!!L!!GF!!GA!!GD<br /> |-<br /> |[[UEFA Europa Conference League]]<br /> |6||3||1||2||12||8||+4<br /> |-<br /> !'''Total'''<br /> !'''6'''<br /> !'''3'''<br /> !'''1'''<br /> !'''2'''<br /> !'''12'''<br /> !'''8'''<br /> !'''+4'''<br /> |}<br /> &lt;small&gt;'''P''' = Matches played; '''W''' = Matches won; '''D''' = Matches drawn; '''L''' = Matches lost; '''GF''' = Goals for; '''GA''' = Goals against; '''GD''' = Goals difference.&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Europa Conference League]]'''<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> !<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=3|[[2023–24 UEFA Europa Conference League|2023–24]]<br /> |Q2<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU}} [[CFR Cluj]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#ffd;&quot;| 1–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3–2'''<br /> | [[File:Symbol keep vote.svg|17px]]<br /> |-<br /> |Q3<br /> |{{flagicon|CRO}} [[NK Osijek|Osijek]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 5–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''7–4'''<br /> | [[File:Symbol keep vote.svg|17px]]<br /> |-<br /> |'''PO'''<br /> |{{flagicon|BEL}} [[K.R.C. Genk|Genk]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 1–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 1–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''2–2 (p.&amp;nbsp;4–5)'''<br /> | [[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|17px]]<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''UEFA ranking history:'''<br /> {{see also|UEFA coefficient}}<br /> {{updated|10 November 2023}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable plainrowheaders sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Season !! Rank !! Points !! Ref.<br /> |-<br /> |2024||''183'' {{increase}}||''7.320''||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method5/trank2024.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 2024 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2023-12-15 |archive-date=18 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190318140434/https://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/club/index.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> =====Turkish Football League=====<br /> '''League Spots'''<br /> &lt;div align=&quot;center&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;timeline&gt;<br /> ImageSize = width:900 height:150<br /> PlotArea = width:750 height:60 left:120 bottom:50<br /> AlignBars = justify<br /> <br /> Period = from:1960 till:2023<br /> TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal<br /> ScaleMajor = unit:year increment:4 start:1960<br /> ScaleMinor = unit:year increment:1 start:1960<br /> <br /> Colors =<br /> id:yeşil value:rgb(0.7,1,0.7)<br /> id:mavi value:rgb(0.7,0.7,1)<br /> id:kırmızı value:rgb(1,0.7,0.7)<br /> id:sarı value:rgb(1,1,0.7)<br /> id:gri value:gray(0.8)<br /> <br /> BarData =<br /> bar:bir text:First Tier<br /> bar:iki text:Second Tier<br /> bar:üc text:Third Tier<br /> <br /> PlotData=<br /> align:center textcolor:black fontsize:8 mark:(line,gri) width:20 shift:(1,-5)<br /> <br /> bar:bir color:yeşil<br /> from:1960 till:1961 text:18<br /> <br /> bar:iki color:sarı<br /> from:1963 till:1964 text:2<br /> from:1964 till:1965 text:6<br /> from:1965 till:1966 text:4<br /> from:1966 till:1967 text:4<br /> from:1967 till:1968 text:8<br /> from:1968 till:1969 text:12<br /> from:1969 till:1970 text:9<br /> from:1970 till:1971 text:9<br /> from:1971 till:1972 text:3<br /> from:1972 till:1973 text:1<br /> <br /> bar:bir color:yeşil<br /> from:1973 till:1974 text:10<br /> from:1974 till:1975 text:8<br /> from:1975 till:1976 text:8<br /> from:1976 till:1977 text:12<br /> from:1977 till:1978 text:13<br /> from:1978 till:1979 text:13<br /> from:1979 till:1980 text:8<br /> from:1980 till:1981 text:12<br /> from:1981 till:1982 text:6<br /> from:1982 till:1983 text:7<br /> from:1983 till:1984 text:16<br /> <br /> bar:iki color:sarı<br /> from:1984 till:1985 text:9<br /> from:1985 till:1986 text:2<br /> from:1986 till:1987 text:1<br /> <br /> bar:bir color:yeşil<br /> from:1987 till:1988 text:10<br /> from:1988 till:1989 text:14<br /> from:1989 till:1990 text:17<br /> <br /> bar:iki color:sarı<br /> from:1990 till:1991 text:1<br /> <br /> bar:bir color:yeşil<br /> from:1991 till:1992 text:15<br /> <br /> bar:iki color:sarı<br /> from:1992 till:1993 text:3<br /> from:1993 till:1994 text:5<br /> <br /> bar:bir color:yeşil<br /> from:1994 till:1995 text:18<br /> <br /> bar:iki color:sarı<br /> from:1995 till:1996 text:8<br /> from:1996 till:1997 text:9<br /> from:1997 till:1998 text:5<br /> from:1998 till:1999 text:7<br /> <br /> bar:üc color:kırmızı<br /> from:1999 till:2000 text:<br /> from:2000 till:2001 text:<br /> from:2001 till:2002 text:<br /> <br /> bar:iki color:sarı<br /> from:2002 till:2003 text:10<br /> from:2003 till:2004 text:16<br /> <br /> bar:üc color:kırmızı<br /> from:2004 till:2005 text:5<br /> from:2005 till:2006 text:5<br /> from:2006 till:2007 text:3<br /> from:2007 till:2008 text:3<br /> from:2008 till:2009 text:<br /> from:2009 till:2010 text:<br /> from:2010 till:2011 text:<br /> from:2011 till:2012 text:<br /> <br /> bar:iki color:sarı<br /> from:2012 till:2013 text:7<br /> from:2013 till:2014 text:13<br /> from:2014 till:2015 text:4<br /> from:2015 till:2016 text:4<br /> from:2016 till:2017 text:14<br /> from:2017 till:2018 text:13<br /> from:2018 till:2019 text:6<br /> from:2019 till:2020 text:3<br /> from:2020 till:2021 text:1<br /> <br /> bar:bir color:yeşil<br /> from:2021 till:2022 text:9<br /> from:2022 till:2023 text:4<br /> <br /> TextData=<br /> pos:(211,120) fontsize:12 text:<br /> &lt;/timeline&gt;<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Süper Lig Performance'''<br /> {|class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center; font-size:100%;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! style=| Season<br /> ! style=| Rank<br /> ! style=| G<br /> ! style=| W<br /> ! style=| D<br /> ! style=| L<br /> ! style=| GF<br /> ! style=| GA<br /> ! style=| Pts<br /> |-<br /> | [[1960–61 Turkish National League|1960–61]]<br /> |'''20'''<br /> |38<br /> |3<br /> |12<br /> |23<br /> |21<br /> |66<br /> |'''18'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1973–74 1.Lig|1973–74]]<br /> |'''10'''<br /> |30<br /> |9<br /> |9<br /> |12<br /> |19<br /> |21<br /> |'''27'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1974–75 1.Lig|1974–75]]<br /> |'''8'''<br /> |30<br /> |8<br /> |14<br /> |8<br /> |29<br /> |27<br /> |'''30'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1975–76 1.Lig|1975–76]]<br /> |'''8'''<br /> |30<br /> |10<br /> |8<br /> |12<br /> |28<br /> |35<br /> |'''28'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1976–77 1.Lig|1976–77]]<br /> |'''12'''<br /> |30<br /> |6<br /> |14<br /> |10<br /> |21<br /> |32<br /> |'''26'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1977–78 1.Lig|1977–78]]<br /> |'''13''' <br /> |30<br /> |7<br /> |11<br /> |12<br /> |24<br /> |36<br /> |'''25'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1978–79 1.Lig|1978–79]]<br /> |'''13'''<br /> |30<br /> |9<br /> |9<br /> |12<br /> |23<br /> |32<br /> |'''27'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1979–80 1.Lig|1979–80]]<br /> |'''8'''<br /> |30<br /> |10<br /> |9<br /> |11<br /> |26<br /> |23<br /> |'''29'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1980–81 1.Lig|1980–81]]<br /> |'''12'''<br /> |30<br /> |11<br /> |7<br /> |12<br /> |25<br /> |26<br /> |'''29'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1981–82 1.Lig|1981–82]]<br /> |'''6'''<br /> |32<br /> |10<br /> |13<br /> |9<br /> |30<br /> |23<br /> |'''33'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1982–83 1.Lig|1982–83]]<br /> |'''7'''<br /> |34<br /> |13<br /> |7<br /> |14<br /> |39<br /> |36<br /> |'''33'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1983–84 1.Lig|1983–84]] <br /> |'''16'''<br /> |34<br /> |9<br /> |11<br /> |14<br /> |37<br /> |54<br /> |'''29'''<br /> |-<br /> | [[1987–88 1.Lig|1987–88]]<br /> |'''10'''<br /> |38<br /> |16<br /> |4<br /> |18<br /> |59<br /> |64<br /> |'''52'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1988–89 1.Lig|1988–89]]<br /> |'''14'''<br /> |36<br /> |12<br /> |6<br /> |18<br /> |51<br /> |73<br /> |'''42'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1989–90 1.Lig|1989–90]]<br /> |'''17'''<br /> |34<br /> |5<br /> |8<br /> |21<br /> |30<br /> |83<br /> |'''23'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1991–92 1.Lig|1991–92]]<br /> |'''15'''<br /> |30<br /> |5<br /> |9<br /> |16<br /> |27<br /> |61<br /> |'''24'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1994–95 1.Lig|1994–95]]<br /> |'''18'''<br /> |34<br /> |3<br /> |6<br /> |25<br /> |25<br /> |81<br /> |'''15'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[2021–22 Süper Lig|2021–22]]<br /> |'''9'''<br /> |38<br /> |15<br /> |10<br /> |13<br /> |60<br /> |47<br /> |'''55'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[2022–23 Süper Lig|2022–23]]<br /> |'''4'''<br /> |36<br /> |20<br /> |9<br /> |7<br /> |76<br /> |45<br /> |'''69'''<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===Swimming and water polo===<br /> [[File:Adana Demirspor water polo champions in 1962.jpg|thumb|right|175px|Adana Demirspor are water polo champions in 1962]]<br /> [[Atatürk Swimming Complex]], the largest swimming pool of the time, had opened in Adana in 1938 with the efforts of the Adana Mayor Turhan Cemal Beriker and the Regional Sports Director Rıza Salih Saray. Adana Demirspor formed the swimming and water polo team from 40 youngsters who developed their swimming skills at the irrigation canals in the city. Adana Demir had joined the [[Türkiye Sutopu 1. Ligi|Turkish Water polo League]] in 1942, playing their home games at the new complex. From 1942 to 1954, the club had 13 League titles, without losing a game. They had another 8 titles until 1965, bringing the number of league titles to 21. After all this success, Adana Demirspor water polo team has known as ''Unbeatables'', for several decades. Muharrem Gülergin, son of a railway worker, became a legend for the club for his leadership at the water polo team. Erdal Acet broke the record of swimming Canal La Manche (English Channel) in 9 hours and 2 minutes in 1976.<br /> <br /> ==== League affiliation ====<br /> *'''[[Türkiye Sutopu 1. Ligi|Turkish Waterpolo League]]''': '''38 years/''' 1942–1980<br /> <br /> ===Basketball===<br /> [[File:Adana Demirspor basketball team.jpg|thumb|right|250px|ADS basketball team at First Tier]]<br /> Basketball department was founded by Alaettin Atsal and Demiray Sayılır and have first appeared in Turkish League in 1968. Adana Demirspor have won the Anatolian Cup title at 1969–1970 season and were promoted to the [[Turkish Basketball First League]]. The club were promoted to the [[Basketball Super League]] at 1972-1973 after winning a highly competitive season. The department had dissolved in the 1980s and had re-opened in 2003, competing at the Regional League for some years.<br /> <br /> ====League affiliation====<br /> *'''[[Turkish basketball league system|Turkish Basketball League]]''':{{efn|Total of 10 seasons}} 1970–1980<br /> ** [[Basketball Super League|First Tier (Basketbol Süper Ligi)]]:{{efn|Total of 2 seasons}} 1973–74, 1975–76<br /> ** [[Turkish Basketball First League|Second Tier (Türkiye Basketbol Ligi)]]:{{efn|Total of 8 seasons}} 1970–73, 1974–1975, 1976–1980<br /> <br /> ====First Tier Performance====<br /> {|class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center; font-size:100%;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! style=| Season<br /> ! style=| Rank<br /> ! style=| G<br /> ! style=| W<br /> ! style=| D<br /> ! style=| L<br /> ! style=| GF<br /> ! style=| GA<br /> ! style=| Pts<br /> |-<br /> | 1973-1974<br /> |'''11'''<br /> |21<br /> |4<br /> |0<br /> |17<br /> |1369<br /> |1645<br /> |'''29'''<br /> |-<br /> |1975-1976<br /> |'''12'''<br /> |22<br /> |1<br /> |0<br /> |21<br /> |1403<br /> |1974<br /> |'''24'''<br /> |- <br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===Other departments===<br /> '''Athletics department''' participated regional competitions from 1940 to 1952. The department had its best ever season 1953–1954 with titles won by the athletes Yıldıray Pagda, Atilla Pinoz, Yavuz Pagda and Turgay Renklikurt, all becoming well known nationally. The club had several team titles and individual titles within the next decade. After an idling period that lasted until 1980, with the re-organizing efforts of Regional Athletics Coach, Hasan Tekin, the club won titles in the next five years. '''Cycling''' agent and coach Ahmet Ecesoy trained cyclists Ertugrul Arlı, Ahmet Avcılar, İbrahım Gönül and Erol Berk, all becoming part of the National Cycling Team of Turkey. Cycling department were dissolved in 1983. '''Volleyball department''' were the champions for 5 years in a row, from 1967 to 1972 at the Regional Volleyball League. They were dissolved soon after. Club directors Şevket Kapulu ve Fevzi Özşahin founded the '''Wrestling Department''' in 1956 by converting part of the clubhouse to a wrestling training center, and making up a team from field wrestlers. Wrestlers of Adana Demirspor competed for the Turkish National Wrestling Team in several events. The Wrestling department of ADS became less active after 1968 and were dissolved within the next decade.<br /> <br /> ==Honours==<br /> <br /> *'''Turkish Football League System'''<br /> ** '''[[Super Lig|First Tier (Super Lig)]]'''<br /> ***'''Europa Conference League Qualification:''' [[2022–23 Super Lig|2022-23]]<br /> **'''[[TFF First League|Second Tier (1.Lig)]]'''<br /> ***'''Winners (4):''' 1972–73, 1986–87, 1990–91, [[2020–21 TFF First League|2020–21]]<br /> ***'''Playoff winners (1):''' 1993–94<br /> **'''[[TFF Second League|Third Tier (2.Lig)]]'''<br /> *** '''Winners (1):''' 2001–02,&lt;ref name=playoff02&gt;{{cite web|last=Sivritepe|first=Erdinç|url=http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/0102/2ba3.html|title=2. Lig B Grubu&amp;nbsp;– 3.Aşama (Denizli&amp;nbsp;– Atatürk Stadyumu)|website=Turkishsoccer|language=en|access-date=4 June 2010|archive-date=18 March 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080318091808/http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/0102/2ba3.html|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> ***'''Playoff winners (1):''' 2011–12<br /> **'''[[Turkish Cup]]'''<br /> ***''Runners-up (1):'' 1977–78&lt;ref name=kupatarihce/&gt;<br /> **'''[[Prime Minister's Cup]]'''<br /> ***''Runners-up (1):'' 1978&lt;ref name=baskankupa/&gt;<br /> *'''Adana Football'''<br /> **'''[[Turkish Amateur Football Championship|National Finals]]'''<br /> ***'''Winners (1) :''' 1954<br /> ***''Third (2) :'' 1947, 1951&lt;ref name=ADS&gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.adanademirspor.org.tr/tarihce.html|title=Tarihçe|website=Adana Demirspor|language=tr|access-date=28 February 2020|archive-date=26 February 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200226045952/http://www.adanademirspor.org.tr/tarihce.html|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> **'''[[Çukurova Football League|Adana League]]'''<br /> ***'''Winners (16) (record):''' 1942–43, 1943–44, 1944–45, 1945–46, 1946–47, 1947–48, 1948–49, 1949–50, 1950–51, 1951–52, 1952–53, 1953–54, 1954–55, 1956–57, 1957–58, 1958–59&lt;ref name=&quot;TürkFutbolTarihi&quot;&gt;{{cite book|last1=Arıpınar|first1=Erdoğan|last2=Ünsi Artun|first2=Tevfik|last3=Atabeyoğlu|first3=Cem|last4=Aydın|first4=Nurhan|last5=Hiçyılmaz|first5=Ergun|last6=San|first6=Haluk|last7=Sevinçli|first7=Orhan Vedat|last8=Somalı|first8=Vala|display-authors=1|date=June 1992|title=Türk Futbol Tarihi 1904–1991|volume=1|pages=76–77|language=tr|publisher=Türkiye Futbol Federasyonu Yayınları}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> *'''Turkish Waterpolo League'''<br /> **'''[[Türkiye Sutopu 1. Ligi|Sutopu 1.Lig]]'''<br /> ***'''Winners (21):''' 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965<br /> *'''Turkish Basketball League''' <br /> **'''[[Turkish Basketball First League|Second Tier (TBL)]]'''<br /> ***'''Winners (2):''' 1972–73, 1974–75<br /> <br /> ==Governance==<br /> Adana Demirspor is an incorporated company that will partially open to public. President Murat Sancak holds the majority of the shares. The club were a member-owned sports club until 2021. From 1940 to 1959, the club were directly governed by TCDD.<br /> {{updated|21 September 2021|&lt;ref name=&quot;BoD&quot;&gt;{{cite news|title=Yönetim Kurulu|trans-title=Board of Directors|url=https://www.adanademirspor.org.tr/kulubumuz/yonetim-kurulu/|publisher=Adana Demirspor|access-date=21 September 2021|language=tr|archive-url=https://archive.today/20210921202811/https://www.adanademirspor.org.tr/kulubumuz/yonetim-kurulu/|archive-date=21 September 2021|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Position !! Name<br /> |-<br /> | President || Murat Sancak<br /> |-<br /> | Deputy President || Metin Korkmaz<br /> |-<br /> | Vice-president || Remzi Kar<br /> |-<br /> | Director for [[Turkish Football Federation|TFF Relations]] || Levent Özveren<br /> |-<br /> | Director for Legal Matters || Tekin Taylancı<br /> |-<br /> | Director for Public Relations || Savaş Çokduygulu<br /> |-<br /> | Director for Amateur Branches || İsmail Tanrıverdi<br /> |-<br /> | Director for Facilities and Supporters || Levent Aris<br /> |-<br /> | Director for International Relations || Ekrem İnaltekin<br /> |-<br /> | Director for Advertisements and Sponsorship || Telat Şahin<br /> |-<br /> | Board Member || Süleyman Bilici<br /> |-<br /> | Board Member || Fatih Tosmur<br /> |-<br /> | Board Member || Tarkan Kulak<br /> |-<br /> | Board Member || Casim Korkmaz<br /> |-<br /> | Board Member || Cihan Şanlı<br /> |-<br /> | Board Member || Tarık Özunal<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Notable players==<br /> Muharrem Gülergin (nickname is Fofo) is the most well-known and reputable name of the club, who performed in different branches such as football, athletism, water polo, as well as being a manager and coach in later years.&lt;ref&gt;{{cite book |title=Adana Futbolu (Turkish) |date=2009 |publisher=İletişim Yayınları |isbn=9789750506970 |url=https://iletisim.com.tr/kitap/adana-futbolu/8249 |access-date=8 July 2023 |archive-date=15 May 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140515182627/https://iletisim.com.tr/kitap/adana-futbolu/8249 |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt; The north curva tribune in the old stadium (5 Ocak) was named after him. In addition, the names that became the notable players by performed for a long time in the early era of the club can be shown as Selami Tekkazancı (nicknamed Füze), Yaşar Kartal (nicknamed Kartal), Ali Hikmet Aydınlıoğlu (nicknamed Coral). In the 1970s especially Rasin Gürcan is the one of the key players who symbolized with Demirspor. He was the captain of 1977–78 season that Demirspor was runner-up in the Turkish Cup.<br /> <br /> [[Fatih Terim]] and [[Hasan Şaş]], two names synonymous with [[Galatasaray S.K. (football team)|Galatasaray S.K.]] and the [[Turkey national football team|Turkish national team]], were born in Adana and began their careers with Adana Demirspor. Terim spent five years (1969-1974) at the club before moving to Galatasaray. He became a manager after retiring and won several honours, including the [[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]] in [[1999–2000 UEFA Cup|2000]], four straight [[Süper Lig]] titles,&lt;ref&gt;See [[Turkish First Football League 1996–97]], [[Turkish First Football League 1997-98]], [[Turkish First Football League 1998-99]], [[Turkish First Football League 1999-00]]&lt;/ref&gt; and a semi-final finish in the [[UEFA Euro 2008|2008 UEFA European Football Championship]]. Şaş spent two years at the club before moving to [[Ankaragücü]] in 1995. He was a part of the [[Turkey national football team|Turkey squad]] that finished in third place at the [[2002 FIFA World Cup]]. He also played a part in winning five Süper Lig&lt;ref&gt;See [[Turkish First Football League 1997-98]], [[Turkish First Football League 1998-99]], [[Süper Lig 2001–02]], [[Süper Lig 2005–06]], [[Süper Lig 2007–08]]&lt;/ref&gt; and three [[Turkish Cup]] titles with Galatasaray from 1998 to 2009. Adana Demirspor also produced striker [[Taner Gülleri]].<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> ;Notes<br /> {{notelist|3}}<br /> <br /> ;Citations<br /> {{Reflist}}<br /> <br /> == External links ==<br /> {{commons category}}<br /> *[http://www.adanademirspor.org.tr/ Official website]<br /> *[http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3603 Adana Demirspor on TFF.org]<br /> <br /> {{Süper Lig}}<br /> {{Turkish clubs in European football}}<br /> {{City of Adana}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Adana Demirspor| ]]<br /> [[Category:Sport in Adana]]<br /> [[Category:Sports clubs and teams in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1940]]<br /> [[Category:Railway association football teams]]<br /> [[Category:Sports clubs and teams established in 1940]]<br /> [[Category:Water polo clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1940 establishments in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1216326982 2024-03-30T11:24:17Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Altay S.K. and Karşıyaka S.K. battleground behaviour */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Short description|Report incidents to administrators}}<br /> &lt;noinclude&gt;&lt;!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.--&gt;{{/Header}}&lt;/noinclude&gt;{{clear}}<br /> {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}<br /> {{User:MiszaBot/config<br /> |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}<br /> |maxarchivesize =800K<br /> |counter = 1151<br /> |algo = old(60h)<br /> |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c<br /> |archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d<br /> |headerlevel=2<br /> }}<br /> {{stack end}}<br /> &lt;!--<br /> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE<br /> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE<br /> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--&gt;<br /> <br /> == NoonIcarus and &quot;Failed verification&quot; ==<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|NoonIcarus}}<br /> <br /> Apologies in advance for the [[WP:TEXTWALL|wall of text]], but this is mainly due to having to outline and explain a list of concerning edits. NoonIcarus has inaccurately cited &quot;failed verification&quot; in an apparent effort to remove information from the project. This was addressed before by {{u|Mbinebri}} in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2002_Venezuelan_coup_attempt&amp;diff=1156165078&amp;oldid=1156111689 the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt article talk page], who said {{tq|&quot;In your recent edits, you removed info again, claiming failed verification because you couldn't access the two cited articles. I think this was inappropriate&quot;}}. More recently, I have noticed NoonIcarus performing this similar edit (and engaging in an edit war) to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=1211447585&amp;oldid=1210444201 remove information about leftists being tortured during a former Venezuelan government], arguing that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANational_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=1213263432&amp;oldid=1213263020 this was not presented in sources]. Well, this information is from the ''[[New York Amsterdam News]]'' article cited, where the paper writes {{tq|&quot;Posada worked as an official in Venezuela's DISIP ... where he participated in the torture of left-wing activists&quot;}}. So, instead of NoonIcarus actually not having access to information to &quot;verify&quot; source content, it appears that they are {{underline|''intentionally'' ignoring source content in order to maintain a particular POV}} on the project.<br /> <br /> After noticing this repetitive behavior, I reviewed NoonIcarus' similar &quot;failed verification&quot; edits, recognizing inconsistencies:<br /> *[[Carlos Vecchio]]: NoonIcarus removes information about Vecchio working for [[ExxonMobil]], saying it &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Vecchio&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212775596 failed verification].&quot; However, on [https://books.google.com/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false page 38 of ''Libres: el nacimiento de una nueva Venezuela''], Vecchio writes {{tq|&quot;Trabajo entonces en Mobil de Venezuela, la empresa petrolera, estaba ganando seis veces más de lo que ganada en PDVSA,&quot; (&quot;I then worked at Mobil de Venezuela, the oil company, I was earning six times more than what I earned at PDVSA&quot;}}, showing that he clearly worked for ExxonMobil. This may be an attempt to hide that a high-level Venezuelan opposition leader previously worked for an American company, which is controversial in Venezuelan politics. <br /> *[[2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum]]: NoonIcarus removes information about the [[Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies]] working with the Venezuelan opposition during the election, citing &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212425521 Failed verification, dead links]&quot;. {{strike|Strangely, these Stratfor articles were taken down after I added them to the election article,}} however they are still present in Google searches (as of now, though I took screenshots if necessary) and [http://blog.b92.net/text/1561/Dole-opozicija/ the article in particular can be seen mostly intact in this random 2007 forum]. And [https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/venezuela-new-player-mix here]. '''Edit:''' Links should work now. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1213326088&amp;oldid=1211357855 Thanks]!--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 10:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *[[Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies]]: NoonIcarus tags &quot;CANVAS is funded by primarily American organizations&quot; as &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centre_for_Applied_Nonviolent_Action_and_Strategies&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211946387 Failed verification]&quot;. However, if you look at the ''[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]'' article about the Venezuelan opposition's links to CANVAS, it says {{tq|&quot;Canvas wird wesentlich von amerikanischen Organisationen finanziert&quot; (&quot;Canvas is largely funded by American organizations&quot;)}}, showing that this can be verified.<br /> *[[Venezuelan opposition]]: NoonIcarus removed information about CANVAS training members of the Venezuelan opposition, saying &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuelan_opposition&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211946246 Failed verification. This information comes from a 2012 WikiLeaks piece]&quot;. This is entirely inaccurate and a falsehood as this information is sourced from [[Stratfor]], ''[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]'' and ''[[Le Monde diplomatique]]'', with these sources not citing Wikileaks at all.<br /> *[[Guarimba]]: NoonIcarus tagged the sentence &quot;Oxford Analytica wrote that half of the protest deaths resulted at barricades&quot; as &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199089123 Failed verification]&quot;. In the cited article, it clearly states {{tq|&quot;an estimated half of those killed losing their lives at opposition barricades&quot;}}.<br /> *[[Guarimba]] 2: NoonIcarus says &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1198710396 Failed verification]&quot; about the sentence &quot;Many families were confined to their homes as a result of guarimbas and in turn, children were prevented from attending school and individuals were unable to receive medical care.&quot; The source, the notable Venezuelan historian [https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/margarita-lopez-maya Margarita López Maya] [https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/403/40305606.pdf writes] {{tq|&quot;Las protestas, conocidas como el «guarimbazo», ... [resultaron con el] confinamiento de centenares de familias a sus hogares por los cierres de vía que impidieron llevar a los niños a las escuelas, acudir al trabajo, o llegar a centros de salud.&quot; (&quot;The protests, known as the 'guarimbazo', ... [resulted with the] confinement of hundreds of families to their homes due to road closures that prevented them from taking children to schools, going to work, or reaching health centers.&quot;}}<br /> *[[Guarimba]] 3: With the sentence &quot;At some guarimbas, protesters rob individuals who criticize the method&quot;, NoonIcarus said &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197831253 Failed verification. Nowhere to be seen in article]&quot;. The [https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/venezuela-deadline/534885/ cited article] by ''[[The Atlantic (magazine)|The Atlantic]]'' says {{tq|&quot;more radical elements of the party take to what’s called guarimba ... MUD supporters have stationed themselves at these ... shaking down people who don’t support the shutdown&quot;}}.<br /> *[[Protests against Nicolás Maduro]]: A sentence about opposition protesters attacking a government facility said &quot;President Maduro said the attack forced the evacuation of workers and about 89 children&quot;, with NoonIcarus saying that this had &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protests_against_Nicolás_Maduro&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1185537948 Failed verification, no mention of children]&quot;. The [https://web.archive.org/web/20140425021139/http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/protestas-en-venezuela/140403/maduro-revela-que-hay-un-detenido-por-ataques-a-ministerio-de-vivienda archived story], however, says {{tq|&quot;había 89 niños dentro de la sede, de los cuales 3 necesitaron asistencia con oxígeno&quot; (&quot;there were 89 children inside the headquarters, of which 3 needed assistance with oxygen&quot;)}}. One could excuse a potential lack of knowledge about [[web archiving]], but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuela_and_state-sponsored_terrorism&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211037807 NoonIcarus is very knowledgeable about web archiving when they want to be].<br /> <br /> This is just a small review of the last four months of editing by NoonIcarus, so again ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1183363529&amp;oldid=1182822268#Advocacy? see here] about the previous [[Wikipedia:Stable version#Inappropriate usage|inappropriate use of &quot;stable version&quot;]]), who knows how much they have removed using the &quot;failed verification&quot; method this time. Overall, NoonIcarus' editing behavior makes it clear that they are removing information not based on &quot;failed verification&quot;, but for other reasons; most likely related to seeing this information as a [[WP:BADPOV|bad POV]] about the Venezuelan opposition. This is further evidence to add to the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive editing by NoonIcarus|previous concerns]] about NoonIcarus [[WP:NOTHERE|not being here to build an encyclopedia]]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 06:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Wow. These &quot;failed verification&quot; lies (which is what these are) are so pervasive that unless NoonIcarus has a very good explanation for all of these, I'd go ahead with a site ban. &lt;span&gt;♠[[User:JCW555|&lt;span style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;JCW555&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:JCW555|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;(talk)&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt;♠ 07:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::All of these edits are recent or recent-ish (2024), and it's apparent from his userpage that NoonIcarus speaks Spanish. NoonIcarus isn't an inexperienced editor. I ''do'' find NoonIcarus' position defensible on the 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum; I could imagine that if I saw commentary I found suspicious that was sourced to a dead link, I might tag it with {{tl|fv}}. I also think he's got an arguable case on Guarimba 3 because &quot;shaking down&quot; doesn't necessarily mean &quot;robbing&quot;. On the other matters I fully side with WMrapids.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 09:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{re|S Marshall}} There was a URL issue,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1213326088&amp;oldid=1211357855][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213327198&amp;oldid=1213326269] though as I said, the articles were still easily accessible on Google. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 10:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yes, I can see your side of it. I just think it's only fair to note that it ''was'' a contentious claim sourced to a dead link.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 14:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::IMO the correct solution is to use {{tl|dead link}} for the link not working, and also {{tl|Verify source}} if you have doubts and cannot check the source due to the dead link. Failed verification implies that you checked the source and could not find the claim rather than you could not view the source. Note that the documentation for the failed verification template specifically says you should use dead link '''instead''' when the website is unreachable. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::While I didn't see anything in the documentation that I saw that says it's okay to use both the dead link and verify source template, I'd argue it's perfectly fine since they describe two related but separate issues. One is that the link is dead, so someone needs to either fix it in some way. E.g. they could find an archival link. Or alternatively replace it with a working source. Or in some cases if the source doesn't need a link ensure that there is sufficient info in the citation and possibly remove the link. The second issue is that an editor has doubts over the content but couldn't access the source to confirm it one way or the other. So wants someone who does have access to the source to verify it, perhaps providing a quote on the talk page to help or something. This isn't so different from a book or journal the editor doesn't have access to or a paywalled website, except here the problem is a dead link so fixing the dead link and confirming it verifies should be enough. If for whatever reason e.g. an editor gnoming a lot of related dead links doesn't have time to check, they're perfectly fine fixing the dead link, removing the dead link template and leaving the verify source for someone else to deal with perhaps even the editor who added it in the first place when they find the link was fixed. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Using {{tl|dead link}} is the correct option, but [[Template:Failed verification/doc]] only mentioned that in the body. I've made a slight change to reflect that in the lede of the documentation. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::The main issue with said sources is that their format ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;oldid=1211595977]) did not show how they were accessed in the first place. There weren't archive links, archive dates or quotes, and if they had been truly accessed just a few days ago they should have been available when I did. I want to leave clear that I oppose removing links for being dead as the only reason, and I have rescued several of these references when I have found the archives. I was unaware about {{tl|Verify source}}, and it looks like an useful tag that I will probably use in the future. Kind regards, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::It should be noted that {{tl|Verify source}} should only be used {{tq|only after you have made a good faith attempt to verify the information yourself}} if you are unable to find it, ''and'' still have doubts about its authenticity. You might also be interested in [[WP:IABOT]], which can often repair dead links. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::{{re|The Wordsmith}} Not trying to [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeon]] here, but &quot;good faith&quot; tagging has been a consistent issue for NoonIcarus as well.([[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#Tags??|1]],[[Talk:ZunZuneo#Drive by tagging|2]],[[Talk:Guarimba#Tags|3]]) {{ping|Boynamedsue}} even said &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGuarimba&amp;diff=1199140170&amp;oldid=1199098876 All of the in text tags here lacked justification. '''I am very concerned about Noonicarus'''… This is the diametric opposite of our actual policy]&quot;. Just wanted to share this to provide more context. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Response '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214571997 here]'''. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 19:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Sure thing. Thank you kindly, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Re Carlos Vecchio: The cited book says &quot;Mobil de Venezuela&quot; and in the previous paragraph it suggests that the date was [https://books.google.ca/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38&amp;lpg=PA38&amp;dq=%22mobil+de+venezuela%22+trabajo+vecchio&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=A2k2n37WUy&amp;sig=ACfU3U2bwYlwu_aQ-dZmPNmB8dZnqd5XCg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiS7YXn6-6EAxV4MjQIHcVoAdgQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%22mobil%20de%20venezuela%22%20trabajo%20vecchio&amp;f=false July 1998]. Wikipedia's [[ExxonMobil]] article says Exxon merged with Mobil to form ExxonMobil in November 1999. So I think NoonIcarus was correct, the Wikipedia claim that BLP subject Carlos Vecchio worked for ExxonMobil was poorly sourced. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 14:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::This is splitting hairs. Looking at [[History of ExxonMobil]], we do not simply say &quot;Mobil&quot; when discussing the company historically. If we want to be super specific, &quot;Mobil de Venezuela&quot; could have been edited as a redirect (like [[ExxonMobil|Mobil de Venezuela]]), but this still doesn't warrant NoonIcarus' removal of the information entirely. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 14:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::In fact Mr Vecchio did work for ExxonMobil a few years later, I was thrown off by your quoting of a passage that is not about that. Although I think the citing could have been more specific I was wrong to say it's poorly sourced. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 16:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}<br /> {{re|Nil Einne|The Wordsmith|Peter Gulutzan}} I'm appreciative of you all clarifying the appropriate usage of templates and the source content regarding Mobil (ExxonMobil). But, {{u|Mbinebri}} already warned NoonIcarus about inappropriately using &quot;failed verification&quot;, {{u|S Marshall}} notes that NoonIcarus has the experience to have known better and {{u|JCW555}} suggests a &quot;site ban&quot; since the user appears to be a deliberately removing unwanted information. We have been dealing with NoonIcarus' inappropriate edits for some time now ([[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions|block deletions and canvassing]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive440#User%3AOnetwothreeip_reported_by_User%3ANoonIcarus_(Result%3A_Filer_warned)|edit warring against consensus]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive_editing_by_NoonIcarus|activist/battleground edits]]). So, do any of you have suggestions on how to remedy NoonIcarus' [[WP:GAMING|gaming behavior]] that has continued (especially on Venezuelan topics) for years now? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1194288807&amp;oldid=1194288478 I previously suggested a topic ban], which is less severe than a full &quot;site ban&quot;.--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Such suggestions should wait until NoonIcarus has had some time to respond, I think. We normally give users a while to answer.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 19:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Pre-emptively, I would definitely support a TBAN, because I have watched NoonIcarus's behaviour for a long time, and it is absolutely unacceptable. To be honest, I am suprised they haven't recieved a ban or block of any sort regarding this issue. I fear that they might be one of the [[WP:UNBLOCKABLES|unblockables]], and that would be a great shame. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 05:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:JML1148|JML1148]] The reason this issue is getting little attention from admins is because of how verbose all of the participants are and how this dispute is outside of the knowledge of most people in the west, which is the English Wikipedia's main editor base. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I totally get the the thing regarding the conduct of the participants. I don't really think the issue is with it being outside the knowledge of most editors, though - there's been a few RfCs with widespread participation including the dispute between NoonIcarus and WMRapids. I definitely think a large number of administrators know about the dispute and the poor conduct involved, but aren't getting involved. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 06:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I didn't remember where we knew each other from, until I found the request for comment [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|RfC: VENRS]], which WMrapids started. If your understanding about my experience as an editor comes mostly from WMrapids, I kindly ask if you have a chance to take a look at the ANI own complaints against WMrapids below. Best wishes, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Currently writing a response to the accusations. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :If I understand this correctly, the allegation is that a user should be blocked for adding &quot;failed verification&quot; tags where other tags are appropriate? Isn't that a sledgehammer/nut response? As people have already shown the first two e examples aren't straightforward, I'm looking at the third example, the Frankfurter Zeitung source on [[Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies]]. The tagged reference is as follows: {{Cite news |date=1 April 2019 |title=Generation 2007 |work=[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]}} There is no link, so impossible for someone to verify without finding the 1 April 2019 edition of FAZ, something I couldn't manage to do easily. It looks like the complainant here has access to the text, as they quote it on this page, so why not just add a hyperlink, or at least give the full quotation and maybe a page number, and remove the tag? Maybe &quot;failed verification&quot; is the wrong tag, but surely the ref doesn't meet our standards of verification and therefore Noonicarus was correct to tag it? [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 06:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Now I'm looking at the fourth example, [[Venezuelan opposition]]. Here the sources were removed rather than tagged. All of the removed sources are problematic from a verification point of view: the same FAZ ref without a link, a Monde Diplo article that is paywalled but which in another edit Noonicarus says doesn't mention Venezuela, and Stratfor links which are dead. So it would have been right to tag it. The removal was part of what seems to be quite a lot of back and forth editing with the complainant here inserting very POV material and Noonicarus hastily removing it. Would have been better for both editors to slow down and talk it out, but this is not an example of one user deviously using &quot;failed verification&quot; as framed in the complaint. The fifth example, [[Guarimba]], is a bit like the third: the citation to Oxford Analytica doesn't have a hyperlink so is impossible to verify. The quote is too short to confirm it supports the text. Noonicarus tags it instead of removing it. It should be tagged in some way as it does indeed need more to verify it. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 06:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC) With the sixth example, also from [[Guarimba]], I agree with WMrapids that on the face of it this should not have been removed. Noonicarus' edit summary is &quot;Failed verification. Care should be also be taken, since unreliable government sources are frequently used, such as Venezolana de Televisión and Correo del Orinoco. It's clear that this is not the best source&quot; which doesn't seem to match the content removed, suggesting it may have been a mistake, and WMRapids was right to revert it. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 07:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) The seventh example, same WP article, was also a bad edit. Possibly Noonicarus searched the source without noticing the paywall half way down but the full article[https://web.archive.org/web/20170727021506/https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/venezuela-deadline/534885/] does include the &quot;shakedown&quot; passage. I'd say the removed content was a rather POV rendering of the material, so this may have provoked this excessive response. So far I agree with WMRapids in two out of seven examples. There doesn't seem to be the malignant pattern the complaint implies. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 07:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Last one, on the protests. It's true the second source, a dead link, contained text about children, so flagging as need verification or checking the archive would have been better than removal. However, the actual claim in the WP article text doesn't correspond to the sources as comments attributed to Maduro (including about children) weren't made by Maduro. Again, there was bad POV material to which Noonicarus overreacted. So three out of eight edits raised here are problematic, but not in a way that suggests a need to sanctions. Is there an 1RR rule on Venezuela articles? That might be a better solution, to calm down the editing in general. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 07:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|Bobfrombrockley}} I think you might be missing some of the context here. Although whether or not this specific incident warrants sanctions is debatable, according to your analysis, NoonIcarus has a history of POV pushing, incivility and assuming ownership of articles. There is a very long and detailed comment that WMRapids left on a previous ANI incident, found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1194288807&amp;oldid=1194288478#Disruptive_editing_by_NoonIcarus| here]. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 08:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::As I explained in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199976378 my own response to the comment], the problem is that there hasn't been much ''pushing'' from my part, but rather from WMrapids. They have aggresively introduced POV in several articles for months now: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207984331 National_Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuelan_opposition&amp;oldid=1185607237 Venezuelan opposition], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;oldid=1185456874 Guarimba], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211595977 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Venezuelan_blackouts&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211608041 2019 Venezuelan blackouts], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Venezuelan_parliamentary_election&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199025984 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary election], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Venezuelan_municipal_elections&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199019968 2013 Venezuelan municipal elections]. Most, if not all, of the recent disputes with WMrapids have resulted from me challenging the POV content and WMrapids' reluctance to change it. As of article ownership, it's enough to point out to articles such as [[Operation Gideon (2020)]], [[Rupununi uprising]] and [[Guarimba]] to show how difficult it has been to make any changes different from the editor's preferred version. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 02:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thank you {{u|JML1148}}. I wasn't aware of that context. Was WMRapids' last complaint supported by the community? It seems to me that WMRapids engages in exactly the same sort of behaviour that NoonIcarus is accused of in these same contentious topic areas, and if NoonIcarus has been a bit quick on the trigger with tagging WMRapids content (which often tends to POV), WMRapids is quick to revert NoonIcarus' edits without establishing consensus. Both of them do engage in discussion on talk pages, but often it is hard to get consensus due to a lack of un-involved editors. I don't think this is a disciplinary matter, and if it is then similar sanctions should apply to WMRapids. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Prequel to some of the tagging mentioned in the allegation above appears to be a request to the OP for info on the sourcing which was responded to rather brusquely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum#Stratfor [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{re|Bobfrombrockley}} It looks brusque and rude, but it actually isn't. OP pointed to dead links [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=1212425673&amp;oldid=1196506749 asking] &quot;How did you get the information?&quot; WMRapids [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213305378 replied] on 06:36, 12 March 2024 that the links came from Google and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1212425850 '''corrected the deadlinks'''] four hours later (10:45, 12 March 2024) saying, &quot;No idea how this happened. Links should be fixed.&quot; Six hours ''after'' the links were corrected (16:32, 12 March 2024), instead of thanking WMRapids for correcting them, OP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=1213365508&amp;oldid=1213305378 said], &quot;Rude. It's your responsibility to ensure the verifiability of the content.&quot; WMRapids already had, so if anyone was rude, it was NoonIcarus, not WMRapids. One wonders if OP even made a minimal effort to correct the links.<br /> :::::I will give WMRapids the thanks at that discussion that s/he deserved and so the context is clearer for anyone who reads the short back and forth.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212425673 My message] showing how the previous links gave no results in Web Archive should hint enough that I did try to fix the links. WMrapids fixed the references five days after the ping, &lt;s&gt;only after I pointed out this fact again in this ANI&lt;/s&gt;. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 23:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::{{tq|WMrapids fixed the references five days after the ping, only after I pointed out this fact again in this ANI}}. I don't believe that is true. WMRapids fixed the links on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1212425850 10:45, 12 March 2024] shortly after {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1213326088&amp;oldid=1211357855 explained] the link problem on 09:08, 12 March 2024. (Thanks.) From my review of [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=NoonIcarus&amp;page=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max= your contributions here at AN/I], your first comment here was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=1213483343 09:58, 13 March 2024]--a day after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1212425850 the links were corrected]. Please provide a diff showing where you pointed this out at this ANI ''before'' WMrapids corrected the link on 10:45, 12 March 2024. Providing a false timeline does not help your case.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 01:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::{{re|David Tornheim}} You're right. It was after ActivelyDisinterested told me that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213326088 I thanked them] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213326713 fixed the links about ten minutes later]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 02:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::I'm striking that specific part since you're correct. My main point stands, though: WMrapids provided this example to falsely accuse me of &quot;ignoring the content&quot;, when I showed in my comment that I tried accessing the references and that Web Archive did not provide any results. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|Bobfrombrockley}} As I said in the opening of this discussion, {{u|Mbinebri}} already warned NoonIcarus that a &quot;failed verification&quot; tag is inappropriate if the user didn't have access to the source. A source does not need a link to be included. Failed verification means that someone had read the source and the content did not match the source. So, no, many of the tags and edit summaries were not &quot;correct&quot; as you suggest and NoonIcarus was deliberately removing information without properly verifying it.<br /> ::I know that [[Talk:United States involvement in regime change#Trimming|you two have worked pretty closely together]] on removing some info from [[United States involvement in regime change]]. This is where NoonIcarus and I have had a conflict (their frequent removals), but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1209395892&amp;oldid=1209308986 I reached out to them in an effort to avoid edit warring], suggesting that we ''add'' to articles and discuss instead of constant removals. This worked for but a moment until they reverted back to edit warring. It crossed the line when they inappropriately began removing information citing &quot;failed verification&quot;, and now we are here. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 14:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::By &quot;worked together closely&quot;, I think you mean that we have at times agreed on what the content should look like and you've disagreed. On that page, you secured consensus for some of your preferred edits and not for others. It seems to me that you both engage properly in talk pages and I was surprised to see you escalate this to an incident for admins. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Same here, particularly since WMrapids never told me about the misuse of &quot;failed verification&quot; or claimed that I wasn't accessing the references. While I have been frustrated by slow progress, I felt that the conflict had escaled down until now. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 18:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::1RR is a solution that has been proposed previously and I have tried to abide by. It wouldn't solve all of the current issues, but it is not currently implemented and it probably would be a good first step. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 12:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I agree with this, this may help lower the temperature without an excessive overreaction. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Just remembering that this is an electoral year and there will be presidential elections in Venezuela. There will definitely be more traffic and more disputes. The 1RR general restriction should be helpful. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Again, NoonIcarus, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214766605&amp;oldid=1214764162 you exaggerate and seem to inaccurately portray yourself] as the {{tq|&quot;last one remaining&quot;}} for Venezuelan political articles when this isn't the case ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214797142][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214797142]). [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable#You can be replaced|We can all be replaced]] and your depiction of yourself performing some sort of last stand (as you seem to do, arguing that this is an election year), is literally [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable#Situations|an example of a situation]] that validates evidence of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]]. {{u|Number 57}} themself has [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Number+57&amp;page=2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max= consistently assisted with the election article] too, so it's untrue to suggest we don't have knowledgable users focused on the topic. You seem to be more concerned about someone with what you consider a [[WP:BADPOV|bad POV]] participating in articles that you are interested in. <br /> <br /> :::::An unofficial [[WP:0RR]] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1209395892&amp;oldid=1209308986 {{underline|already}} recommended] and you reverted back to edit warring (and inaccurately removing information citing &quot;failed verification&quot;). Given the previous sanctions ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|you {{underline|already}} had 0RR and 1RR restrictions placed upon you]]) and the multiple ignored warnings, we are well past the point of further reversion restrictions as you have {{underline|already}} crossed over [[Wikipedia:BRINK|the brink]]. {{underline|''Multiple'' other users have outlined many examples of [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]];}} I have showed how [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Repeating a penalised edit|you are repeating behavior you were penalized for]] and that [[WP:REMOVECITE|you delete pertinent cited additions of others]] (the &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1183363529&amp;oldid=1182822268 stable version]&quot; and &quot;failed verification&quot; methods), {{u|Boynamedsue}} and {{u|Mbinebri}} already discussed you [[WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH|disputing the reliability of apparently good sources]] and [[WP:RGW|your &quot;political activism&quot; or &quot;ideological rewriting&quot;]] in articles, while Number 57, {{u|David Tornheim}}, {{u|Goldsztajn}}, {{u|Lavalizard101}}, {{u|Simonm223}} and {{u|JML1148}}, have shared how you have consistently [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject|introduced undue material]]. After reviewing all of the above, it shows that on Latin American political topics, NoonIcarus, [[WP:NOTHERE|you are ''not'' here to build an encyclopedia]]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::::::You have already made your point, there's not need to repeat yourself. Don't bludgeon the process. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> How long are admins going to let this go? It has been obvious for some time that Noonicarus can not edit competently on Latin American political articles and they need to be topic-banned at the very least.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 06:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Another few days. The OP has had time to write a thorough and well-formatted complaint. We give their target the same courtesy.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 08:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === WMrapids and source misinterpretation ===<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|WMrapids}}<br /> <br /> :'''''[[Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read|TL;DR]]: WMrapids accuses me of &quot;ignoring source content&quot; but omits that I access said content and try to help with verifiability, such as by asking for quotes, which the editor never provided until now. WMrapids has a history of source misinterpretation that needs to be checked.'''''<br /> <br /> :I was hoping that with [[User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 10#Future collaboration recommendations|this exchange]] and more interaction in talk pages there would be less conflict but alas, we find ourselves here again. I have already made several complaints about WMrapids' poor behavior in the past, including but not limited to edit warring, blanking and hounding ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS|ANI#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:WMrapids (blanking)|ANI#User:WMrapids (blanking)]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids|ANI#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids]]). For the sake of brevity I will focus in the recent issues.<br /> <br /> :WMrapids has a history of reference misinterpretation, original research and poor sourcing, sometimes leading to BLP violations (eg: [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 106#Nelson Bocaranda|WP:NPOV/N#Nelson Bocaranda]] and [[Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis#Lancet editorial misrepresented]]), ''not to mention lack of attribution or personal interpretation, as with the &quot;shaking down&quot; example''. Controversial or fringe claims such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=José_Manuel_Olivares&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1180967211 a congressman leading an auto theft gang], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207984331 the CIA infiltration of Venezuelan intelligence services] or the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Venezuelan_blackouts&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211608041 opposition involvement in the 2019 blackouts] don't help either. The editor continues accusing me of bias, but with them casting doubts about Venezuelan torture victims testimonies [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorent_Saleh&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208811280][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorent_Saleh&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209208884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81ngel_Vivas&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208817265][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karen_Palacios&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208819970][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81ngel_Vivas&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209050808][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilmer_Azuaje&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208822867] and own removal of content[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207924351][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protests_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211596504][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1159024505][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuela_and_state-sponsored_terrorism&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209509663] shows that the editor does not hold all of the information to the same standard depending on its point of view. Another example of this is how they question the Organization of American States as a source in the Guarimba article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197738262]), but doesn't have to have an issue with using it at the [[Ayacucho massacre|Ayacucho]] and [[Juliaca massacre]]s articles ([[Special:Diff/1156851831|1]], [[Special:Diff/1156852169|2]]). To this date no explanation has been provided for this.<br /> <br /> :When I say &quot;failed verification&quot; it doesn't mean that I wasn't able to access the source or that I was too lazy to try to. God knows I have. Web Archive, Google Books, JSTOR, all the possible means available online if I don't happen to have an offline method to verify. Threads that include [[Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman)#CIA informant accusation]], [[Talk:National Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services#Luis Posada Carriles|Talk:DISIP#Luis Posada Carriles]], [[Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs]] and [[Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia]] show that I have accessed the references and that I am familiar with their content, if I had already not said it at the edit summaries.<br /> <br /> :WMrapids often doesn't include URLs, pages, quotes or other means to help with verifiability for bibliographical sources, even when they are easily accesible ''(just as BobFromBrockley as noted above)'', and have continued to do so even when other users that asked for them to be included. [[WP:BURDEN|The responsability to ensure the verifiability of the information lies on the user that adds it]], but the user shifts this burden onto other editors, best exemplified by one of the last responses to the source requests: &quot;{{tq|Google}}&quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213305378]. Talk pages such as [[Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor]] are witness that I have tried asking about the original quotes or learning more about the content in question, even when I haven't found it after accessing the source, and I often choose rewording or fixing the references instead of removal when I have the opportunity: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enforced_disappearances_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209604584][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enforced_disappearances_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213352590][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211455507][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thor_Halvorssen_(businessman)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208919306][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213212436].<br /> <br /> :I am very dissapointed that this is the first time that any of these quotes are brought up: not in its references, not in the talk pages, but to make a case against me, as they have with other editors that have challenged their edits, for requesting them in the first place. I don't want to speak on behalf of {{u|Mbinebri}}, but I believe that our exchange was a lot more open and amicable at [[Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt#Recent edits... with more to go(?)]] than the ones that I've had with WMrapids when I have challenged the content. <br /> <br /> {{collapse top|Responses to WMrapids accusations|indent=1.6em}}<br /> * The text's original source about Luis Posada Carriles ({{cite book |last=Bardach |first=Ann Louise |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780375504891 |title=Cuba Confidential: Love and Vengeance in Miami and Havana |publisher=Random House |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-375-50489-1 |pages=184-186 |url-access=registration}}), which describes the group saying {{tq|[he] immediately went to war against the leftist guerrilla movements supported by Castro in Venezuela}}. It directly contradicts the description of {{tq|he participated in the torture of left-wing activists}}.<br /> * [https://books.google.es/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=Exxon&amp;f=false Searching &quot;Exxon&quot; in Google Books] gives back page 56, whose preview doesn't mention anything about Qatar or Vecchio being a tax manager. Looking online, the main websites that have this information are outlets with a heinous reliability record, such as {{RSP entry|The Grayzone|[[The Grayzone]]|d}} [https://thegrayzone.com/2019/06/18/exxon-ambassador-carlos-vecchio-venezuela-coup-lobbyist/] and {{RSP entry|Telesur|[[Telesur]]|d}} [https://www.telesurenglish.net/opinion/Donald-Trumps-War-of-Recolonization-Against-Venezuela-20190201-0015.html], as well as Venezuelan state outlets. ''This was added to the article just months after these articles were published:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Vecchio&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=929539862]''. [https://books.google.es/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA56&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false Modifying the URL solves this issue].<br /> * See [[Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor]] for the CANVAS content. The provided links were broken, Web Archive [https://web.archive.org/web/20240303110440/https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/article/venezuela-marigold-revolution][https://web.archive.org/web/20240303110438/https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/article/venezuela-new-player-mix] didn't throw any results, and I asked for the specific quote. Nothing misleading here, the provided reference did not reflect the added content. I'm glad this has been fixed now.<br /> * The information about the alleged relations between the Venezuelan opposition, Otpor! and CANVAS comes from Wikileaks' &quot;Global Intelligence Files&quot;. This is even mentioned by a source that WMrapids provided:[https://inthesetimes.com/article/wikileaks-docs-expose-famed-serbian-activists-ties-to-shadow-cia Wikileaks Docs Expose Famed Serbian Activist’s Ties to ‘Shadow CIA’]. Stratfor links were broken (see above) and ''[[Le Monde diplomatique]]'' didn't mention Venezuela, something I also asked at [[Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs]]. {{RSP entry|WikiLeaks|[[WikiLeaks]]|gu}} is an unreliable source per [[WP:RS/PS]].<br /> * See S Marshall's comment regarding &quot;shaking down&quot;. I'm not the only person that does not think that &quot;extortion&quot; is the same as &quot;robbing&quot;<br /> * If I recall correctly, I removed the information about children because the sentence talked specifically about evacuation. Yahoo's source was also dead, but can be accessed through Archive and says: {{tq|Several people, including a young girl, have been rescued from Venezuela's Housing Ministry after it was set on fire by anti-government protesters.}}[https://web.archive.org/web/20140425004926/https://uk.news.yahoo.com/venezuela-ministry-torched-protesters-094601485.html#ugF7qD3] If I had removed content simply because the links are dead and I didn't bother trying accessing them, as WMrapids claims, I would have deleted the whole statement, which is clearly not the case.<br /> The only exceptions that I can see are Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung's and Oxford Analytica's sources; in both cases I tagged the sentences accordingly and did not remove the content. I'm finding out about &lt;nowiki&gt;{{verify source}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; due to this thread, and I will probably use in the future in this context. As of López Maya's source, I simply did not find the original source. It is a 25 pages document and WMrapids usually doesn't provide quotes for the references, as I mentioned above.<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> <br /> :I cannot stress how exhausted I am of this. It will be almost a year since this pattern has started since WMrapids started editing in Venezuelan topics. I don't know what to ask anymore besides for the community to make up their position based on this information and to propose a solution. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :&lt;ins&gt;PS: I don't want to delve too much into the POV pushing accusations to not make the thread longer than it already is, and that it is neither the main topic at hand nor diffs have been provided to justify them, but in turn I want to provide a few in response:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209296860][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211821592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209088145]. I don't care about any specific point of view, just about the quality of the sourcing.&lt;/ins&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 18:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{collapse top|&lt;ins&gt;Response about POV&lt;/ins&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)|indent=1.6em}}<br /> :I'll provide more information about the POV, since it is one of the two main topics at hand but I haven't provided a response, although I will collapse this.<br /> <br /> :To describe my editing scope, in en.wiki I'm more interested in updating articles or current events, while in the es.wiki I'm more interested in created new content and starting articles, unless we're talking about translations into English or biographies for [[Women in Red]]. What I wouldn't want is that, given that writing about the current situation in Venezuela reflects negatively on the government, that automatically means having an anti-government POV, which in turns means having a pro-opposition POV. However, I want to leave clear that I am aware of my biases, as they're intrinsic to every person. I'm Venezuelan, which means that I have a different background and experiences from people from the Anglosphere, which is why I also understand the position of many of the participants here.<br /> <br /> :To provide an overview, I was the first person [[Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis#End date|to suggest an end date for the presidential crisis article]]. Since the Punto Fijo governments were brought up, though, as examples, in Spanish I have created the article about the 1969 [[:es:Operación Canguro|Operación Canguro]], the intervention of the Central University of Venezuela by President Rafael Caldera; the 1984 [[:es:Masacre de Tazón|Tazón massacre]], when National Guard soldiers shot at students from the same university; the 1986 [[:es:Masacre de Yumare|Yumare massacre]], during Jaime Lusinchi's government; the 1992 [[:es:Masacre del Retén de Catia|Retén de Catia massacre]], during Carlos Andrés Pérez's second term; and the [[:es:Incendio de Sabaneta de 1994|1994 Sabaneta fire]], the worst prison tragedy in Venezuelan history. I even created an article about a student from the University Simón Bolívar that was killed by the police in 1989, [https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Registro&amp;page=Gonzalo+Jaurena Gonzalo Jaurena], which at the end was ultimately deleted. At es.wiki I likewise used to patrol for vandalism in articles about government officials ([https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=122334298][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=122402239][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=124982674][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=124992363][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=128851475] and trust me, there were plenty) until it became too time consuming.<br /> <br /> :Given that we're discussing a general Latin American topic ban, it should also be useful to discuss other articles from the region. I have likewise edited about human right abuses by right-wing groups (or against left-wing followers) and I think it's important for them to be documented in Wikipedia: Argentina's [[Cecilia Cacabelos]], disappeared during the last military dictatorship; Mexico's [[Halcones (paramilitary group)|Halcones]], responsible for the [[Corpus Christi Massacre]] during the [[Mexican Dirty War|Dirty War]]; the [[1963 Dominican coup d'état]], where leftist President [[Juan Bosch (politician)|Juan Bosch]] was deposed; [[Chile truckers' strike]], supported by the CIA, and the [[2017–2018 Honduran protests]], after conservative [[Juan Orlando Hernández]] was declared elected among irregularities. In Spanish, I have also written about several cases about other countries in the Inter-American Commision of Human Rights: [[:es:Caso Artavia Murillo y otros vs. Costa Rica|1]], [[:es:Caso Barrios Altos c. Perú|2]], [[:es:Caso Bulacio vs. Argentina|3]], [[:es:Caso de la Masacre de Mapiripán vs. Colombia|4]], [[:es:Caso González y otras (Campo Algodonero) vs. México|5]], [[:es:Caso Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica|6]], [[:es:Caso Masacre de Santo Domingo vs. Colombia|7]], [[:es:Caso Masacre Plan de Sánchez vs. Guatemala|8]], [[:es:Caso Montero Aranguren y otros (Retén de Catia) vs. Venezuela|9]], [[:es:Caso Myrna Mack Chang vs. Guatemala|10]], [[:es:Operación Génesis vs. Colombia|11]].<br /> <br /> :I don't want to be defined by my worst moments or mistakes, or that the most recent editorial disputes. 2020, 2021, 2022 and early 2023 were relatively calm years overall. Regardless of the perceived POV, I'm knowledgable in general and I'm really looking forward improving articles. If there are issues in articles, including about neutrality (from human rights to corruption), it's something that can be discussed and I will probably have something to be able to help. Best wishes, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> <br /> ::Given that you are [[Wikipedia:Unblockables#What to expect|attempting to boomerang this back onto me]], as {{ping|JML1148}} mentioned this &quot;unblockable&quot; behavior, I will try to provide a short response.<br /> ::Yes, I may forget to include specific quotes and page numbers on occasion, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that you inaccurately designated content as &quot;failed verification&quot; and removed it inappropriately.<br /> ::You also failed to justify any removal based on &quot;failed verification&quot;:<br /> ::#The Posada information was based on the newspaper article, not the book.<br /> ::#You're attempting to deflect the information on Vecchio to Grayzone (who you personally and understandably have a beef with) instead of ''actually verifying the source itself''.<br /> ::#We can understand that this was an accident, yet this could have been easily verifiable doing an internet search for the article title.<br /> ::#Regarding CANVAS, you inappropriately said the information was from Wikileaks when this was not the case.<br /> ::#The &quot;shakedown&quot; appears up for debate, though looking at [[extortion]], it seems like protesters forcing disapproving people to give them belongs seems like a robbery to me.<br /> ::#The information about children was removed, period. You could have looked at the archived link to El Universal.<br /> ::#Finally, you use the excuse of not being knowledgeable of &quot;verify source&quot;, which seems like a cop out for a ten-year Wikipedia user.<br /> ::So, it still is clear to me that you are deflecting blame and making excuses for your inappropriate behavior on the Project instead of listening to the ''years'' of warnings from other users. I admit to not being a perfect user and [[Talk:Guarimba#Gara|you yourself have clarified things for me]], but I never went as far as being dishonesty. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 17:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I wrote a response towards your accusations. Nothing more, nothing less. You're accusing me of deliberately ignoring the content in the references, and the diffs I provide show this is clearly false. Your lack of URLs, pages and quotes has been the norm, not the exception.<br /> :::If we want to talk about dishonesty, it's probably best to ask: [[WP:IGNOREYOU|if for weeks I had asked for quotes or on what the changes were based]] ([[Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman)#CIA informant accusation]], [[Talk:National Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services#Luis Posada Carriles]], [[Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs]], [[Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia]] and [[Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor]]), why is it only now that you're providing them for the first time? You once said {{tq|it is becoming exhausting that we are arguing over the definition of a shake down now}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1198726221]. Do you find these questions annoying? That is something different and that you can say, but saying that I'm ignoring source content is deceptive. <br /> <br /> :::By providing the sources only now, it shows how easily and accessible it is for you, but here it looks not as an attempt to help with the content verifiability or address my behavior, but rather to sanction me. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :::&lt;small&gt;And talking about the &lt;nowiki&gt;{{verify source}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; tag, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. One thing is tagging, another thing is contesting and removing. I only said that I'll be looking using it more in the future. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Topic ban from Latin American political articles for NoonIcarus===<br /> '''Support topic ban:''' After reviewing the response from NoonIcarus, it appears that they will continue to deflect their misbehavior onto others and have not learned from the years of warnings they have encountered. Again, while I am admittedly not a perfect user myself, it does not justify their [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|dishonest editing]], frequent edit warring and their [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]] in apparent acts of [[WP:ACTIVIST|activism]].--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *No. Proposals are needed here but it's best if they come from uninvolved people.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 18:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Ah, agreed then. I was following [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213458134&amp;oldid=1213457340 the proposals already shared above], so no bad intentions here. Thanks for keeping this discussion in line! [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to WMrapids|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *[Later] This is complicated and hard to resolve. There have been previous reports by both parties and they've often been archived without result. That shouldn't happen again this time, and I've used {{tl|DNAU}} to make sure it doesn't.{{pb}}Aside from the conflict of views about Venezuela, there's an ongoing issue that reduces to citing sources with sufficient precision. NoonIcarus expects citations to be rather precise, and he tags citations he sees as vague. WMrapids' citations are less precise, and he objects to NoonIcarus' insistence. From WMrapids' point of view, NoonIcarus looks like he's [[griefing]]; while from NoonIcarus' point of view, WMrapids is adding material that isn't properly sourced. WMrapids expects NoonIcarus to fix imprecise citations when he finds them; while NoonIcarus wants to tag them for someone else to fix.{{pb}}I think part of what we need to do here is to define good sourcing practice and set expectations about how to deal with citations that have poor precision.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Well, I want to clear this up now. ''My'' point of view is that others shouldn't have to clean up after citations. Now, I get it, my citations weren't exactly the most detailed, but this is something that I can and will improve upon (this also could have all been solved on my talk page if there was actually a sincere concern). The issue I {{underline|''and'' others}} have is that NoonIcarus disingenuously marked content as &quot;failed verification&quot; and removed it, with most of this content being controversial towards the Venezuelan opposition. This is a clear behavioral pattern that NoonIcarus has continuously participated in, which is the true issue before us. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I have asked you countless times for content and sources when in doubt, and both SandyGeorgia and I have asked you to add links in your references previously. This is not a new issue. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 02:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::If editor X adds citations that are hard to verify and Y editor tags them, I'm not sure it's clearcut which editor is expecting others to clean up afterwards. Tagging seems to me the right approach, so the community can improve it. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I want to clarify that I don't mind fixing the references if I have the opportunity, it is something that I have done in the past: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lina_Ron&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1176734099][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Pitazo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1170068469][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Efecto_Cocuyo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1170066080][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Últimas_Noticias&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169968967] I just think this should not be the norm, or at least that the editor can help improving the format if possible. Too much precision probably isn't needed either. Just an URL should work in most cases, as it usually does, but if one isn't available, at least a quote and page. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|S Marshall}} Many thanks for the mediation, by the way. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> * '''Support topic ban on Latin American politics''' -- a wider TB to include politics in general might protect us from possible similar behavior in U.S. politics--especially those that might tangentially overlap with the interest this editor has in Latin American politics. I do think this ban should be extended to Spanish Wikipedia and WikiMedia files, but my understanding is that other languaged Wikipedia have their own judicial proceedings.<br /> :I don't think a site ban is necessary, as I don't think the editor has shown much interest in anything else, and maybe if s/he works on other subject matter might eventually understand just how problematic the behavior has been.<br /> :I agree with other editors that TL;DR is a real problem in this subject area. I think the reason for that has a lot to do with the fact that mainstream RS that is critical of [[United States involvement in regime change]] has been blacklisted on Wikipedia, by citing the mainstream U.S. sources that tend to parrot the U.S. State Department perspective (as I explain at [[WP:RS/N]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&amp;diff=1213759985&amp;oldid=1213754708 here]).<br /> :I remember {{u|NoonIcarus}}'s behavior under the former name {{u|Jamez42}}. In January 2020, s/he received a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions 1-year editing restriction] for behavior like the above. After the editing restriction expired, at some point the behavior returned. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1205311327&amp;oldid=1201962959 warned] him/her on 2/9/24 about repeated reverts of the same material, and s/he immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1205352399&amp;oldid=1205311327 deleted] it without archiving with the edit summary &quot;A single revert does not warrant this warning. Stop this harassment.&quot; --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to David Tornheim|indent=1.6em}}<br /> :*{{comment}} Linking this February thread between the filer and you, for context for the participants: [[User talk:WMrapids#Allegations against NoonIcarus]].<br /> ::I think it would also be helpful if you could specific ''which'' critical mainstream RS sources you're referring to. In {{RSP entry|The Grayzone|[[The Grayzone]]'s|d}} request for comment, you supported that it be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=933946722 categorized either under option 1 or 2], and I supported its deprecation (a decision I wholy stand by, by the way). [https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/ Grayzone's rant about the decision] and their attack against editors, including myself, was one of the reasons why I requested a change for my username. The RfC was also opened three weeks before you filed your own ANI against me four years ago. I really hope this decision of mine is not part of the reason why you're supporting a topic ban. Best wishes. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 23:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No. It's not because of a difference of opinion at a single RfC. It's the POV editing which has gone on for years, which I and numerous other editors have observed and expounded upon here and elsewhere: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoonIcarus&amp;oldid=1205311327#Edit-warring_on_President_of_Venezuela], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive_editing_by_NoonIcarus]. If the warnings were heeded, we would not be here, and I would not be advocating for a topic ban.<br /> :::<br /> :::To give an example of this POV-editing, and what prompted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoonIcarus&amp;oldid=1205311327#Edit-warring_on_President_of_Venezuela this warning]: NoonIcarus kept reverting to his/her preferred claim that the [[President of Venezuela|Presidency of Venezuela]] was disputed. This was no longer tenable ''after'' 30 December 2022, because &quot;Venezuela's opposition national assembly voted...to remove interim President Juan Guaido [and] dissolve his government...&quot; [https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-opposition-removes-interim-president-guaido-2022-12-31/]<br /> :::<br /> :::When at least four editors (one me) tried to remove the claim that the Presidency was still disputed (after 30 December 2022), NoonIcarus reverted, and kept citing an obsolete [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1213024450#RfC:_Is_the_presidency_of_Maduro_currently_disputed? RfC from 10 September 2021] and also despite [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Guaid%C3%B3/Archive_5#RfC:_Is_Juan_Guaido_still_interim_president_of_Venezuela? this RfC closed 3 December 2021] that determined &quot;There is a clear consensus that Juan Guaidó isn’t the interim president of Venezuela.&quot; (In the 3 December 2021 RfC, of the twelve !votes, NoonIcarus was one of only two editors claiming Guaido was still &quot;interim president&quot;.) It wasn't until I filed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1213024450#RfC:_Is_the_presidency_of_Maduro_currently_disputed? this RfC on 9 February 2024] that the matter was settled. It is not surprising that of the eight !votes, NoonIcarus was alone in claiming the Presidency is disputed. I don't consider that cooperative editing and the ability to judge the [[WP:RS]] with [[WP:NPOV]]. It's more like [[WP:OWN|ownership]] and advocacy for the opposition. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 08:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1205354029 A RfC that I suggested myself], about a change that had been disputed by at least two other editors: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=890150780][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131070148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131200793]. It's simply not as you're painting it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209480230 As I said in the RfC itself], if the community is clear on the position, I don't have any issues with the outcome.<br /> ::::I asked before you have been inactive for nearly four years, until WMrapids left a message in your talk page ([[User talk:David Tornheim#Operation Gideon (2020)]]). The actions you're describing are from 2020 and before (already dealt before in the specific ANI) and from this year, not a pattern that has continued over four years. <br /> ::::With that being said, I wonder once again why [[WP:RS/N]] was mentioned here to begin with. Regards, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 12:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You already provided those exact same three diffs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=890150780] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131070148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131200793]) on the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1214192465#Related_RfC here]. My reply included this text from the [[WP:LEDE]] of the [[President_of_Venezuela |article]]: ''&quot;The Venezuelan presidential crisis was a political crisis concerning the leadership and who holds the office remained disputed till 5 January 2023.” '' All three diffs are ''before'' 5 January 2023.<br /> :::::The last two diffs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131070148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131200793]) were from {{u|TEMPO156}} (fka {{u|25stargeneral}}) who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1158279306 reversed] saying “Consensus on the Maduro and Venezuela pages that this can no longer be considered current.” You were already shown that those diffs do not support your insistence—which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1214192465#RfC:_Is_the_presidency_of_Maduro_currently_disputed? no one else shares]—that the Presidency is ''still'' disputed. Yet, here you are showing those same three diffs again to defend your edit-warring ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1178536520&amp;oldid=1176760058 4-Oct-23], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1179611690&amp;oldid=1179610598 11-Oct-23], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1204670549&amp;oldid=1199503956 7-Feb-24], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1204947051&amp;oldid=1204734755 8-Feb-24]) post 5 January 2023 as acceptable. It’s more evidence of your inability to work collaboratively, listen to reasonable concerns, and objectively assess the RS. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::[[Talk:President of Venezuela#Should we stop claiming the status of the Venezuelan presidency is &quot;disputed&quot;?]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 21:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::{{ping|NoonIcarus}} Do you really feel that an RfC from 2021 takes precedence over the changing circumstances described by the [[WP:RS]] that I mention above? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]], your support of Grayzone, a deeply problematic media entity that has even gone after Wikipedia, is rather troubling here. Could you explain your position here? [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&lt;s&gt;i do not wish to become involved in this thread even in the slightest but David supported the ''deprecation'' of Grayzone; evidently he does not support the site itself.&lt;/s&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::He supported &quot;Option 1 or 2&quot;, which suggests we was in favor of keeping it as a source and furthermore says: &quot;Those raised eyebrows are the result of Blumenthal and his writers at Grayzone telling uncomfortable truths that need to be told.&quot; So I'm pretty sure he wasn't exactly supportive of the effort (unless I missed something somewhere else?) [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I misread the comment - {{self-trout}}. Ignore me! &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|David Tornheim}} While we're at it, I also recall that one time, when discussing images for [[Nicolás Maduro]]'s infobox, you described him as follows ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicolás_Maduro&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=933863374]): {{tq|The second image has none of those problems. He is evenly lighted and looks straight into the camera with a somewhat somber but friendly face ready to engage the reporter in an interview. He looks more humble and receptive.}}, and {{tq|Maduro consider[sic] himself to be a man of the people, including the working class, the poor, and the indigenous population, rather than a representative of the elites, as part of chavismo.}}, while also commenting: {{tq|This is problematic given that he is often characterized in the U.S. and Western media--and especially by U.S. officials--as a &quot;dictator&quot; to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives of regime change.}}<br /> :::You have already mentioned your concern about possible disruptive editing by me, but I want to clarify if your POV concerns are because it can differ from yours. Could you provide more insight into these comments? --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> * '''Support topic ban on Latin American politics''' Noonicarus' editing is, in large part, political activism. Noonicarus' is here purely to ensure that articles on Latin American topics have an anti-socialist bias in general, and an anti-Venezuelan-regime bias in particular. While these opinions are perfectly acceptable, in my view, their editing on this topic runs foul of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. All editors, including myself, have political biases, but I am 100% sure that Noonicarus views their contribution to wikipedia as part of the struggle against the Venezuelan regime. <br /> <br /> :They have explicitly declared that they believe &quot;mainstream news sources&quot; to be superior to academic scholarship, which is the opposite to our actual policy. For example, they [[Talk:Caracazo#POV_tag|recently]] spent a long time arguing against the inclusion in the text of the term &quot;massacre&quot; (used by many academic sources) to describe the killing of thousands of civilians by Venezuelan security forces in 1989. Their justification was that some Venezuelan news sources do not use the term. They have also dedicated a massive amount of time to attempting to enforce [[WP:VENRS]], which is an attempt to exclude any news sources from Venezuela which do not have a pro-opposition bias. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 20:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :&lt;small&gt;{{comment}} Boynamedsue is involved in the dispute from this discussion: [[Talk:Guarimba#Tags]] --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 08:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Boynamedsue|indent=1.6em}}<br /> ::I agree with ''all'' of your observations. Since resuming editing on 2/6/24, I have seen this troubling behavior in the articles you mention while it was happening (as well as back in 2019-2020), even if I did not comment on it.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Context here [[Talk:Caracazo#POV tag]] and here [[Talk:Caracazo#Sources]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 23:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] is well within his rights to enforce [[WP:VENRS]], it {{strikethrough|is a Wikipedia standard policy and}} should not be characterized as &quot;an attempt to exclude any news sources from Venezuela which do not have a pro-opposition bias.&quot; Frankly, I find that choice of characterization very concerning. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{Tq|it is a Wikipedia standard policy}}. [[WP:VENRS]] is not a [[WP:POLICY]]. It is just an essay documenting the WikiProject Venezuela local consensus on those sources. That is useful, and I think the fix there if the list is wrong is to talk it out on the VENRS talk page and then update VENRS. But let's be careful of the terminology we use. VENRS is definitely not a Wikipedia policy. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 19:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Commented [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215643191 below]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' I have many South American election articles on my watchlist and I have regularly seen NoonIcarus making POV edits over a period of several years, mostly to Venezuelan articles, but occasionally to other articles where there is a prominent leftist candidate/party. This has often involved selectively removing information that is inconvenient to their POV with somewhat dubious reasons (which is the original complaint here). Frankly I'm amazed they have lasted this long on Wikipedia given their long history of POV-pushing. [[User:Number 57|&lt;span style=&quot;color: orange;&quot;&gt;Number&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Number 57|&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;5&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;7&lt;/span&gt;]] 00:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN''' per my previous comments. It's very clear NoonIcarus needs something to restrain their blatant NPOV editing. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 05:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to JML1148|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:I assume you mean &quot;POV-pushing&quot; editing, because &quot;blatant NPOV&quot; editing would imply he was doing a blatantly good job. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support TBAN''' at the absolute minimum with the information provided by {{u|David Tornheim}}. There's [[WP:ROPE|no more rope]] here. – [[User:The Grid|&lt;span style=&quot;color:navy&quot;&gt;The Grid&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:The Grid|&lt;span style=&quot;color:navy&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 16:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' as target. WMrapids accused me of intentionally ignoring content. The diffs that I provided not only show my attention to the sources, but in many cases asking for even further information ([[Special:Diff/1208181859|1]] [[Special:Diff/1210109390|2]] [[Special:Diff/1211947657|3]] [[Special:Diff/1212414419|4]]). These charges against editors that have contested their changes aren't new ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#WikiLeaks edit|1]] [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#RfC: La_Patilla|2]] [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Take a break|3]] [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Ownership edits on Venezuelan topics?|4]] [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#User:Elelch|5]]), and the archived ANI complaints show this has been a long standing and unanswered issue ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS|1]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:WMrapids (blanking)|2]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids|3]]). WMrapids' bludgeoning has driven active participants from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela|Wikiproject Venezuela]] away ([[Special:Diff/1183391428|1]], [[Special:Diff/1185249115|2]], [[Special:Diff/1185571771|3]], of which I'm apparently the last one remaining) and the community shouldn't forget either about the excessive RfCs ([[Talk:La Patilla#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|1]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|2]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Source description dispute|3]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 415#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|4]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#WP:VENRS|5]]) that exhausted unrelated contributors ([[Special:Diff/1159504696|1]] [[Special:Diff/1159920143|2]] [[Special:Diff/1160230663|3]] [[Special:Diff/1159529215|4]]). A TBAN won't solve the underlying issues nor provide an answer to previous complaints. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to NoonIcarus|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:Responding to your claims of being a target, it is ridiculous as it is plain to see in the responses above that ''multiple'' users have had issues with your editing behavior across the project. It appears that your edits have a POV bias towards maintaining the positive image of the Venezuelan government following the signing of the [[Puntofijo Pact]] (while I have seen a similar description occasionally in sources, you frequently describe it as the &quot;democratic period&quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1211821592&amp;oldid=1211362450][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AHistory_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1211463049&amp;oldid=1208843652] or similar) and [[WP:BADPOV|discounting human rights abuses]] performed by the &quot;democratic&quot; government ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caracazo&amp;diff=1210485863&amp;oldid=1210441857], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enforced_disappearances_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1212418745&amp;oldid=1212418411], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_massacres_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1197735324&amp;oldid=1197689368], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caracazo&amp;diff=1206271251&amp;oldid=1203757558]) while overtly promoting a negative image of the government following the [[Bolivarian Revolution]]. This is even more clear with your repeated dismissal of academic sources, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APuntofijo_Pact&amp;diff=1213233281&amp;oldid=1204958950 minimizing them as &quot;opinions&quot; for the Puntofijo Pact article], something already mentioned above by {{ping|Boynamedsue}}.<br /> *:Further, while reviewing your edits some more, I even {{underline| found ''another'' &quot;failed verification&quot; edit from 2022 performed by you that was inaccurate}}; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1122685006&amp;oldid=1117054689 you removed] {{tq|&quot;President Maduro denied the allegations, saying torture had not occurred in Venezuela since Hugo Chávez became president&quot;}} when [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-protests-allegations-idUSBREA1P1AF20140226/ the Reuters article] ''clearly'' states {{tq|&quot;MADURO DENIES TORTURE ... The president says torture ended in Venezuela with the arrival of President Hugo Chavez, his socialist predecessor and mentor, in 1999. 'Commander Chavez never gave the order to torture anyone. We came from that school of thought,' Maduro said.&quot;}} Such repetitive behavior of participating in (using [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213308839 the description] of {{ping|JCW555}}) &quot;'failed verification' lies&quot; over ''years'' raises questions of whether an even more severe ban from editing is justified.<br /> *:Regarding the further [[Wikipedia:Unblockables#What to expect|boomerang attempts]], I learned from my mistakes with feedback from other users, which I have accepted, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1179130217&amp;oldid=1179019455 especially regarding RfCs] (which were mainly opened due to [[WP:STONEWALL|stonewalling]] from NoonIcarus). As for other users not participating, Venezuelan politics are ''very'' contentious and are obviously exhausting to edit about (I feel it, trust me), so of course users will come and go. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Members|Other WikiProject Venezuela members]] are still clearly active and choose not to participate in the articles that you are interested in, which is their own decision, but if there were an issue with my behavior in particular, they could have raised concerns on my talk page or on this very noticeboard. So, exaggerating and saying {{tq|&quot;I'm apparently the last one remaining&quot;}} shows how you view yourself as making some sort of last stand, which is further evidence that you are engaged in [[WP:ACTIVIST|activist]] edits to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|right great wrongs]] and clearly demonstrates that [[Wikipedia:NOTHERE|you are not here to build an encyclopedia]].<br /> *:After seeing the further deflection, your continued editing behavior that has not improved over years of warnings (especially after [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|the ANI]] raised by {{ping|David Tornheim}} in 2020) and the additional &quot;failed verification&quot; edit mentioned above that occurred years ago raises the question; '''is a {{underline|permanent ban for NoonIcarus}} more appropriate?''' [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 06:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213949723] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214571997] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209296860][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211821592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208764769], see response above). --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No, a permanent ban is certainly not appropriate, and even a topic ban is marginal. This whole things seems to be a rather roundabout way of you saying you disagree with NoonIcarus about what constitutes NPOV. The best thing to do would be to talk about your differences with respect to what you think NPOV is on these articles in some section of WikiProject Venezuela and come to an NPOV consensus there. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 04:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I see that once again, the sheer volume of text we've produced deters uninvolved people from reading it, and I hope that any further contributions from involved people are both (1) absolutely necessary and (2) very succinct indeed.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I have a question here. Would it be a good idea to call in other editors of [[WP:WikiProject Venezuela | WikiProject Venezuela]] to get a second opinion on these charges. I'd like to get people who know a lot about the subject to comment, and I feel we're missing a significant portion of the community here who might know a lot about the topic, but at the same time, I don't want to accidentally [[WP:CANVAS]]. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 14:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{re|Allan Nonymous}} NoonIcarus [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|did this in a former ANI]] and some saw that as inappropriate and borderline canvassing, so we should avoid doing this again. It is also better that we have users independent of the topic who can make their decision solely based on reviewing behavior and edits. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 20:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Probably nobody would answer, at any rate. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' I'm involved to the extent that I am a participant to an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venezuela and state-sponsored terrorism|open AfD discussion]] initiated by VMRapids on an article created by NoonIcarus, otherwise, to the best of my memory, prior to that AfD, I had not edited articles related to Venezuelan politics. &lt;small&gt;(Subsequent to participation in that AfD I made some edits [[InSight Crime|to a US thinktank]] cited in the discussion).&lt;/small&gt; The key question here is whether there is a pattern of POV editing favourable to the Venezuelan opposition being masked by claims over source veracity. As the Venezuelan government seeks to delegitimise the opposition because of its so-called &quot;foreigness&quot; or so-called &quot;terrorism&quot;, it is understandable that it will be contentious the extent to which the opposition is depicted as lacking endogeneity or engages in actions which may be deemed criminal. Nevertheless, with the evidence presented as it has been, the approriate response would not be to (a) throw accusations back at the filer and (b) to relitigate every edit, but rather to present evidence that one's editing is NPOV via a pattern of equal concern with the veracity of all sourcing in the subject area, not just the veractiy of sourcing which suits the editor's POV. Yet, the attempts to do this show a pattern of edits which reinforce negative aspects of the government or people associated with it and favourable aspects of the opposition. There is a consistent pattern of POV editing in the topic area. There does not appear to be any substantial reflection of a even a single mistake made or a point in time where the editor could have approached issues differently (reducing this to a &quot;technical&quot; issue of incorrect tagging avoids the core issue). FWIW, I think it is reasonable that the community draws VMRapids' attention to a lack of precision regarding their citations and a requirement for pinpoint referencing when possible (ie books, journal articles), especially given many elements of this are broadly wihtin a contentious topic area (post-1992 US politics). Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 23:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''', stonewalling, general combativeness, POV issues, etc. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 11:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''&lt;s&gt;STRONGLY&lt;/s&gt; Oppose topic ban''', while I personally agree that NoonIcarus seems to not have edited in the most consensus seeking way he could, it is clear that these are highly opinionated articles where the interpretation of sources is widely disputed. Hence, he seems to be following one interpretation, and WMrapids seems to be following another. As a result, I believe the best approach is for there to be a general discussion about the factual issues at hand and the sources somewhere to resolve this rather than using topic bans. --[[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous#top|talk]]) 21:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Allan Nonymous|indent=1.6em}}<br /> ::The problem is the consistent rejection of sources which disagree with them, to the point where they edit with an inverted hierarchy of sources: Noonicarus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGuarimba&amp;diff=1185626988&amp;oldid=1185457033 specifically states] that academic journals are inferior to Venezuelan news sources.<br /> <br /> ::They have also carefully curated a list of Venezuelan news ([[WP:VENRS]]) sources which excludes any source deemed to have pro-regime bias, but not sources containing pro-opposition bias, and frequently referred to it to support their arguments. They have shown no self-awareness or contrition here, no desire to change their editing style. Due to their prolific editing, they are, in effect, a one-user article-biasing machine.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :::This is not true. Unreliable anti-government listed in [[WP:VENRS]] include but are not limited to ''El American'', ''Factores de Poder'' and ''Periodista Digital''. You can see an example of me disputing said sources while citing WP:VENRS at [[Pablo Kleinman]], for instance: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Kleinman&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1068240983][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Kleinman&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1115210880][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Kleinman&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169647438] At any rate, WP:VENRS currently prioritizes descriptions from [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]], accepting the community's wider consensus. You can likewise see me recommending academic sources here: [[Talk:Caracazo#Sources]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::If you think that's an issue take that up with [[WP:VENRS]]. He's within his rights to enforce a Wikipedia policy. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 13:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::[[WP:VENRS]] is not a wikipedia policy, it is an essay written largely by Noonicarus.--[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 15:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Ah, I see. Well, in that case, an RfC concerning [[WP:VENRS]] might be a good idea. I think it would be greatly beneficial to get a consensus reliable sources list here given the issue. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 16:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{ping|Allan Nonymous}} Hi. WP:VENRS has had at least three RfCs (where some of the editors here have participated in), all started by WMrapids, of which the first two were withdrawn, in part due to the amount opened at the time and their broadness ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|RfC:WPVENRS]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#WP:VENRS|WP:RS/N#WP:VENRS]] and &quot;[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Source description dispute|Source description dispute]]&quot;). I don't want to speak on behalf of other participants, but from what I gather the consensus was that it was better to discuss the reliability of the sources in a case to case basis, if there were any doubts, which is what happened with {{RSP entry|''La Patilla''|[[La Patilla]]|nc}}. One of the points of contention was that I removed many state-owned sources from several articles and cited WP:VENRS as a justification, which is what Boynamedsue is probably referring to. I want to leave clear that I have never claimed that WP:VENRS should be applied as a policy, citing it instead as an example of [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] (just as the list of sources that other WikiProjects have), and since it is clear this has been controversial, I have not done this again since December and don't intend that to do it again. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::@[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]], Why did you ever think it appropriate to remove material and sources on the basis of an article which is clearly marked as &lt;b&gt;opinion&lt;/b&gt;? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::{{ping|TarnishedPath}} I'm not sure if I follow. Do you mean WP:VENRS or the sources themselves?<br /> ::::::::There were to main reasons for this. I mostly focused in references from the [[Bolivarian Communication and Information System]] state media conglomerate (but not limited to it; I also removed scores of references from [[EcuRed]] because its content is user generated, but I did open a thread at the RSN when there was opposition to it), including [[Venezolana de Televisión]], whose comments can be found here: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Bolivarian Communication and Information System|Talk:WP:VENRS#Bolivarian Communication and Information System]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#La Iguana|Talk:WP:VENRS#La Iguana]]. The first reason was [[WP:TELESUR]]'s deprecation at RS/P, because Telesur is part of the conglomerate and other of its outlets routinely cite it for fact.<br /> ::::::::The second reason are the sources individual histories with reliability, including {{ill|Alba Ciudad|es}} (discussion here: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Alba Ciudad|Talk:WP:VENRS#Alba Ciudad]]), besides the ones mentioned above. The sources lack editorial independence overall or fact checking.<br /> ::::::::I did not remove the sources merely because they are state-controlled or pro-government, but because of the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability principles]] and of their reliability track record, or in other words, per [[WP:GUNREL]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Boynamedsue and Novem Linguae clarified that it was an essay from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela|WikiProject Venezuela]] before I could. However, I'll link its talk page ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|Talk:WP:VENRS]]) and note that a rationale and a description are usually offered to justify the classifications, as it would happen in the RS noticeboard. The assesment is not capricious, and the description from [[WP:RS/P]] is always used first when available (which represents a wider community consensus). If anything, more people is invited to participate. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support tban''' as even the more &quot;defensible&quot; uses of failed Verification often seem a somewhat inappropriate and as it does seem like a pattern of POV pushing. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Simonm223|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:I think that NoonIcarus is largely editing in good faith here, and only about half (3/8, from sources cited as concerning by WMRapids) of his most troubling edits were deemed inappropriate. A warning and or 1RR for NoonIcarus seems more appropriate. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 14:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::FYI. I engaged in a brief discussion with {{u|Allan Nonymous}} about the numerous posts at this [[WP:AN/I]] [[User_talk:Allan_Nonymous#Comment_from_David_Tornheim|here]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Allan_Nonymous&amp;oldid=1215346160#Comment_from_David_Tornheim permalink]) --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 16:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks for adding this here! Is there a way you make sure to include the whole page in your link, just in case things things change there in the future? [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 16:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you, that provides additional context which reinforces my support for the tban as the most appropriate remedy. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support topic ban''': I guess I can't say I'm an uninvolved editor, as WMRapids cites me as the first one to bring to attention NoonIcarus' dubious removal of sourced content and NoonIcarus and I had many past debates over my bias concerns. It's been my long-held observation that NoonIcarus has been rewriting articles like [[2002 Venezuelan coup attempt]] to push an anti-government narrative using more subtle tactics like overweighting anti-government content/sources, using selective attribution to portray pro-government views as biased opinions (while anti-government views are portrayed as fact), as well as the at-issue tendency to challenge and remove ideologically-inconvenient sourcing and info on, to be generous, ''thin'' grounds. I'm not gonna lie though—it's been cleverly done and I burnt out trying to fight it, hence my lack of involvement in the current debates. I don't vote this way lightly, as NoonIcarus has always been cordial and willing to discuss things, and I certainly don't blame anyone for hating the Venezuelan government. But it seems I'm not the only one alarmed by NoonIcarus' ideological rewriting, and if it's spreading to articles across the entire topic of Latin American politics, I would say it's finally time to stop this. [[User:Mbinebri|Mbinebri]] ([[User talk:Mbinebri|talk]]) 16:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Mbinebri|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:This is a really compelling argument for a TBAN, and frankly, I share your concerns here. I think it's clear that NoonIcarus should consider making changes to his editing strategy, especially given that this has been raised as an issue before. For now, at least, I still feel that a TBAN is going too far, but these concerns will need to be addressed one way or another. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 16:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::You've made your vehement opposition to a tban very clear by now. But the thing is I remember run-ins with NoonIcarus under their prior handle going back years and it was, honestly, the exact same pattern. They should seriously consider finding some other area of the project to work on where they can operate more collaboratively and I doubt they will without some compulsion. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Personally, the arguments made here have, at least, reduced the intensity of my opposition here. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|Mbinebri}} This really chimes with me, Noonicarus is not here to annoy or troll anybody, and the origin of their bias is understandable. However, the volume of their edits and the lengths they go to in defending them means that very few users have the energy to confront them consistently. Overall this is leading to a bias problem spread throughout our Venezuelan politics articles.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 16:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::It seems that this describes [[WP:COMPETENCE]] more than disruptive editing. Still, I thank you for your comments. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I agree with you guys that the volume of the edits made and the aggressive reverts without seeking community consensus are a real concern. If anything this AN/I has taught me the importance of seeking consensus. NoonIcarus, is clearly falling short here often, and I feel a bit of understandable sympathy here (you should see the numbers I used to pull on old articles when I was younger, not my proudest work). At the same time, it is my opinion that NPOV is reached by taking the collective voices and perspectives of a wide variety of editors. My concern with a TBAN is, if NoonIcarus leaves, as a major contributor, could lead to a disproportionate under representation of his views among those who edit Venezuelan articles, leading to a worse [[WP:BALANCE]] overall, even if less edits are made disruptively by the remaining members. If there is evidence this will not be issue, I am more than willing to further reduce my opposition to a TBAN (as I have already done to some degree). This, I think cuts to the core of my concern here. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 17:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{re|Allan Nonymous}} I respect your sentiment and thought the same thing during my initial edits with NoonIcarus. They are fairly knowledgeable about such topics, but it depends on ''how'' you use such knowledge. It is important for us all to recognize that [[Wikipedia:YANI|we are not irreplaceable]] and our misbehavior on the project does have consequences. I've sincerely tried many things to avoid conflict with NoonIcarus ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1209395892&amp;oldid=1209308986 including this recommendation], though it returned to edit warring), but as you can see from other users, NoonIcarus' editing behavior has been a repetitive problem. While NoonIcarus portrays themself as {{tq|&quot;the last one remaining&quot;}}, I have shown that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214797142 WikiProject Venezuela members are still active] and others in this discussion (including myself) have shared their own unsympathetic feelings towards the Venezuelan government ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215354288&amp;oldid=1215353940], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215347521&amp;oldid=1215347383]). So rest assured, such topics will be okay, and I'm glad that you are using this opportunity to reflect on your own editing as well. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Links to some of the own olive branches I have extended to WMrapids in the past:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169157951][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1191955462], and linking full last talk page exchange: [[User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 10#Future collaboration recommendations]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|Mbinebri}} While I naturally disagree with your topic ban support, I want to thank you for your comments about our exchanges being cordial. Stay safe. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> :::::Here's what I feel might be a good compromise? '''Article Ban on Latam Politics''', with a possibility for review at some point. This allows NoonIcarus to participate in the topic through talk page discussions (i.e. to suggest changes in policy/flag sources he may find problematic) without disrupting the articles or leading to edit warring. This might allow NoonIcarus to participate, so long as he remains within consensus as other editors can take up his suggestions. If he shows signs of working well on talk pages, then he can be allowed back on the articles. So far, I have seen him work well in discussions. In addition to this, as a show of good faith, I would hope NoonIcarus would open an RfC with respect to [[WP:VENRS]] so that we could make it more clear which were good and bad sources,as well a more general policy with regards to academic versus media sources (in particular, we should be careful when the academic sources about current political events). This would help reduce a lot of future lack of clarity on vague sources and what sources we should be using which has been a major contributor to this. Let me know your thoughts on this people. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Allan Nonymous' article ban suggestion|indent=1.6em}}<br /> ::::::{{re|Allan Nonymous}} [[Wikipedia:AAB|Users can request to be unblocked on their own talk page]]. I might have seen custom restrictions before where administrators suggest against blocked users from making a block appeal for a certain period of time (For example: ''User banned from Latin American political topics: May appeal in one year''), but not too sure on this. Wanted to make sure that you know that not all blocks have to be permanent. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 01:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::I am aware here, but my hope is that this will prevent another case of &quot;this user gets TBAN unblocked after a year/two/three&quot; and goes right back to what didn't work before. This sort of approach would might help him and other people find a way to productively work together, instead of just creating a cycle. That's my thought, at least. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 02:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::That's why a topic ban is the right solution and your &quot;compromise&quot; won't work--the behavior extends to talk pages and the disruption would continue there. If NoonIcarus is going to learn proper editing behavior, they need to steer clear of politics.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::It is clear that the primary concern here are edits made to mainspace articles, and the vast majority of concerning edits are made there. I am disappointed to see that you seem to treating this as a punitive response given the general consensus that topic bans are not punitive. I am making an effort here to seek consensus, so I hope you are willing to do so as well. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 12:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::This is a misinterpretation of what has been said. Your continued response to every editor is verging on [[WP:IDHT]] and I would gently suggest your opinion has been heard and it would be wise to step back and allow a consensus to emerge. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::I'm a little confused by your concerns of [[WP:IDHT]] here? I agree that at the beginning of this discussion, I responded to a lot of different editors (this is my first AN/I so I didn't fully understand the discussion protocol and I apologize for that) but this was a response with regards to a consensus seeking solution and is is to an editor I have engaged with multiple times, as part of a discussion largely regarding an effort to &quot;step back and allow a consensus to emerge&quot;. If you could clarify a little more your concerns (maybe on a different page, as this may be off topic to the discussion), I would be more than happy to attempt to address them. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 18:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::Effectively half of this discussion consists of you replying to every other post to argue your case. You've been cautioned about [[WP:BLUDGEON]] once already. You don't need to reply to every post here. Doing so will do nothing more than raise questions about why you are so passionately defending NoonIcarus. So you should really stop. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::I apologize that at the beginning of this AN/I I replied over enthusiastically, this is my first AN/I so mistakes are bound to happen. At the same time, this section of the AN/I is mostly me asking [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] about my concerns about any action taken, and I was glad so see here that he mostly addressed those concerns. Hence '''I have significantly reduced my opposition to a TBAN'''. Furthermore, I did ask and still have actively raised serious concerns about [[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] citing [[WP:VENRS]] which I have continued to raise and hope he can make a good faith effort to address. I, personally, don't feel my recent efforts fit very well into a case of [[WP:BLUDGEON]] or [[WP:IDHT]], but I do appreciate your feedback here. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 14:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::@[[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]], I have been watching this thread and your replies have been coming up in my notices a lot. You should listen to Simon. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Notifying {{ping|Allan Nonymous}}, since it's their comment after all: do you agree that your comments in these responses to Mbinebri are collapsed? If so, do you have a preference if they are displayed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215867046 this way] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215873477 this way] (the current one)? --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> <br /> ===Indefinite block for NoonIcarus===<br /> *'''Support indef''' - per WMRapids’ opening statements and the statements of [[User:JML1148|JML1148]], [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]], [[User:Number 57]] and others here. This is a clear [[WP:SPA]] account with numerous examples of bad faith editing, resulting in a previous one year editing restriction. Now this. Enough is enough, I’m calling for an indefinite block. [[User:Jusdafax|Jusdafax]] ([[User talk:Jusdafax|talk]]) 23:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===TLDR===<br /> <br /> Disclaimer: I personally am not an &quot;involved party&quot; in the case however, I have interacted with several of the editors in other cases. My position on the topic ban proposed is &quot;STRONGLY oppose&quot;.<br /> <br /> This is an effort to provide a brief summary of the events leading up to and the part of the vast, wall-of-text dispute titled &quot;NoonIcarus and 'Failed verification'&quot; in an attempt to make it easier for other users whose eyes may glaze over at the sight of so many words, inspired by the suggestion of [[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]].<br /> <br /> The dispute here starts with a complaint from [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] concerning [[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] removing a variety of citations and associated text using the tag &quot;failed verification&quot;. Of these, NoonIcarus is a confirmed Spanish speaker and member of Wikimedia Venezuela, WMrapids is a member of English Wikipedia's Peru project. This notable here as the articles the two seem to primarlily edit concern latin american history, mostly, Venezuela. After consulting with members of the Wikipedia discord concernin the best editing practices, it is clear that this is generally considered acceptable within the confines of Wikipedia. Furthermore, in articles for controversial topics, it is considered standard practice (better to say nothing than something controversial). However, it quickly became clear that issue involved was not merely the use of &quot;failed verification&quot; efforts but whether these efforts systematically contributed to a POV. Some of the edits appeared more than defensible, others were significantly more dubious and it may have been possible NoonIcarus was removing sources that were in fact verifiable. From there, debate escalated to a wider debate around whether NoonIcarus' editing approach was approrpiate for the topic, particular concerns were raised about edit warring. A possible mitigating factor was raised that, if WMrapids was making unsourced edits, these may have been partially justifiable. There was no general total community consensus about the veracity of the allegations, but it does seem that at least some of the edits were to actually verifiable content. After this, NoonIcarus was given an opportunity to respond to the complaint. '''[This is Part 1 of a Multi-Part series, more to follow.]''' [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :NoonIcarus provided a report responding to the allegations made. The report was not directly responded to, but discussions on the original complaint did continue afterwards. Soon after, WMrapids, immediately made a request for a topic ban on NoonIcarus concerning Latin American political articles. This was immediately good-faith rejected (and the request was later voluntarily withdrawn) on the grounds that a complaint filer cannot be the one to initiate such action. Another user made supported the request which was then considered the initial request. Tensions at this point were high. NoonIcarus' response to this topic ban attacked WMrapids, claiming the user was a toxic influence on the English language Wikipedia's Venezuela project, and that additionally, a series of aggressive rolling RfCs he had made against existing policies on articles was &quot;exhausting and demoralizing&quot; members of the Wikipedia Venezuela project, as part of an effort to support his agenda. WMrapids and some other involved editors countered these claims with claims he was selectively ignoring evidence that went counter to positions amenable to his own agenda. '''[This is Part 2 of a Multi-Part series, more to follow.]''' [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{comment}} Just to mention that I'd be happy to answer any related questions. I don't want to cram this thread any further, but it could really benefit from clarification to non-involved editors, so they could be broken into sections or collapsed. WMrapids should be given the same courtesy as an involved user, as they probably and understandably will disagree with some of my replies. I'll provide an answer to the POV pushing accusations as a collapsed hatnote below my first response &lt;ins&gt;(added '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215919160 here]''')&lt;/ins&gt;. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 00:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Moved prior comment to correct section. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:Wrong place to put this, this is for discussion and summary, if you want to stake your position on the TBAN, post in that section. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 13:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::I really need to stop using the mobile interface. I intended to post there. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Can we close this?===<br /> Honestly I think this discussion has progressed as far as it is going to. I'd ask for an admin to review and determine appropriate consensus. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I provided one last response regarding POV '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215919160 here]'''. New participants can drop the last thoughts before closure. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 22:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I agree with {{u|Simonm223}}. Having those who have already commented continue to edit this thread and add more diffs and never-ending argument/counter-argument is tiresome for readers. I can suggest one admin who has already shown a willingness to review one of these lengthy discussions (about this topic) and make a final ruling. If another admin believes it is acceptable to ping them and ask for their help here, please advise.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It might be better, now that a request has been made (and given the fact that this is at the top of AN/I) for you not to ping admins, and for one to naturally come around and close this. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 03:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> '''SEND TO ARBCOM'''. I am not surprised to see a citation tagging incident escalating to a show of blatant and shameless partisan participation at ANI while I have been on a mostly-break since early December when two of my closest friends died coincidentally on the same day, and I knew that I could not reasonably deal with serious grieving and WMRapids' editing at the same time. Editing around WMRapids since I first looked in to these recurring issues in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids_and_WP:ASPERSIONS Aug 2023] and found few admins or independent editors willing to engage (for example, zero feedback at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_106#Nelson_Bocaranda NPOV noticeboard], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive352#Nelson_Bocaranda BLP noticeboard], and much more in other places) has required CONSTANT citation cleanup, correction of failed verification and flagging the use of non-reliable sources and much more, complicated by WMRapids' failure to engage collaboratively on talk, as documented in three full archives of one article only at least. {{pb}} When I engaged initially, I had hoped that the [[J. K. Rowling]] experience could repeat, via a combination of patience and demonstrating collaborative editing to yield good results, but that was not to be the case. {{pb}} When I had to also deal with serious real life loss and grief, I gave up and left Wikipedia almost entirely, because the situation has such a long history of diffs and behaviors and hounding and aspersions that have gone ignored at noticeboards, that it really belongs at ARBCOM where it can receive a dispassionate and non-partisan examination of long-standing behavioral issues and polite POV pushing, and I just have not been in an emotional place to be able to face the work required. There is plenty detailed in the talk archives of Operation Gideon ([[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5]], [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 6]] and [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7]]) and plenty at WMRapids' user talk, (samples, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;oldid=1180799100#Bludgeoning,_personalization,_and_multiple_faulty_RFCs] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;oldid=1180799100#Copyright_and_copying_within]) but I see (again) few people taking the time to understand the full situation.<br /> <br /> I found this thread because I received an email ping this week from Tornheim [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)&amp;oldid=1215578894#Do_we_still_need_the_POV_tag?_If_so,_why? here], on a page where Tornheim admits not reading the talk page, did not examine even the most recent edits, and the POV tag was clearly reinstated by WMRapids,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Gideon_(2020)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209503834] which is easily apparent in recent edits and detailed on talk. It is not surprising that anyone would give up in the environment I experienced in trying to edit around WMRapids, and simply tag their edits as failing verification, as they usually do, as seen in three archives on that talk page, because after months and months of dealing with similar editing behaviors, one tires of having to do all of the EXTENSIVE cleanup required from their style of editing. I am not yet ready to face situations like this again on Wikipedia, but I do have months worth of diffs showing recurring POV and failure to use and cite adequate sources (see the three pages of talk archives mentioned above, but there is much more and in more places). Should anyone take the time to send this situation to ArbCom where it belongs, I could eventually provide diffs including those showing why the community has not been able to deal with this, but I am now on an extended vacation visiting my children and have a long drive home next week. This thread is a fine example of using ANI to eliminate one editor with whom others disagree over something fairly minor in comparison to the other behaviors seen in several articles by other editors. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I wanted to propose this, but I'm unfamiliar with the requirements to start a case there. It will definitely help handling such a complex issue. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :When multiple users, who even state that they hold a similar POV to NoonIcarus (not being sympathetic to the government), say that there is a severe and consistent POV issue, that is not something &quot;fairly minor.&quot;--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I agree that this needs escalating to Arbcom. I think there's detectable brigading going on in this AN/I and that's why no uninvolved sysop has stepped up to deal with it.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 11:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't agree with your &quot;[[Wikipedia:Tag team|brigading]]&quot; assessment as it appears that the majority of these users have not been involved with one another. Being transparent, David did mention to me on how to correctly present an ANI somewhere before possibly, but this ANI seems clearly appropriate given that NoonIcarus disingenuously applied the &quot;failed verification&quot; tag and removed material.<br /> *::&lt;s&gt;That's not true, though. I've had editorial disputes with the majority of users that support a topic ban against me, which is understandable given how controversial the topic is. I haven't brought it up to not sidetrack the discussion, but I'd be happy to comment more about it if needed.&lt;/s&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::&lt;small&gt;Striking since I misread. Apologies. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *:SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus do have a history of collaborating together for years, however, which makes it interesting that SandyGeorgia began editing again at the same time this ANI was opened and became involved after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandyGeorgia&amp;diff=1213952863&amp;oldid=1213117743 NoonIcarus contacted them in their talk page.] Allan Nonymous' mention of discussing this ANI on Discord was something new to me, too.<br /> *:As for Arbcom, I'm open for whatever may aid with settling disputes, but there seems to be a solid consensus of users supporting a topic ban for NoonIcarus. MoneyTrees, who is a member of Arbcom, was involved earlier on in this discussion. Would it be appropriate to ping them and ask their opinion? [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 13:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I think the reason this hasn't been closed is because you're right. There does ''seem'' to be a solid consensus. People qualified to close this might be a bit wary of it, though. I very much doubt if MoneyTrees would oppose an escalation to Arbcom in the circumstances, but if you'd like to ask them, you're welcome to do so. SandyGeorgia edits widely in controversial areas and it's not at all unusual for her edits to intersect with someone else's, but if you have concerns or suspicions about her, feel free to raise them at Arbcom when I open the case, or here now, or in any other appropriate place of you choice. Sandy won't be angry or defensive if you do, but she might be amused.{{pb}}To be quite frank, the only reason I didn't open an Arbcom case this morning is because Sandy wants to be involved and this isn't the best time for her. So I'm holding fire.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 14:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I would appreciate feedback from at least one admin about whether they feel it necessary to escalate this incident to Arbcom before we just decide to supersede the obvious consensus here. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::We don't need an admin's consent to escalate to Arbcom, because Arbcom's where you go when uninvolved admins ''aren't'' stepping up to deak with the problem.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 15:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Then I trust, when you've created this arbcom case, it will accurately reflect that the core subject is NoonIcarus' edit history and will notify all editors involved in the AN/I discussion. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::That is one of the core subjects, yes, although I hope to persuade Arbcom to accept a case whose scope is ''Conduct in articles about the current politics and recent history of Venezuela.'' I certainly don't intend to make ''everyone'' who's posted here a party to the case, and it's not needful to notify non-parties. I'll notify parties to the case on their talk pages, and in the interests of transparency I'll also place notices here in this thread and on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela]].—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Butting in here; some three months ago, I was on the verge of taking these disputes to ARBCOM, because the conduct and content issues are inextricably linked, and there's experienced editors shielding disruptive editors on both &quot;sides&quot; of this dispute. I desisted largely because I wouldn't be able to participate in the evidence phase of such a case. It's been increasingly clear to me that that was a mistake, and I was waiting for the expected non-resolution of this thread - despite the numerous NPOV violations documented from multiple parties - to file a case. If nobody else does so, I intend to do so soon. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I've been caught up in some of the side discussions in this areas with multiple RFCs, or attempted RFCs, happening at RSN, and have thought that it might all end up at Arbcom. -- &lt;small&gt;LCU&lt;/small&gt; '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A&lt;small&gt;ctively&lt;/small&gt;D&lt;small&gt;isinterested&lt;/small&gt;]]''' &lt;small&gt;''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''&lt;/small&gt; 15:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{u|S Marshall}} thank you for that consideration, but frankly, there will be no optimal time for me. The vacation has somewhat helped me regain my bearings post-grief, but when I return home, I am scheduled for hand surgery for a pre-cancerous growth that needs to be excised, so I don't know what typing ability I will have. Growin' old ain't for sissies, but we all know the arbs are heaving a huge sigh of relief to hear that my typing might be affected, and my typical verbosity might be curtailed, but I will have timing issues regardless. The reasoning for opening the case is well summarized to the one sentence in this thread by Moneytrees; finding the extreme list of previous dispute resolution will be more time consuming, and unfortunately I have most of that back at home. The behaviors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard should also be within the scope of the conduct, and one can easily see in all of those threads who the other parties are. {{pb}} {{u|Dustfreeworld}}, thank you for the concern (I haven't actually read the majority of my talk page yet-- as I said, I came to this thread by looking in to an email ping from Tornheim when I was settled in at my son's house and able to review my email), but in the interest of length, the new casting of aspersions and failure to assume good faith re when or why I returned to editing are better explored with the facts and diffs in the arbcase, as they demonstrate a pattern. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::{{heart}} --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{re|S Marshall}} I'll trust your judgement on this then, though I do want to get the opinion {{ping|Moneytrees}} as well. I've always advocated for more involvement in these disputes, so the more the merrier in this case. I'm just glad that these issues are getting some attention. Thanks for guiding us through this. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 16:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Hi there, as an uninvolved editor, may I ask {{highlight|what’s the problem with a user (Noonlcarus) replying to my message expressing [[WP:Wikilove]] to a [[WP:Missing Wikipedian]]?|lightgreen}} Sandy already said that she had lost two close friends recently in the same day. May I also draw your attention to [[WP:Kindness campaign]] and [[WP:Editor retention]] as well? [[WP:ABF|Thanks]]. --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 14:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::There's nothing wrong with this, but the timing is curious to post something to a talk page which will be usually emailed. I don't know Sandy's personal background, so of course condolences to them, but I am more concerned about NoonIcarus' gamey behavior due to their history of unconventional canvassing. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 16:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I did email her months before all of this happened, because it's not the first time and she mentions she has gone through a difficult time. I found the WikiLove after looking for diffs to add to this case, and I'll remind that this is not the first time that you accuse me of canvassing for questionable reasons ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: VENRS|Talk:WP:VENRS#RfC: VENRS]], hence why the aspersions casting is also an important issue in all of this). I'll ask you again to not throw stone in a glass house after your own potential canvassing in previous and related move discussions. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::@[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]]. Thank you for the reply. I know nothing about your/Noonlcarus’s background either. I don’t know what do you mean by “usually emailed”. If user’s talk page can’t be used to express [[WP:Wikilove]], what is it used for? Used for arguing or [[WP:ABF|assuming bad faith]]? At least 10 users have replied to that [[User talk:SandyGeorgia|post]] of mine with messages such as “stay safe” already. What does that mean?<br /> *::::1. It’s not “usually emailed” as you said. 2. Sandy is a well-respected and much-loved user. {{pb}} &lt;small&gt;Aside, just curious, have you ever sent any Wikilove to other users on their talk page?&lt;/small&gt; --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 16:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::&lt;small&gt;Just for the record, I'll link once again the Wikilove I left for WMrapids in Christmas: [[User talk:WMrapids#Season's greetings]].&lt;/small&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::{{u|Dustfreeworld}}, just an FYI ... because of my dislike of the pingie-thingie, I have my preferences set so that I see pings only via email; that way, they don't disrupt my concentration when I'm in the midst of complex edits. For most of late December, and until early March, I wasn't up to even checking my email. I did see the Tornheim ping via email because it was the most recent when checking in after I arrived at my son's house for Holy Week, and I was finally feeling ready to see if the Venezuelan editing situation had improved during my absence. As this situation has long needed to go to ArbCom, now seemed to be the time to say so. I'm sorry I won't be able to help out at my typical rate for medical content for at least the near future; after a long absence, catching up can be daunting, and I'm not sure I'm ready, as I also see [[J. K. Rowling]] descending into non-collaborative editing, which is discouraging. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::{{u|SandyGeorgia|Sandy}}, no worries, RL is more important. I hope things will get better soon. People like you,[https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&amp;platform=all-access&amp;agent=user&amp;redirects=0&amp;start=2024-03-28&amp;end=2024-03-28&amp;pages=User_talk:SandyGeorgia%7CUser_talk:Jimbo_Wales] so please, be well and take good care of yourself. {{heart}} {{smiley|:-)}} --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC); edited 02:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{re|SandyGeorgia}} I know you have a lot going on, but I have to respectively ask since you have become involved; why haven’t you commented on NoonIcarus' behavior (either in support or opposition) and have instead focused on users who have had to deal with their POV editing? <br /> <br /> Now, I also have to respond to your accusations about my citing and copying within Wikipedia. Regarding the citations, your &quot;sample&quot; is from about ''6 months ago'' when I first was getting involved in controversial articles (I now know about exceptional claims needing exceptional sources, etc.) and we discussed above how I could be more specific when creating citations. Understandable. As for attribution, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_91#Attribution_edits I have already discussed this with a patroller and they said my edits have improved]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Rosales&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215951085 In a recent edit], I even made sure to attribute when it was my ''own'' original edit.<br /> <br /> So while you have tried to make the point that I am some sort of troublesome user, there is direct evidence that I have responded to the feedback and have improved my editing. This isn't the case for NoonIcarus, however, so that is why I have to ask, Sandy, why have you decided not to comment on their misbehavior? Why haven't you discussed on how they are removing information while making false &quot;failed verification&quot; edit summary claims? Again, my sincerest condolences for all that you’re going through, but this is something that needs to be discussed as well.--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 20:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Tornheim pinged me to an immediate question for which the answer is obvious, and that is what brought me to this ANI. You reinstated a POV tag that had been resolved, as you re-added UNDUE material that had been many times discussed, without engaging talk,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Gideon_(2020)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209503834] and that is the (immediate) pattern of editing behavior I've observed over the long haul, which hasn't improved. You take long absences, then don't engage talk at all or ignore requests and questions, and then come in to edit as you please regardless of what has been discussed on talk, sometimes having found sub-standard sourcing or sources that either don't verify content or conflict with higher quality sources, ([[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7#Use of scholarly sources]]) and then leave the citations and other cleanup to others until the next lather-rinse-repeat cycle, and don't appear at times to have read or digested what is written on the page (eg the most recent aspersion in this thread). And you can be extremely polite when under a microscope of scrutiny, but less so with the constant casting of aspersions in talk discussions, which derails productive discussion. {{pb}} As to whether your editing has improved, I haven't had time to check for good faith engagement on talk, but I see the same casting of aspersions as always in this very thread; you seek out obscure journal sources to back your POV (aka cherrypicking via apparently google searching on terms eg [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7#Use of scholarly sources]] rather than relying on a preponderance of higher quality sources); you leave the burden of discussion on others while the content you edit war in stands for months as others won't edit-war it out again; and the finger-pointing and the aspersions are persistent (see above), as is the tendency to not see that you do everything (and more) that you accuse NoonIcarus of doing.{{pb}} Beyond the immediate instance that brought me here, I haven't taken time to look at anyone's recent editing, because a) I am visiting my son, b) all of these matters should be examined before ArbCom, not here, c) the issues with NoonIcarus in this instance are already beaten to death, and d) discussions with you (as with me) tend towards verbosity that will simply exhaust other readers. I am well aware that at times NoonIcarus's editing is also sub-par in several ways, but he has a full command of the sources, context and history, and a full and fair airing of a complex situation is unlikely with an ANI pile-on. The aim of my posts here is only as is appropriate to outline why an Arbcase is called for and context for the immediate issue here (failed verification tags as cleaning up after your edits can be exhausting and it is difficult to get you to engage talk). And I note that, unlike you, NoonIcarus is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to his command of English and being able to explain himself (eg, the misunderstanding about his objection to how some scholarly sources are frequently misused in Venezuelan content, and he is not the only editor to have noticed that). There is no need to fill up this ANI with further analysis of NoonIcarus's editing; what was not represented here at all was both sides of a complex situation in which users with less command of the sources frequently show up. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::ArbCom. --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 22:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Now at Arbcom===<br /> Please see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Venezuelan_politics]].—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 10:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' - Please do not close this thread while ArbCom is considering whether to open a case. If ArbCom accepts the case, they will of course have the final say about NoonIcarus. If ArbCom declines the case, the community should take action, so that dummy edits will be useful to prevent this thread from being archived without action. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Follow up from [[WP:VPM#A personal analysis and proposal|VPM]] ==<br /> {{mbox<br /> | type = style<br /> | image = [[Image:Emblem-WikiVote.svg|50px|Not a vote]]<br /> | text = If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is '''[[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|not a majority vote]]''', but instead a ''discussion'' among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]] regarding the encyclopedia's content, and '''[[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]''' (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, ''not'' by counting votes.<br /> <br /> However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] on the part of others and to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]] on this page by adding &lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt; at the end.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;'''Note:''' Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|single-purpose accounts]]: &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:spa|spa]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt;, suspected [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] users: &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:canvassed|canvassed]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt;, accounts blocked for [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry|sockpuppetry]]: &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:csm|csm]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:csp|csp]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/small&gt;<br /> }}&lt;!-- This is the Not a ballot template --&gt;<br /> === Topic ban proposal for Rachel Helps ===<br /> <br /> :{{userlinks|Rachel Helps (BYU)}}<br /> :{{userlinks|Rwelean}}<br /> :[[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal]]<br /> <br /> Per the evidence I outlined at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal|this VPM discussion]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;oldid=1213522218#A_personal_analysis_and_proposal permanent diff]), Rachel Helps, the Wikipedian-in-Residence at [[Brigham Young University]] and operator of the above two accounts, has for years engaged in extensive undisclosed [[WP:COI]] editing on Wikipedia in collaboration with her employees and professional colleagues. This misconduct falls well short of what is expected of any editor, let alone a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence, and as I have been informed that en.wp has no ability to revoke said position, I propose that '''Rachel Helps be topic-banned from LDS Church-related topics, broadly construed''', which should achieve the same result. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Don't know if this is of any importance, but this sandbox page showed up just recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlomorrIDTech/sandbox Seems to have something to do with BYU, not sure if it's important [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 21:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Original page deleted, archive [https://web.archive.org/web/20240317214235/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlomorrIDTech/sandbox here] [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 23:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> &lt;small&gt;Pinging editors who participated in the prior discussions per [[WP:APPNOTE]]: {{ping|ජපස|WhatamIdoing|Horse Eye's Back|Rosguill|JoelleJay|Bon courage|Aquillion|Hydrangeans|BilledMammal|FyzixFighter|Levivich|Primefac|Vghfr|David Fuchs|Pigsonthewing|BoyNamedTzu|Fram|Certes|Naraht|Guerillero|Awilley}}&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> * How anyone can read Rachel Helps (BYU)'s user page (even before recent edits) and say her CoI is &quot;undisclosed &quot; beggars belief. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **Please take the time to reread the above post and the linked discussion. If you feel that everything outlined in that analysis is perfectly above-board, may I ask if you have performed comparable edits while a WiR? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **For example, taking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rwelean&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213525368 this recent diff into consideration], have you ever created a page for a friend while a WiR, and subsequently edited it after you had co-authored an article together and/or one of you had begun to supervise the other's education programme? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***Now try addressing what I said, rather than some other imagining. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *** And '''don't''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213531040 edit my comments]. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 17:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ****My sincerest apologies, I think that was an edit conflict (you added it in a separate edit presumably while I was replying to you). [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *****NP, I've also just had an EC with no notification. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. There seems to be some idea (such as advanced by Andy above) that merely disclosing ''a'' COI absolves you of any possible infractions; that is not the case, as the evidence at the VPM discussion amply demonstrates. There's apparent evidence of off-wiki coordination that obfuscates COI editing. I see the concern that there are much ''worse'' offenders here, and Helps' self-identification makes picking out the COI edits that much easier... but that doesn't materially change the problem, discussed at length [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Wikipedia_in_Residence:_is_this_a_way_around_conflict_of_interest_rules? in the wider VPM thread], that Helps and similar editors have materially distorted and overemphasized coverage of LDS topics in ways that are not keeping with due weight. This is probably an issue with a ''lot'' of GLAM/WIR stuff, so I'm not surprised Andy is circling the wagons, but this is a pretty egregious example. [[User:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **First you misattribute a view I do not hold to me, then you impugn my integrity. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Overwhelming Support.''' WP:COI editing is bad enough, but considering that WiR is involved and that the COI violations are related to religion (which is already a subject that requires great care to maintain NPOV), Helps should absolutely be topic banned from LDS articles. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:* And to further comment on this, these violations seem to be contrary to the purpose of WiR, which is for an existing editor to &quot;''accept a placement with an institution to facilitate Wikipedia entries related to that institution,''&quot; ''' ''not'' ''' to have an person with existing ties to the institution to &quot;facilitate&quot; Wikipedia articles on their institution<br /> *:[[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 16:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''', the disregard and disrespect this paid editor has for our COI expectations is staggering. The attitude is not that they should follow best practices, its that anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted and permitted in infinite quantities. An example of this attitude: &quot;Also, if something is &quot;strongly discouraged,&quot; it sounds like it's actually still allowed. A rule that can't be enforced is not really a rule.&quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zeniff&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213375632] So lets do what we have to do and enforce our community expectations, otherwise people will continue to ignore and disrespect &quot;A rule that can't be enforced&quot; [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''' I do see violations of COI policies but they are not an end in themselves and exist to protect the reliability of our content. So, can I get some examples of shoddy content being injected into our articles by Rachel Helps? Thanks, [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 16:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:jps wrote in the linked discussion, {{talkquote| I continue to find poor writing, sourcing, and editorial approaches on page after page dedicated. The cleanup that will be required to recover from this is tremendous ...}}Some diffs are in order? [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 17:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I listed diffs in that thread. Happy to list them again, but it may be a bit repetitive. Also, you can check my article space edit history from today as I’ve begun the long process of dealing with the fallout and that history may be illustrative. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose'''. Apparently Airship was posting this while I was posting my disagreement with the evidence presented in the other thread. Yes, she seems to have written an article about an (apparently notable) co-author. More than half the evidence presented is about other editors (how dare she help newbies?). There have been previous discussions about her editing, and they've agreed that [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board]] applies. She has [[User_talk:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)/Archive_6#c-Rachel_Helps_(BYU)-2020-12-03T17:38:00.000Z-SlimVirgin-2020-12-02T23:11:00.000Z|confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things]]. More generally, I think that much of this is based on fear of religious editors. For example: She is accused of – over the course of 18 years and nearly 10,000 edits – writing two (2) articles that some editors (including me) think she might be too close to the subject to do so independently, and that it would have been more appropriate to send through [[WP:AFC]]. That's 4% of her article creations. Banning someone for a procedural error in 4% of contributions is not a proportional response. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You know it should be 100% through AfC right? &quot;you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;&quot; Thats incredibly damning. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No, I don't agree that articles she needed to send articles such as [[Stretch Armstrong (ska band)]] and [[List of inmates of Topaz War Relocation Center]] and [[Anarchism and Esperanto]] and [[Hidden Figures (picture book)]] through AFC. Can you think of any reason why, e.g., she should consider herself to have a conflict of interest with a Japanese interment camp that was closed before she was born, then do please explain that. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Because she was paid to make them. Thats a direct financial COI. I didn't say she needed to send the articles to AfC, I said she should have sent the articles to AfC. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 01:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{u|WhatamIdoing}}, a couple of things: the co-author is also a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rwelean&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213525368 Master's thesis supervisor], which isn't great; as there is precisely one &quot;newbie&quot; named in my analysis (the others being employees, editors with [[User talk:Thmazing|extensive COI history]], and a bureaucraat currently at ArbCom for a CoI issue), I would ask you to consider your words more carefully. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{redacted}}. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::A large proportion of our articles on universities and their staff are probably heavily edited by external relations offices and staff of the organisation, but they generally do it very professionally, under the radar. If we nobble this editor, we need, in fairness, to do the same to all those others too. But the articles are often accurate and well-written (because they've been written by someone who actually knows what they're talking about). Apply COI rules with caution lest you end up with an encyclopaedia written entirely by clueless people using out-of-date sources. Remember, most academic/institutional COI editing won't be reported because the person who knows (a) that the University of Somewhere's article is edited mostly by JSomeone, and (b) that the public relations officer happens to be called John Someone, can't actually do anything about it without outing themselves as another staff-member, and DOXing Dr Someone. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 18:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Isn't this argument the equivalent of saying &quot;If the cops don't have the knowledge and resources to give every single speeder a speeding ticket then nobody should get a speeding ticket&quot;? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::No, it's like saying that if ''absolutely everyone'' is speeding down a particular bit of road, then maybe something's wrong with the speed-limit (or the overall approach to its enforcement) and issuing one ticket won't solve the problem. Our COI policy is wildly naive, and particularly good at punishing those who admit their COI rather than those who just deny everything. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 20:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::But your argument isn't that everyone is speeding, your argument is that most roads have been sped on. Do you really think that &quot;absolutely everyone&quot; is doing egregious undisclosed COI editing? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::If you happen to see any other paid contributors, grandly titled &quot;Wikipedians-in-Residence&quot; and promoted by the WMF as an example of Wikimedia-public relations, who undermine COI to this extent, give me a ping and I'll certainly !vote to &quot;nobble&quot; them. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 18:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Nobble is actually a word, huh. Also, another day, another {{u|Primefac}} LDSuppression — when will it end? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::In fairness he's also been taking action to resolve these COI issues off-wiki, see discussion on his talk page. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 21:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|She has confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things.}}{{pb}}Contrast this with her COI declarations:{{pb}}{{tq|However, curators and other librarians sometimes request that I work on certain pages.}} ...&lt;br&gt;{{tq|One of my students created the page for James Goldberg at the request of a curator, in conjunction with the library acquiring his personal papers. I assigned this to one of my students rather than myself because I know James personally.}} ...&lt;br&gt;{{tq|When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work. When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work.}} ... &lt;br&gt;{{tq|At the request of one of my curator colleagues, I improved the page for Glen Nelson.}} ...{{pb}}{{tq|I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon. I participate in this community of Mormon artists. Their shows have featured work by artists whose pages I have worked on for work, for example, Matt Page (artist), whose page I created when our 21st-century curator requested that I work on his page after acquiring some of his personal papers.}} [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::People make suggestions for topics; sometimes she agrees. So? People ask me to make edits, too; sometimes I grant their requests, too. I'd bet that if people in your life know you edit Wikipedia, that you also get such requests. That's not a conflict of interest.<br /> :::I'd also like you to think about what {{xt|I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon}} means. It means she gives money to them, not the other way around. Shall we ban Wikipedia editors who donate to the WMF or one of the affiliates from editing anything in [[:Category:Wikipedia]]? Shall we tell editors that if they buy Girl Scout cookies, they can't edit [[Girl Scouts of the USA]]? Kick all the devs out of the open-source articles? Merely being a minor donor or a minor customer is not automatically a conflict of interest. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Are you just...willfully ignoring all context now? Because this is starting to look like bikesheddy obstructionist nitpicking for the sake of...who knows?{{pb}}Here we have an ''employer'' requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer, because Helps is officially employed in a WP liaison capacity with that employer. Helps says she fulfills some of these requests. All of this is above-board PAID (but not necessarily COI) editing and is utterly different from your hypothetical of some random person suggesting you write about some topic neither of you has a COI with. It also happens to contradict your claim that Helps says BYU doesn't choose topics for her to write about, which wouldn't actually even be a problem if those topics weren't connected to her or BYU (and I'm not alleging they are!).{{pb}}Your second paragraph is somehow even more of a strawman. Nowhere in the comment above did I allege Helps has a COI with any of those examples of employer-requested editing, and certainly nowhere did I suggest editors can't edit on things they've ever spent any amount of money on. It's almost like you are replying to some synthesis of my comments in this thread, but I know that can't be true because if you had actually read my one other substantive comment in this ANI discussion you wouldn't have made that ridiculous comparison to Girl Scout Cookies in the first place when it's abundantly clear Helps' COI with ARCH-HIVE goes way beyond simply donating to them on Patreon. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 22:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{u|JoelleJay}} my editing experience with {{u|WhatamIdoing}} has been {{mdash}} their Wikipedia editing style comes across as inexplicably argumentative or contrarian on most any topic. I don't recall if they eventually come around or change their mind, such as after somehow ferreting out a truth during a particular confrontation or argument. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 21:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::{{xt|Here we have an ''employer'' requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer}}:<br /> ::::::No, we don't. Here we have ''colleagues with no authority over her whatsoever'', often from unrelated departments, who think they've identified a cool subject for Wikipedia, chosen for their relevance to ''the colleagues' own interests and activities'', and an employer who thinks Wikipedia is cool enough that they let her spend part of her work time making that information freely available to the world. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Are you really suggesting someone whose position is &quot;Coordinator of Wikipedia Initiatives at the Harold B. Lee Library&quot; is being paid to edit in whatever topic areas they want with no expectation from the university that this work ever ought to benefit the university or further the interests of its owner? Or that a BYU employee requesting an article on a former BYU professor after the employee helped procure some of that professor's own works for BYU's collection, might be making this request on behalf of BYU as part of their ''job''?{{pb}}Do you think, in the above example, that someone serving in an official, Wikipedia-supported expert editing instructor position would believe COI from their extensive personal relationship with the subject is eliminated by assigning that article creation request to their own BYU employees? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 00:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''' in response to ping: frankly, I haven't read the mountain of evidence in enough detail to !vote, but I don't think this problem is limited to a single editor. We may need to take a more holistic approach rather than hoping that removing one person will make everything right. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 17:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' and agree with Certes above that this is only part of the problem. I became aware of the BYU walled garden of sources, awards, and editors through the Nihonjoe ANI discussion and subsequent Arbcom case. Looking at their edits, I first noticed the problematic editing and undisclosed COI of [[User:Thmazing]], who will warrant an ANI section on their own. But other names which kept popping up where &lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;[[User:Hydrangeans]]&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt;, who keeps denying the obvious COI issues, and Rachel Helps (and her other account) and her large number of paid BYU students (who list her as their employer). <br /> :When I look at an article like [[Second Nephi]], completely rewritten by these editors over the last few months[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=1212916834&amp;oldid=1166026852] (apart from [Hydrangeans] and Rachel Helps, I count 3 other paid BYU editors there): the page is expanded, but hardly improved. Claims like &quot;J.N. Washburn, an independent scholar, cites that 199 of 433 verses from Isaiah appear with the same wording and proposes that Joseph Smith used the King James Bible version whenever it was close enough to the original meaning of the plates he was said to be translating and used the new translation when meaning differed&quot; not only treat the &quot;he find some old plates he translated&quot; as truth, but try to claim that &quot;independent&quot; scholars support this, even though Jesse Nile Washburn was a LDS missionary who had studied at BYU before he published his books on Mormonism, so no idea what's &quot;independent&quot; about him. The whole article, just like most articles rewritten by Rachel Helps and her employees, are written from a distinctly in-universe, uncritical perspective. <br /> :For some reason she is very reluctant to note her COI on the talk page of these articles, insisting that the declaration on her user page is sufficient. She also takes it upon herself to remove critical tags from the pages, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Noah&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1202040173 here] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Omni&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213185725 here], or to remove correct[https://books.google.be/books?id=QDsALaUZapUC&amp;pg=PA150&amp;dq=%22Brian+Thomas+Kershisnik%22&amp;hl=en&amp;newbks=1&amp;newbks_redir=0&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiwr7-i7PGEAxVhdqQEHZOOANkQ6AF6BAgOEAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Brian%20Thomas%20Kershisnik%22&amp;f=false][https://www.smofa.org/uploads/files/219/LA-StoryboardBuilding-a-Movie.pdf] but unsourced info and revert to equally unsourced info for unclear reasons[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Kershisnik&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196164460]. A typical edit is something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tree_of_life_vision&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1195021060 this], supposedy &quot;more detail for the naturalistic explanation section&quot; but in reality removing two of the four sources and changing the more general claim about the non-religious origin of some Mormon belief to a much more LDS-friendly version. Just some examples from her 100 most recent mainspace edits... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> &lt;s&gt;*'''Support''' per Fram's evidence and others. I should note the above mentioned [[Second Nephi]] refers to another &quot;independent scholar&quot; (Matthew Nickerson) and then cites an article that appeared in a journal published by BYU. I would also hope that if a ban is enacted, it explicitly covers the [[Association for Mormon Letters]] and related topics, including fellow members, per the information provided in the Village Pump thread. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 18:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/s&gt;<br /> ::I'm striking my support for this topic ban (you can call me neutral I guess) though I still support the one for Thmazing below. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 23:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support''', not because Rachel Helps has undisclosed COI (she discloses BYU and AML on her userpage), but because she helped other editors with undisclosed COI (e.g. BYU, AML) make undisclosed COI edits, and did things like nominate their articles to DYK, or move their articles to mainspace. The diffs are at [[WP:VPM]]. I also agree with Certes that this problem is broader and includes the editors who have/had undisclosed COIs, but that doesn't absolve Ms. Helps of her role in what now seems to be an actual conspiracy of AML people to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, their work, and by extension their religion, by using a combination of undisclosed accounts and paid BYU editors. The unfortunate thing is that if everybody affiliated with AML had just disclosed it, there wouldn't really have been a problem... except they would have had to wait for editors without COI to do things like approve drafts, but I don't get why that would have been a problem. Undisclosed COI editing is a problem even if it's ''good'' undisclosed COI editing because it undermines trust. It's really quite dangerous to the mission of an encyclopedia anyone can edit: the whole venture rests on the belief that editors will follow &quot;the honor system&quot; and either avoid or be transparent about their COIs. Finally, '''a note to anyone commenting''': If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::One of the reasons I still support a full TBAN and not a lesser sanction is that Rachel Helps has been editing longer than I have. And unlike me, she was paid to do it. If she cannot learn in eight years of paid editing what I learned in five years of volunteer editing in my spare time, then I'm not sure there is much hope here. She's not new at this, and this isn't the first time these problems have come up. I'd have more sympathy if she had less experience or if this wasn't a repeat issue. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 15:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::On one hand, I'd support a topic ban on the paid student employees. Certainly going forward that's what I think is best (''employees'' of the BYU WiR should not edit articles related to Mormonism... let them do that on their own time), but then TBANing the WiR should be sufficient to prevent problems with student employees in the future (and per her note below, she is already reassigning them to other topics).<br /> ::On the other hand, I don't like the idea of sanctioning any of the student employees because they were &quot;just following orders,&quot; and if their orders were different, they'd have followed the different orders, so I don't view the student employees as being culpable or even being able to act independently of their supervisor (the WiR), I see them as proxies/meatpuppet accounts except they understandably would think their proxying was OK because it was directed and supervised by a WiR. So I think I come down on the side of giving students a pass for past policy/guideline violations as long as there are clear guardrails for the future. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :'''Support with regret'''. I really wish this could be done differently, but I think things have come to a head now and there may be no way to fix it without this kind of drastic approach. I tried to have a conversation yesterday with Rachel about improving her sourcing guideline, and I think that she is likely trying her best to act in good faith, but she is well past being able to collaborate with those who are going to question the [[WP:FRINGE]] nature of the claims that many apologists for the Mormon religion continue to make about their holy books. I could handle that (indeed, we see that sort of issue a lot here) if it was not also coupled with institutional support from Wikipedia as well as BYU in a way that I think was never done properly. If we are going to pay students to edit Wikipedia, they ought to be allowed to edit it freely. BYU students are at a risk in being active here. If I saw one of them make an edit that looked like apostasy, I could report them to their stake or bishop or the school itself and they could be found in violation of the strict honor code and expelled. I don't think we have thought clearly about what that means given the openness of this website and the unusual closed-ness of the BYU system. For the benefit of all involved, it is probably best that this partnership be ended with a clean break. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. Rachel Helps has now disclosed a massive amount of COI on her user page. Given how extensive and egregious it is, as well as her repeated emphasizing that she uses her personal account to publish articles she feels would be in violation of PAID if published from her BYU account, I get the impression that she still does not understand what it means to have a COI and how that should impact her editing. Initially this put her actions in a slightly better light to me, since it seemed many of these violations were done in mostly good faith and simply weren't recognized by her to be COI (or at least not ''that'' big of a COI, which is more of an institutional problem), rather than intentional concealment of edits she knew weren't kosher. I would have been satisfied with a promise to avoid editing or directing others to edit articles where there is even a whiff of apparent COI and an agreement to limit LDS-universe sourcing. However, reading this [[Special:Permalink/1213529782#The_ARCH-HIVE_moved_to_draftspace|dissembling exchange]] she had on her personal account talkpage with an NPPer regarding COI and blatant PROMO for ARCH-HIVE, I have a hard time believing no deceit has occurred: {{tq2|Hi Celestina007, first you said that you draftified it because of sourcing issues and notability issues, but now because of promo and possible COI? A little consistency would be nice. I thought about what you said about the page having too much promotional language, and I removed most of the background section. I have an interest in the page (otherwise I wouldn't have written it), but I don't think it's a COI. I don't make any money from the ARCH-HIVE's success, and I have not been paid to write the page.}} This was in Feb 2022, well after she had started writing blog [https://www.arch-hive.net/post/in-praise-of-funeral-potatoes posts] and [https://www.arch-hive.net/post/the-arch-hive-holiday-gift-guide-2020 participating] in exhibitions for the group, and well after she [https://www.associationmormonletters.org/2020/05/rachel-helps-reviews-2019s-mormon-novels/ served] on an AML judging committee the same year ARCH-HIVE won an award. This led me to look into some other potential COI edits involving authors she has reviewed for the AML: [[Dean Hughes]], whose wiki page has been edited extensively by Helps' student Skyes(BYU) (66 major [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Skyes%28BYU%29/0/Dean_Hughes edits], 8000+ bytes added, including bibliography entry for the book Helps reviewed); [[D. J. Butler]], to whose bibliography Helps [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._J._Butler&amp;oldid=952515895 added] the book she judged, sourced to an AML announcement by her colleague, and to which Skyes(BYU) [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Skyes%28BYU%29/0/D._J._Butler added] 11 major edits; and [[Steven L. Peck]], 85% of whose page was [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Steven_L._Peck written] by Helps between 2017 and 2023. I'm sure I could go on. Incidentally, pretty much all of these pages have also been edited by Thmazing (AML president) and NihonJoe (ArbCom case)...{{pb}}All of this goes well beyond what we could reasonably expect even a novice editor to understand are COI edits, let alone someone in a ''paid'' position of authority who is mentoring other ''paid'' employees of BYU on how to edit wikipedia articles! Honestly I think ArbCom might be the next place to go given the amount of promotion of minor Mormon contemporary authors by what seems to be a heavily interconnected group of BYU-associated editors with un- or under-declared COIs. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''' I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI. The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground. This will happen as long as anonymous editing is allowed on Wikipedia. But what I think is far more important for determining a possible topic ban for myself and my team is the quality of my edits in the topics the ban is aimed at covering. I believe an underlying assumption is that since I work for the BYU Library, I wouldn't say bad things about Mormonism (broadly construed), the LDS Church, or BYU. I have edited on many pages in these topics and many have changed the way I think about the LDS Church and BYU, and not in a good way. Some examples are [[Battle at Fort Utah]], a page I expanded about a one-sided attack on Timpanogos families supported by Brigham Young that lies at the heart of the city of Provo's founding. What about [[Seventh East Press]], a page for an independent student newspaper at BYU, which was banned from being sold on BYU campus primarily because of an interview with Sterling McMurrin where he said that he didn't believe the Book of Mormon to be literally true (which I promoted on DYK)? The fact that [[Lucinda Lee Dalton]] requested her sealing to her husband be cancelled and it was revoked posthumously? [[Ernest L. Wilkinson]]'s spy ring controversy? Dallin H. Oaks's negative evaluation of [[Nothing Very Important and Other Stories]]? My own students have said things like &quot;I've summarized stuff I disagree with&quot; (and they have published it as part of their job). Some people have expressed shock that as a professional writer, I'm messing up all the time. Guess what. There's no degree in Wikipedia editing! If you examine my considerable edit history, you are going to find errors! But I believe that on the whole, the work I and my students have done has improved Wikipedia. We have added so much accurate information, cited in-line, to reliable sources. We have helped to make more sources discoverable by summarizing and citing them. Is it that surprising that my years of editing Wikipedia in Mormon Studies have led me to gain some expertise in my field and made me want to study Mormon literature professionally? I've attempted to list all the possible COIs I could think of on my user page, and I stand by the NPOV of all of my edits. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment'''. Yes, I'm a paid student editor who works on LDS topics. But that doesn't mean that I have been out to present a construed vision of Mormonism. When people have pointed out a lack of neutral point of view (which was wholly unintentional on my part and consisted of a few words) I have made an effort to fix it and invited them to help me. Other than that, I'm not seeing where there is a lack of this neutral point of view. Is summarizing what other people say about Mormon topics considered a violation of NPOV? Because I didn't think it was. If you're worried about the Mormon authors, keep in mind I have also used sources from Elizabeth Fenton (not a Mormon), John Christopher Thomas (a man who follows the Pentecostal tradition), and Fatimah Salleh (a reverend). [[User:Heidi Pusey BYU|Heidi Pusey BYU]] ([[User talk:Heidi Pusey BYU|talk]]) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{Hat|reason=Getting a bit off-topic. ජපස seems OK with hatting this. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 01:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> *:The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here. You may feel that you run no risk of falling out of favor with your bishop, but if that happened because of your attempt to include content that was critical of your church, ‘’you could be expelled’’. This is what your school says in its policies. Now, maybe they don’t enforce those policies anymore, but I can only go by what I read of BYU’s rules. And according to those rules, it’s not really safe for you to try to accommodate the radically open ideology of this website as you work for and are enrolled in a school which has an entirely different ideological commitment. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Have you seen anything in my edits that is harmful to the LDS Church or to anyone else? [[User:Heidi Pusey BYU|Heidi Pusey BYU]] ([[User talk:Heidi Pusey BYU|talk]]) 22:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You don’t seem to be understanding my point. It doesn’t matter what I have or haven’t seen in your edits. You are free at this website inasmuch it is an Open Culture Movement website to explore, edit, study, and expand your horizons to whatever extent you would like. We encourage that on principle. Normally, I would welcome such engagement. But here is the thing: you are employed by BYU to write here. You are also a student. My commitment to radical openness then is now necessarily tempered by my greater concern for your well-being as a student and student worker because, frankly, that is far more important than the openness of this website. And if your school had a commitment to academic freedom, free speech, and so forth, there would be no tension there. But the fact remains that BYU has really strict policies. To be clear: You aren’t doing anything wrong! But we can’t stop your school from mistreating you on the basis of what I would considered normal activity at this website. If you came out tomorrow as a promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist (and I’m not saying you will… just go with the hypothetical) then while we would welcome you, suddenly you find yourself without support from the institution you rely on. And so we’re stuck. I think we can’t operate according to our own community rules because doing so puts you at risk and we need to figure out how to fix that. Having you contribute to article space is almost certainly not the right answer. If you had a sandbox where you could offer quotes from sources or apologetics or what have you that would help maintain your ecclesiastical endorsement, then there would be less of a problem. But you are duty bound to maintain a fealty to your church and your faith which this website should not be challenging because it can cause you problems. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Acknowledging my [[user:Hydrangeans|disclosed past connection to BYU]], I can't help but think it's a little disingenuous, howsoever inadvertently, to frame this as humanitarian concern for Heidi Pusey (BYU) and kind of paternalistic to insist that she can't assess for herself what her situation at BYU is like and whether there's any {{tq|risk of falling out of favor with your bishop}}, to use your words. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 00:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::The concern is not whether she made the correct or incorrect assessment. I trust that she knows what she is doing. ''I'm assessing the entirety of the situation for myself as a member of this community.'' My goal generally (it has nothing to do with this user specifically) is to make sure that all people are taken care of as best they can be. I see the following situation: (1) BYU has rules (2) this website has rules (3) those rules are by my reading at fundamental odds. I think that the ''best thing we can do'' given that, as a website community, and given that I have absolutely zero sway over BYU, is to prevent a situation where students acting as compelled editors (that's part of what getting paid to edit does, as fun as I find it to be since I do it for free) edit content that is directly relevant to those rules. It's that simple. Because let's say ''there is no risk'' of her running afoul of such. Then that is equally a problem in my mind. This stamps out the very radical openness we are trying to promote and makes me worried that the BYU student who is in the closet about their scholarship that identifies problems with the Book of Mormon would not and ''should not'' take this job. This can of worms is ugly and it gets worse the more you look at it. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 00:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::1. I am not in the closet about my scholarship and do not appreciate such an assumption. <br /> *::::::2. I do not appreciate you attacking my identity and saying I could hypothetically become a &quot;promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist.&quot; Such an assumption is unfounded and unacceptable. I will not tolerate it.<br /> *::::::3. I will no longer reply in this thread. [[User:Heidi Pusey BYU|Heidi Pusey BYU]] ([[User talk:Heidi Pusey BYU|talk]]) 00:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::Y'all don't see the problem here? This is an editor who can't follow a hypothetical and she's being ''paid'' to write about Mormon exegesis. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here.}} I do not think it is our place to try to sanction or remove adult editors from our community because we as a third party judge they are taking on too much risk by editing here. I think this argument is very weak. This is an ANI thread about sanctions. We should stick to discussing and sanctioning actual, demonstrable misconduct. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 00:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::They are at a risk ''because of our toleration of the situation of paid editing through this program''. Shut the program down and it is no longer a risk. The misconduct was done by her boss. I support sanctioning the boss. I'm not sure what to do about the student, so sure, close this whole commentary as off-topic. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{Hab}}<br /> *'''Support''' The evidence seems to be quite clear. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 22:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' based on Rachel Helps' own defense above. {{tq|The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground}} is not a good reason to allow blatant COI editing. I'm okay with driving it even further underground. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 02:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': The COI editing stuff was not my main concern (I'm far more worried about the paid editing junket), but I just thought I'd let the watchers here know that I tagged an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Austin_%28writer%29&amp;diff=1213610933&amp;oldid=1213479191] just now. It's a puff-piece pure and simple and the evidence for COI is pretty straightforward if y'all have been paying attention to these posts. I agree, this needs to be stopped. I'm pretty close to striking my &quot;with regret&quot; which gives me regret. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Honestly, this entire situation shows that we need to take a step back and take a look at possibly changing policy to prevent this from happening again. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::This may need to be kicked to Arbcom. It involves at my last count at least 5 editors not even counting the students. Oh dear. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 02:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': I worry we're conflating separate issues. <br /> ::1) Rachel Helps' involvement with articles about AML, ARCH-HIVE, and Michael Austin strikes me as a clear COI issue and a breach of community trust.<br /> ::2) There's a broader question around how to interpret COI when it comes to BYU and the LDS church. I think the COI argument here is plausible, but much less clear cut than #1. I do worry about creating a chilling effect for e.g. an Oxford professor citing a colleague who was published by Oxford University Press, or a math teacher at a Catholic school editing a page on the Trinity. If we do need to consider this COI, I think we should take our time and define the problem narrowly and precisely.<br /> ::3) There are NPOV and sourcing concerns around some Book of Mormon articles. I'm skeptical that a topic ban will improve this, or that the articles are worse for BYU editors' involvement. [[Second Nephi]] and [[Ammonihah]] are in much better shape than, say, [[Jason]], a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid. The BYU team seems to take these concerns seriously and make good faith efforts to include non-LDS sources. If individual articles aren't notable, we can delete them. <br /> ::4) Finally, there's a concern about implicitly endorsing BYU policies and potential risks to BYU's editors. I agree with [Hydrangeans] that this feels paternalistic, and I don't think this standard is workable. Even if we assume the worst of BYU, should we shut down any attempts to engage editors in China, in case someone writes something that upsets the CCP?<br /> <br /> :I would support a sanction that's more narrowly tailored, e.g. blocking Rachel Helps from edits around AML and BYU faculty, while still letting her write about scripture and history. It seems excessive to block her from absolutely anything LDS related (e.g. [[Battle at Fort Utah]]) or to shut the program down.<br /> <br /> :(In case there are any concerns: I've never met any of the editors involved, I've never attended, worked for, or even visited BYU, I learned what AML was earlier this afternoon, and I've never been a member of the church). [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 03:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Courtesy Break (1)====<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose''' Topic bans should not be punitive and are reserved for editors that engage in [[WP:TE|disruptive]] behavior within that topic area. I just don't see the hallmarks of disruptive editing that I've encountered in other situations, particularly in physics-related topics, that did result in topic bans. I do see very poor judgement when editing with both disclosed and undisclosed COI and operating with the gray zone caused by inconsistence guidance in the COI guidelines (Gray zone example, in one part COI editor should identify in all three places, in another it says that editors may due it in one of three places - an editor who tried to push the former with regards to Rachel was told by multiple admins that their interpretation was more expansive the intended COI guideline). I do find her response to HEB regarding this gray zone very troubling, but not disruptive. This should have been raised at COIN, prior to being elevated to ANI. I would note that Rachel editing and her WiR function have been brought up there before which did not end with sanctions, so it seems like bringing the dispute here has the appearance of forum shopping - might not be given new information since that discussion. I also disagree with the insinuation that because her COI is with BYU, she is incapable of editing in an NPOV manner when it comes to the LDS Church under some kind of threat, spoken or unspoken, from the religious leaders and therefore inherently disruptive if she edits in that topic. BYU teaches evolution in its biology classes, teaches the standard 4.5 billion year age for the earth in its geology classes, teaches a human history/prehistory that does not kowtow to Biblical or Book of Mormon teachings in its anthropology and archaeology classes, and so on - so the argument that the BYU employment means she has to edit inline with church doctrine is based on faulty assumptions and extrapolations. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 03:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:If Microsoft hired people to create articles about its products, and these editors disclosed they were paid editors but in some cases promoted some of these products while working with other Microsoft employees who edited with undisclosed COI, Wikipedia would siteban all of them with little discussion. It doesn't matter if Microsoft doesn't tell the editors exactly what to edit, or tells them explicitly to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if the articles about Microsoft products are totally NPOV and policy-compliant. Advertisement is advertisement, and this is advertisement. It doesn't matter if it's the LDS Church or Microsoft, it doesn't matter if it's articles about characters in the Book of Mormon or articles about characters in Microsoft video games. In both cases, it's just paying people to raise the profile of their products and their brand on Wikipedia. A TBAN from promoting the product seems actually lenient to me, like the minimum preventative measure Wikipedia should take in this situation, not punitive at all. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 04:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|It doesn't matter if the articles about Microsoft products are totally NPOV and policy-compliant.}} Sounds like you're saying that it doesn't matter the quality of the edits, if the motivation for making the edits is wrong. Is this correct? Some might disagree with that statement, preferring to accept high quality edits regardless of motivation. Although maybe we should discuss this more at [[WT:COI]] rather than here. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::No, not the ''motivation'' for making the edits, and no, this is the right place, this is about whether this proposed TBAN is preventative or not. I'm saying &quot;it doesn't matter&quot; in several different ways, but the motivation of the editor isn't one of them, who knows or cares about people's motivations, since we have no way of determining an editor's motivations.<br /> *:::If an edit violates one rule, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate another rule. If an edit violates COI or PAID, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate V or NPOV. If an edit violates NPOV, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate V or COI or PAID. If V or NPOV editing excused COI or PAID editing then we can just mark those pages historical, what's the point of even reading them?<br /> *:::It also doesn't matter because a policy-compliant, high-quality Wikipedia article is good advertising. A TFA is the highest-quality level of article that Wikipedia offers, and also the highest-quality advertising placement. If someone is trying to promote themselves or something on Wikipedia, a high-quality article is going to be better than a low-quality one, and while a puffery article might be the best, an NPOV article is still better than no article. Companies/people/churches/other orgs will pay to have policy-compliant articles created about themselves or their products because it's good advertising, it's good for their reputation, which is good for business and the bottom line. It's about $$$.<br /> *:::And just to belabor that point a little bit, think about it: how much are they paying per article? Hundreds of dollars? A thousand or a few thousand? Where else can you get guaranteed top-of-Google SEO placement for ''any'' search term for that cheap? And it's a one-time cost when they pay a paid editor to put it on Wikipedia, whereas ordinarily SEO of that quality is a monthly payment not a one-time. I think paid editors are like 90% cheaper than traditional SEO. Damn, I should advertise :-P<br /> *:::But if you step back, by piggybacking on volunteer labor, organizations can use paid editing to save themselves a ''ton'' of money on internet advertising while breaking ''no'' Wikipedia rules (if done properly). If we were smart we'd bypass paid editing and the WMF and just set up an actual job board on Wikipedia and have some kind of group Patreon account. Instead of making donations to the WMF, buyers could just pay for articles about whatever they want, and editors can get paid for writing articles, like $50 for a stub, maybe $500 for a GA, $1000 for an FA. Channel it all into an official channel and kinda kill two birds with one stone, I say. (And I'd be happy to administer it all for a reasonable management fee.)<br /> *:::So anyone who wants to invest their marketing $ in paid editing is actually free to do that, as long as the editors disclose and otherwise abide by the rules. But in ''this'' case, we have undisclosed COI and PAID editing by a number of people, and in the situation where an organization's marketing $'s are going not just to policy-compliant editing, but also to non-policy-compliant editing, then it seems like barring the non-policy-compliant editors from editing about the organization, broadly construed, is appropriate.<br /> *:::As an aside, it also bothers me that paid undergraduates are involved. Teaching the wrong lesson here. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Do you have these concerns about GLAM in general? Suppose the British Museum pays me to write about obscure parts of their collection. This will be great SEO and may encourage people to visit, and even though the museum is free, many visitors will probably make a donation. If I use the best available scholarship and teach millions of people for free, and the museum gets donations, would you object? [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 07:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::GLAM walks a fine line, no question. That's why it's extra important that people who participate in that sort of program as leaders be extra careful to keep their noses clean and think very carefully about the implications of their actions and activities, as far as I'm concerned. The alternative can easily devolve into this mess. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *:::::@[[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]]: I don't know much about GLAM, but yes, same concerns, no reason to treat galleries, libraries, archives, and museums, as any different from other organizations (companies, non-profits, churches). In your hypothetical, you'd still be hired to promote the museum's product (their collection), no different from Microsoft paying someone to promote one of their products. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::The problem with COI-tainted editing is that it given us an encyclopedia (and community) different to what we would have with if unconflicted editors were at work. It skews the process. It is &quot;dirt in the gauge&quot; as [[WP:COI]] used to mention. In practical terms we seem to have ended up with Wikipedia giving disproportionate/undue and often credulous coverage to this religion. The argument that &quot;COI doesn't matter if the edits are good&quot; would justify lifting restrictions on [[WP:PAID]] editing (and is often delpoyed by paid editors). [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 05:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::If it truly is a prescriptive ban, intended to enforce adherence to COI guidelines, then the TBAN should be narrowly applied to where she has actual COI, as defined by those COI guidelines. In this case, the COI is BYU and AML. I am not convinced that it extends to the LDS Church or LDS topics generally. She is a BYU employee, not an LDS Church employee. BYU employees can and do say things that contradicts the church, and the same is true for Rachel - some examples that immediately come to mind are her edits that do make look the church look good (see her list above) and even her use of &quot;LDS Church&quot;, which indicate the arguments that her terms of employment affect LDS-related topics generally are easily disproven. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 12:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::That's like saying an [[Altria]] employee only has a narrow COI to the company, and is free to write about the [[Health effects of tobacco]]! If you're paid to write a load of stuff about Mormons, the COI problem resides in doing just that. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 13:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::{{tq|She is a BYU employee, not an LDS Church employee. BYU employees can and do say things that contradicts the church}}{{pb}}This is completely false, as BYU is ''owned'' by the LDS Church and its honor code (literally the Church Education System Honor Code, sponsored by the LDS Church) expressly prohibits actions that go against church doctrine:{{tq2|As faculty, administration, staff, and students voluntarily commit to conduct their lives in accordance with the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ, they strive to maintain the highest standards in their personal conduct regarding honor, integrity, morality, and consideration of others. By accepting appointment, continuing in employment, being admitted, or continuing enrollment, each member of the campus communities personally commits to observe the CES Honor Code approved by the Board of Trustees: &lt;br&gt;Maintain an Ecclesiastical Endorsement, including striving to deepen faith and maintain gospel standards}}{{pb}}Multiple ''BYU professors'' have been fired for supporting--off-campus and strictly in a personal, sometimes even private, capacity--things the LDS church considers against-doctrine[https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4969940&amp;itype=NGPSID][https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2006/10/27/fired-byu-professors-speak-out/][https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2006/10/27/fired-byu-professors-speak-out/][https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/19/mormon-university-instructor-fired-after-facebook-post-supporting-lgbt-rights-she-says/][https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2022/02/16/byu-professor-says-she-was-let-go-lgbtq-advocacy], so there is absolutely reason to believe they would fire a mere student employee for expressing such opinions. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 13:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::It is an extrapolation beyond the stated honor code that you quoted to say &quot;principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ&quot; equals &quot;church doctrine&quot;. If that were true then all members of the faculty and employees would have to be members of the LDS Church (they aren't), not teach evolution (they do), not teach the big bang (they do), not teach a completely non-theistic abiogenesis and creation of the earth (they do), not teach that human civilization extends way past 4000BC with no mention of Nephites, Lamanites, or Noah's ark (they do), or not use &quot;LDS Church&quot; (they do). Again, it's demonstrably false the claimed level of control over BYU employees in general and specifically in this case. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Please read the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal|original thread]], this is discussed in great detail. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 13:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::You are conflating the acceptability of BYU profs lecturing on ''what is the mainstream, secular perspective on those topics, outside the context of the church'', and BYU profs opining on what is &quot;true&quot; about those topics ''in relation to church doctrine''. The former is endorsed by BYU, the latter can lead to threat of excommunication.[https://www.chronicle.com/article/mormon-scholar-facing-excommunication-for-research-gets-a-reprieve/] ({{tq|A professor at a Washington State community college who expected to be excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over an article he wrote regarding the Book of Mormon has had his disciplinary hearing postponed indefinitely. &lt;br&gt;Thomas W. Murphy, chairman of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, came under scrutiny for an article he wrote for American Apocrypha, an anthology published in 2002 by Signature Books. In the article, he reviews genetic data to refute the Mormon assertion that American Indians are descended from ancient Israelites. ...}}) [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-feb-16-me-mormon16-story.html][https://www.smh.com.au/world/mormons-excommunicate-australian-author-20050805-gdltir.html] ({{tq|An Australian author who wrote that DNA evidence fails to support the ancestral claims outlined in the Book of Mormon has been excommunicated by The Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints.}}) This is also blatantly obvious from the examples I gave above of BYU lecturers' personal opinions on homosexuality and feminism directly leading to their termination of employment. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::All BYU employees are directly employed by the LDS Church, there is no separation between the two. I'm surprised that someone who primarily edits in the LDS topic area wouldn't know that. Its also a bit odd that you're holding up evolution, age of the earth, Big Bang etc up as ways in which BYU contradicts church teachings when the LDS Church doesn't take a position on evolution and doesn't take a position on the age of the earth or how it/the universe was created beyond a rather wishy washy one. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 14:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *::::Note: a query to {{noping|FyzixFighter}} about any potential COI elicited this strange response.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FyzixFighter&amp;curid=2607466&amp;diff=1213843417&amp;oldid=1213808563] [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 13:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Thats not terribly surprising, at this point it looks like all of the editors besides FyzixFighter who were harassing anyone who question Rachel Helps (BYU) have disclosed COIs. Its a shame they have chosen to retire rather than face the music but thats their choice. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' If you aren't allowed to be neutral on this topic per terms of employment, you shouldn't be able to edit. Wikipedia has a lot of stuff not related to this to edit. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood|talk]]) 04:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose broad topic ban''' Oh no, don't ban my second-favorite wiki-gnome! Seriously, though, it saddens me to see someone who is so clearly a net-positive getting hauled off to AN/I like this. Though I don't recall collaborating directly with Rachel Helps, we've crossed paths many times over the past several years, and I've always been impressed by her approach to editing and interacting with others here. I've found her to be polite, intelligent, and honest, if perhaps a bit naive. I remember being confused the first time she crossed my watchlist...my knee-jerk reaction was &quot;why is an official BYU employee/representative editing articles about Mormonism&quot;? Then I looked at the substance of her edits...adding sources here, reverting vandalism there, removing copyvios, expanding articles about Mormon women, and refusing to take a stance on controversial issues where she thought she might be influenced by bias. Whenever there was a consensus on something, she would follow that consensus. If she wasn't sure about something, she would ask. I think I remember seeing her report herself to a noticeboard somewhere when another editor continued challenging her on something where she thought she was right but wanted to make sure the broader community thought so too. Look at her response to this. She's not digging in—she's trying to understand and comply with the community's expectations. If you look at her recent edits to [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)#Conflict of Interest statements]] you'll see that she's gone waaay overboard on trying to declare every possible conflict of interest. She's openly admitting fault where she was wrong, and is clearly committed to doing better. I hope the people !voting here and the closing admin will take that into consideration. Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 04:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't get the impression she is trying to understand me or anyone else who is concerned about the sum total of the mess that is Book of Mormon articles. There is absolutely no engagement with the issues at hand and when I tried to explain [[WP:FRINGE]] sourcing, the answer came back &quot;yes, we disagree.&quot; That's fine, but one of us is being paid to be here and has a ready paid group of students who look to her for editorial guidance, right? You haven't been in conflict with her. If you end up in conflict, do you think the wider context would be a problem? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 11:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I don't know that I'd call it &quot;conflict&quot; but I can recall instances where I've disagreed with edits I saw her making. In each case, she immediately stopped what she was doing and listened to my objections. If she wasn't convinced by my argument, she sought a wider consensus. I've never seen her edit against a consensus. <br /> *::A few years ago there was a big influx of newbie editors trying to scrub the words &quot;Mormon&quot; and &quot;Mormonism&quot; from the encyclopedia because of recent remarks from the correct LDS president/prophet saying that use of the term was offensive to God and a victory for Satan. (The LDS church has had a long on-again-off-again relationship with the word.) I personally thought it was best to continue using the word on Wikipedia, both to be true to how reliable sources talk about Mormonism, and to be accessible to readers who are only familiar with the common name. But I suddenly found myself in the minority in opposing the changes. I suspect that personally Rachel Helps wanted to follow the command of the LDS president and that her colleagues and possibly employers at BYU were hoping that she could make Wikipedia comply with the church's new style guide. But she didn't. She participated in some discussions about the disagreement, but she didn't push hard for any particular outcome, and she (afaict) has continued to this day to respect and enforce Wikipedia's own style guide that still explicitly allows calling people Mormons, probably to the chagrin of church leadership. <br /> *::Anyway, my point is that as far as disagreements go, Rachel Helps is one of the more pleasant people I've ever disagreed with. I wish more Wikipedians were like her in that respect. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 15:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I don't think pleasantness is an issue. There is a common misconception on Wikipedia that COIs are inherently somehow &quot;bad&quot;, but in reality the more you do in life the more COIs you accrue. It's only people who sit in their basement all day who don't have any COIs. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You didn't really answer my question. Here's where I am as of two days ago. This user has stated ''point blank'' that she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources. In the last two days, after going through hundreds of edits at dozens of articles I notice that this is the ''primary'' kind of sourcing that her students are inserting into articlespace and they are still active. I get the distinct impression that she will not be directing her students to re-evaluate their sourcing guidelines or engage with me in discussion about this topic. Now, if I had a bunch of students I could employ to check up on all this, maybe that would be an equal footing dispute. But I don't think the idea here is to start a paid editing arms race, is it? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Sorry, I definitely wasn't trying to dodge a question. I guess my point is that I think Rachel Helps is the kind of person who would voluntarily direct her students to follow whatever policy, guideline, or consensus you pointed her to. I think she could also be convinced by logic alone, but I can't say for sure...people like that seem to be rare these days. I wouldn't be surprised if, to comply with a consensus, she asked her students to nominate their own articles for deletion. That said, I am not really clear on what you mean by religious sources that have been noticed by other religious sources. Are you talking in general about religious academic sources citing each other, or specifically about Mormon academics citing other Mormon academics but without getting cited by non-Mormon religious scholars? (There are probably better forums than AN/I for that discussion.) &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 16:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::If you're interested, this discussion that ground to a halt is still on her user talkpage. Feel free to check it out. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::So this whole long thing arose out of a dispute over whether religious sources could be reliable? She wouldn't agree that reliable religious sources needed to be validated by reliable secular sources, or that verifiable information should be omitted entirely when nobody could find a reliable secular source on the subject, so you started a COI discussion at VPM and now we have a topic ban proposal?<br /> *::::::Why didn't you start an RFC over whether information only available in religious sources should be excluded wholesale from all of Wikipedia, instead of trying to get rid of one editor who disagreed with you? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::That is ''not'' what this arose out of. ''That'' dispute arose because I asked if she would consider hitting pause on her program and she came back with a set of sourcing guidelines that I found problematic. I asked her to hit pause on the program because I saw widespread issues that I am still working my way through and then noticed that all these students were being organized by one coordinator with what essentially amounted to the blessings of the GLAM/WIR system. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I want to offer an addendum that since I wrote this comment, Rachel Helps has begun engaging with me on her talkpage. I find this encouraging. I still think on the balance having her and her students move away from LDS topics is a good idea, but there is discussion happening and as long as that is happening there is hope. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Reply|Awilley}} did you see Levivich's request &quot;If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it.&quot;? We know you're involved and not a neutral admin, but do you have any conflicts of interest you should be disclosing? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 14:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::That's kind of a weird litmus test for participating in an AN/I thread. I'd like to think that people should be judged based on the strength of their arguments rather than assumptions about their motivation. But if you insist, I attended BYU from about 2006-2012. I would have no idea what AML was if I hadn't just read the thread on village pump. To my knowledge I don't know and have never met any of the people in this or the other thread IRL, though it's possible we crossed paths without my realizing it. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::: Its not weird if its an AN/I thread about undisclosed BYU related editing... Ok, I'm planning to open a new subsection about canvassing in a minute. Specifically regarding you and BoyNamedTzu. Is there anything you can tell me which would suggest that I should only open a discussion about BoyNamedTzu? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Eh, what? I don't know who BoyNamedTzu is. I logged in yesterday after getting a ping to the VP thread because I had participated in an older thread about you and Rachel Helps. Then I got another ping here because I had participated in the thread yesterday. I don't know what you're looking for, but since I've got your attention, I'd appreciate it if you could clue me in on what the invisible game of baseball is you mentioned on the VP thread. Because your response here seems a bit disproportionate. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Yes, it is your sudden and inexplicable participation in that older thread about Rachel Helps and I which forms the basis for the canvassing concerns. I believe I said it was a game of inside baseball with an invisible ball... Unfortunately I can't provide any of that information due to WP:OUTING concerns, but it has been provided to ARBCON. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose broad topic ban'''. If we banned people who had any formal association with a Christian church or worship group from editing articles about Christianity, and the same for all religions and sects, we would have nobody left to edit the articles about those important topics, except maybe culture warriors from opposing beliefs, and who wants that? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 07:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I think you have misunderstood Rachel Helps relationship; it goes beyond a &quot;formal association&quot; - she is an employee, and one who is paid to edit. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Do you think it's ok for a BYU employee, who is paid and pays others to edit Wikipedia, to publish a puffy {{diff2|1073250079|article}} about a Mormon organization she was actively writing pieces for; whose citations toward notability are an interview with one sentence of secondary independent coverage of the org, a piece on an exhibition organized by/featuring org members that also has only one sentence of secondary coverage of the org, and an award from another Mormon company for which this employee served as an awards judge the same year? Is it ok for this employee to initially deny COI with the claim she's merely &quot;interested in the page&quot;? And then, even after concerns about COI have been raised and seemingly acknowledged by her, and after the article was first draftified and then declined at AfC, to still recreate it? {{pb}}Is it ok for her to direct her employees to write articles on subjects ''because she can't write them herself due to COI&quot;? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 12:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', per above. I also believe we should be considering topic bans for the other involved BYU editors. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose such a ban'''. Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page, for example January 2023[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)&amp;oldid=1131332465] at a location allowed by [[WP:DISCLOSE]]. In brief, [[WP:COI]] says &quot;There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs) — Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations ...&quot; ([[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board]]) though there is considerable further nuance which requires careful consideration. Different people may legitimately have different understandings. The status of Wikipedians in Residence has for long been a contentious matter and the problems should not be visited on particular individuals. My own experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 12:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **What has your &quot;experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive.&quot; to do with a proposal to ban her specifically from BYU editing where evidence shows that it is not &quot;extremely positive&quot; as in neutral, but has too often a clear pro-BYU stance, reducing the emphasis on scientific positions and increasing the emphasis on non-scientific, partisan positions? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': I just added COI tags on ''&lt;s&gt;ten&lt;/s&gt;twelve more articles'' that are connected directly to the COI campaign to promote the [[Association of Mormon Letters]]. Friends, this is really gigantic problem. It's been going on for years. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''': Not being paid by Microsoft is not an excuse for being paid by another lobby group while acting against our trustworthiness guidelines. [[User:Pldx1|Pldx1]] ([[User talk:Pldx1|talk]]) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Courtesy Break (2) ====<br /> <br /> *'''Question''' - Is this a situation that could be resolved with some careful voluntary commitments? The primary issue, it seems to me, is about COI/PAID and not otherwise about competency or a pattern of violating NPOV (I understand there are side conversations about NPOV/RS, but it doesn't seem to be the primacy concern). A topic ban from LDS would not, then, address COI matters to do with any other topic and ''would'' prevent her from working on articles with no COI (unless we say belonging to a religion means you have a COI for articles about that religion and anyone else who happens to belong).&lt;br/&gt;What about a voluntary commitment to (a) maintain a list on her userpage of articles edited with a conflict of interest, erring on the side of inclusion; (b) adding a notice to the talk page of any article edited in connection with her job (there's another parallel discussion about templates/categories which could accomplish this); (c) specifically noting if an edit is made at the request of an employer? That, combined with the knowledge that her edits will receive additional scrutiny due to this thread, seems like it would resolve this without a topic ban, no? &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 13:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Can you explain how it would be possible for a paid edit not to come with a COI? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 14:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't think I understand your question. If an edit falls under [[WP:PE]], there is a COI. The trouble in this case, I think, is in the line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and paid editors. That's a big, messy question. Ditto the relationship between Mormon subjects broadly, BYU, LDS, etc. (not whether there is one, but how we should think about COI). &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Wikimedian in Residence is a type of paid editor, there is no line between the two. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm not sure what point you're making, but for clarity I will edit my words above: {{tq|line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and ^how we treat other^ paid editors}}. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::So if every edit that falls under PE has a COI... And every edit made by a wikipedian in residence falls under PE... How can a wikipedian in residence work on an article with which they don't have a COI? Any article they work on is one they have a COI with. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::This has not generally been how the community chooses to interact with Wikimedians in Residence. We expect them to take a &quot;warts and all&quot; approach to editing, and to be cautious, but we also do not expect or AFAICT want them to spam {{tl|edit COI}} on most of their contributions. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::And the Wikimedian in Residence in question here has met neither of those expectations. They have not taken a &quot;warts and all&quot; approach to editing and have been about as far away from cautious as its possible to be. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Note that they were first cautioned about this back in 2016 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amgisseman(BYU)/Archive_1&amp;oldid=854327236#COI] and yet the issue there &quot;main concern is breach of our terms of use and COI&quot; is the same issue here because they did not heed the caution. At some points Helps must have wondered why dozens of editors she didn't know were raising issues with her edits and why the people defending her were almost all people she knew personally. She's not a stupid person, she pretty clearly knew that what she was doing wasn't kosher from at least 2016 onwards. She continued to do it anyway. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I would like to understand how this would prevent, for example, the coordinated editing from the Church of Scientology that we banned. We don't enforce disciplinary measures against people on the basis of their religious adherence. But here we have a group is being paid by an institution which is directly involved in the promulgation of said religion. When that happened with the Church of Scientology, we ''blocked the associated IP addresses'' on the argument that there basically was no way they could contribute to the encyclopedia ''at all''. And to be sure, a lot of those accounts did good work other than being part of that coordinated effort. How is this different ''at all''? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The Scientology case began with extensive NPOV violations achieved through sock/meatpuppetry/coordination. We didn't ban them because they were scientologists writing about scientology; we banned them because they were scientologists writing about scientology ''contrary to our policies''. Such evidence hasn't been presented here as far as I've seen. Some level of coordination, yes, which should be disclosed, but not to game the system. That's a fundamental difference that makes the scientology comparison misleading. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Did you read the VPM thread? I document a few of the diffs there and it's basically a litany of the same. Here we have a group of editors who are adding prose that basically takes the Book of Mormon ''on its own terms'' as a text. When called out on it, the ringleader declared that she fundamentally disagrees with people who object to that behavior. It's exactly the same kind of thing the scientologists were doing. And, I mean, I was there for that one and saw it happening. Do me a favor and look at ''any'' of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group. Or look at all the pages I just tagged with COI and see how many of them were connected to Rachel. This is a complete clusterfuck. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Scanned it, but apparently I have more to look at. Will check it out before !voting here. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 16:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I could use a pointer to the evidence you're referring to. I see diffs about COI, but not diffs of edits made my Rachel which violate our policies. The content-related diffs I do see (e.g. in your 17:06, 12 March 2024 comment) were made by others, who aren't the subject of this section. {{tq|Do me a favor and look at ''any'' of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group.}} Is this an argument about over-coverage (in which case I'd rather see evidence of lots of deleted pages created by Rachel rather than focused efforts to cover a subject -- I'd argue we have overcoverage of a lot of religious subjects, including Mormonism, and a whole lot of editors focus on specific subjects), or is it an argument about use of inappropriate sources? Regardless, this isn't a topic ban for a group, it's a topic ban for one person so we'd need evidence that Rachel is editing in a non-neutral or otherwise problematic way (not just COI, which seems like something that can be resolved with transparency/assurances). It seems to me there's a bigger conversation that needs to happen regarding use of sources published in connection to a religion and/or by members of that religion. I don't think I peruse religious articles as much as you or many others, but it seems to me like most of them rely on such &quot;in-universe&quot; sources. I don't think that's ideal, but I'm wary of singling one out. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Hmm... are you saying that you don't think that she should be accountable for the edits that she paid her students to make? I can give you some examples of edits that she made if that's more to your liking, but I'm somewhat surprised that you are so dismissive of student edits which she has later defended on talkpages (but it's possible you aren't looking at larger context due to time). [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::How does a tban for RH prevent her students from doing anything at all? How would it prevent anything that happens off-wiki? As with any student program, if a student is persistently making bad edits, sanction them like you would any other user. If an instructor displays a pattern of disregard for our policies such that their students are a consistent net negative, that's a different kind of sanction (and I don't think there's enough evidence for that here, either, though that doesn't mean there haven't been problems). What I would expect for a tban on an individual is a pattern of harmful edits made to that topic area. That case hasn't been made sufficiently. The case that has been made, insofar as I've seen, is that there have been some clear COI problems and a difference of opinion when it comes to sourcing religious topics. On the latter, I think you and I are probably on the same page, but I don't see it as an entirely resolved policy issue. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Wouldn't a TBAN mean paying her students for making any particular edits in that area would be sanctionable for both her and the students? So any edit made in LDS topics by the (BYU) student accounts would be a TBAN violation, but they would be free to edit in that area on their personal accounts. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::The students would be stopped by [[WP:MEAT]] because they receive assignments from RH. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::The relationships are a little confusing to me. We're talking, I think, about effectively interns/research assistant/student ''workers'' on one hand and students being students on the other hand. If RH were to be tbanned, that would make any students hired/directed to make specific edits by RH fall somewhere between MEAT and PROXYING, yes, which is a bad place to be. I don't think a general instruction to &quot;edit Wikipedia&quot; would be prevented, though. Nor would students hired by someone else and merely supported by RH. And a tban wouldn't prevent RH from what I suspect is the more common scenario: helping students, faculty, staff, and others to edit according to their ''own'' interests (i.e. not directed but supported). And that's IMO a good thing, not just because that attempts to reach too far off-wiki with on-wiki sanctions, but also because while the COI stuff should definitely be avoided, RH is better equipped than a typical student (or even faculty) editor to provide best practices/instruction, etc. I'd say that's probably more rather than less true after this thread. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 14:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::The way RH has set up the projects is that she guides the students ''very carefully'' in what they do. This is actually one positive thing she does that does not happen with other similar programs I have seen, so good on her for that. The upshot is that I would not want this kind of guidance on her part to end if this paid editing program continues, so her students would ''effectively be TBanned'' as well. If we started to see lots of edits the way they have been editing, that would, in my mind, constitute a topic ban violation. I cannot speak for RH, but I suspect that she would have them move away from Mormonism topics if she were TBanned which would be ''the best possible outcome'', as far as I'm concerned.<br /> ::::::::::And, no, I am not convinced that things are going to get better just because of this discussion. There seems to have been an enculturation over the last few years which has provoked a kind of perfect storm of bad editing practices that I have been digging into over the last few days and it is not going to be easy to figure out what to do about all this. There seems to be an over-focus on treating the Book of Mormon as literature which is the main thrust behind RH's favored approach and that of others conflicted with the [[Association of Mormon Letters]]. Right now, we have lots of articles on weird little topics within the book of Mormon which treat the thing as though it were literature like Tolkien or Dickens I guess as a way to sidestep questions related to the religious beliefs that surround these things. The students she has coached seem to have adopted this approach in part while also maintaining delightfully matter-of-fact retellings of the mythology as though it were fact. It's a mess.<br /> ::::::::::But the students aren't really to blame here. They're being led by a much-lauded (by enablers you can see in this very thread) Wiki[p|m]edian in Residence who has been scrupulously trying to follow the rules and no one bothered to tell her that maybe editing about a religion as controversial as Mormonism ('''to which she belongs and is employed by the religious authorities of that religion through their in-house institution of higher education with strict rules on what she can and cannot do vis-a-vis that religion''') maybe is not going to sit well with some in the Wikipedia community that takes things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:FRINGE]] seriously.<br /> ::::::::::So here we are. Your idea to get her to clean things up means unlearning years of training that she invented without input from the community. I look forward to seeing what kind of program you might be able to invent that could address that. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Voluntary commitments, really? No I wouldn't support that because a number of the editors involved have previously lied about not having COIs when asked. Also because this is years of undisclosed COI editing happening here. So, no, it'd be crazy of us to trust any voluntary commitments from people who have actively deceived us for such a long time and up until so recently. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]], and similar action against other COI editors should be considered, per [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]. This is an area where WP should take a hardline stance. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per [[User:Vghfr]], [[User:Fram]] and others. But I think we have a wider issue with LSD-related articles here that a few topic bans will not solve it. I agree with [[User:JoelleJay]]'s comment in the other discussion about the lack of NPOV in &quot;topics that are only discussed in publications by LDS members and thus exclusively reflect LDS-endorsed teaching on the topic&quot;. We have a massive walled garden of hundreds if not thousands of these obscure, otherwise NN topics sourced only to LSD-related publications which could pass the surface of GNG and easily [[WP:GAME|game]] the notability rules. --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Our articles on Catholicism mostly reflect Catholic sources. Our articles on Judaism mostly reflect Jewish sources. That is natural and only to be expected. Why is it suddenly a problem when the same thing occurs in our articles on LDS? The people one would expect to be interested in and write about LDS are...LDS people. That is the nature of the sources. It is not a conflict of interest to use the mainstream sources that are available. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::While [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]], that has ''not'' been my experience as I edited those topics. In fact, many of our Catholic articles have sources which are explicitly critical of the Catholic Church nearly to the point of vitriol. By contrast, Judaism is so irreverent and delightfully self-critical that I am at a loss for why you think the comparison to those pages is at all apt. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Yes – if and when those other sources exist, are reliable, are relevant, etc. <br /> *:::But from your comment above that {{xt|she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources}}, it sounds like the complaint you have here is that some content is being added from LDS-related sources when no non-religious source has ever disagreed with the LDS-related source. <br /> *:::I have not seen any disputes in which someone adds information about a Catholic or Jewish religious idea, from a reliable source written by a religious organization, and someone else demands that the reliable source be removed on the grounds that non-religious sources haven't published anything on that subject. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Then you haven't been looking at disputes over the [[Shroud of Turin]]. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Why would we even need specific examples from Catholic or Jewish editors when we had a whole arbcom case surrounding exactly this behavior from Scientology adherents? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Because a new religious group with something on the order of 10 thousand members is not the same as a 200-year religion with 17 million members. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::LDS is a [[new religious movement]] the same as Scientology. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::What does the number of years a religion has been around or number of members of a religion have to do with anything? The only thing I can think of is that there are probably more sources if there is more time and people involved, which is true. But on the substance these things are the same. I mean, Mormonism and Scientology are actually ''very'' comparable. There are a great many excellent sources which show that. In fact, that was at one time one of the articles on my list of articles to write. The funny thing is that neither the Mormons nor the Scientologists like the comparison. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that ''actually might have happened'' and so are of interest to secular historians, enough primary interpretations of scripture to engage dozens of generations of academics, and far broader and more significant impact on human culture in general, permitting even more opportunities for interdisciplinary scholarship. We should not be treating every religious movement as if they're each equally likely to have the depth and independence of sourcing needed to support pages on minor aspects of their faith. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Well, some new religions too. For example, the foundational sacred texts of the [[Nation of Islam]] has some fascinating description of what life was like in the African American community of Detroit in the 1930s. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Re &quot;Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that actually might have happened&quot;: this reads as straight-up prejudice to me (and I have zero connection with LDS). You might just as well say have a much greater likelihood that those older religions' texts contain fabulations, misreadings, and other material we wouldn't want to take as literally true, simply because they've had so much longer to accumulate that sort of material. But we are not basing our content on the content of the Book of Mormon; we are basing it on the accounts of their historians. I would tend to imagine that, while biased, those accounts are maybe more likely to be accurate, because they are from a more recent time with better records, while the writings of the early Christian church historians have the same tendency to their own bias. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 00:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::Yes, the older religions generally do have much more fabulist text, as well as a lot more material that has taken on mythical aspects or been reported by apologists (e.g. miracles) over hundreds or thousands of years. But that's irrelevant to what I am saying, which is that it's far more likely texts recounting religious narratives that we can accurately date to c. 300 AD will also have some bits of real history and info on life at the time that can't be found anywhere else, and would thus be of intense interest to modern scholars in many fields, than scripture written more recently (as contemporaneous writings become more numerous, the preciousness of any single one as a major primary source across multiple disciplines outside religion decreases) or scripture that wholly fabricates ancient history and is virtually useless to anyone actually studying its purported time period. {{pb}}There are extensive secondary analyses of secondary analyses etc. of scholarship on Jewish or Catholic scriptural and metaphysical questions, and new external sources or theories on the cultural/geopolitical/philosophical climate of a time continue to be discovered and incorporated into what we know about a spiritual topic ''beyond'' exegesis of scripture. We don't need to rely on unreliable primary or old secondary sources to do this because we generally have plenty of modern secondary sources, often in multiple nonsecular fields, to use in writing a comprehensive and neutral article on a subject. We ''don't'' have this for LDS topics because the furthest back historians can go from BoM et al scripture is 200 years ago. But LDS historians are still analyzing their scriptures in the sincere belief that they recount actual events from thousands of years ago, making the same kinds of extrapolations and interpolations from their holy books to reconstruct that past that any other historian would do with genuine ancient text, except ''none of it corresponds to real history''. No questions in anthropology or archaeology or history are being answered in any way that is meaningful outside of LDS faith, and so no secular researchers in those disciplines have any reason to publish academic commentary on the LDS scholars' theories. The result is that we have hundreds of pages on minor characters and events from BoM where the only sources are from adherents collaboratively building what amounts to a fictional literary universe &lt;small&gt;(or, perhaps as a more fitting analogy, a new, Hardy-hard branch of pure math)&lt;/small&gt;, except it's dressed up in the same historiographic structure as we'd have on a topic with thousands of years of history. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 02:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::It's my view, not necessarely agreeable, but if an LSD topic has no sources outside LSD sources it is likely unnotable, and writing a balanced article about it is impossible. Also, I am not necessarely referring to strictly religious topics, eg., we have obscure, semi-amateur and poorly released films only sourced from ''[[Journal of Religion and Film]]'', byu.edu and similar, same with books and other products. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 19:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I think this is a sensible rule. However, I worry about defining &quot;LDS source&quot; too broadly. ''Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction'' is written by a Mormon, but it's published by Oxford University Press and targeted at a non-LDS audience. Oxford also publishes an annotated Book of Mormon. I think we need to narrowly define what falls into this category, and have that conversation in a less heated atmosphere than ANI. [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I agree with Cavarrone about notability, but I think the solution there is not to announce that only a secular source could possibly be acceptable for explaining the symbolism of the story, and that if no secular source ever wrote about the symbolism, then symbolism can't be mentioned in Wikipedia, but to take the article to AFD.<br /> *::::When we're talking about a notable subject, though, I think our usual rules work perfectly well for this subject. We don't require independent sources for everything that gets mentioned in an article, and that's true whether you're writing about how many employees Microsoft has, or what the symbolism of the story is, or why the artist chose to put a colorful blanket behind the cow's skull. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Let me give a concrete example to help focus the conversation. On multiple articles I found years given for events described in the Book of Mormon. Some of those years were laughably specific. Some of those years are repeated by many, many Mormon sources. Now, I would love for there to be an article in Wikipedia about [[Ascribing dates to the stories in the Book of Mormon]] or something like that to explain exactly the weird calculus that Mormon apologists go through in arriving at these dates and why certain dates are more popular with certain Mormons than others, but the fact of the matter is that this has been so little noticed by independent sources that in many cases it ''has not even occurred to the authors of our own articles'' that putting in years might be a problem. The easiest solution I think is to excise them, but sure, it's not the only possible solution. But the solution cannot be, &quot;let's just put those dates in the articles and call it a day.&quot; which was, as far as I can tell, the standard operating procedure. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::No, but the solution ''could'' be &quot;Let's put the dates in with [[WP:INTEXT]] attribution&quot;.<br /> *::::::The main point of this sub-thread, though, is to talk about whether we're treating all religions equally. Have you seen a similar thing in, say, Catholic articles, in which someone adds some papal pronouncement, and other editors say, &quot;Oh, no, you can't add that unless you have a secular source, too&quot;? I haven't. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::Absolutely! As I pointed out above, when there are clear fabrications (as in, for example, the case of [[Marian apparitions]]), we do the same thing. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::By the way, these students got the memo about [[WP:INTEXT]]. The problem is that that often goes like this, &quot;According to [PERSON'S NAME THAT IS UNMENTIONED EXCEPT FOR RIGHT HERE], this story is all about...&quot; Or, worse, &quot;According to historian [HISTORIAN]...&quot; and you research the historian and come to find that they are a professor of history at BYU who wrote the book, &quot;How I KNOW the Book of Mormon is true&quot; or whatever. So, no, [[WP:INTEXT]] isn't cure-all. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Neutral'''Yes, things are not okay. But I have serious trouble with the fact that a topic ban can cost her her job. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px&quot;&gt;[[User:The Banner|&lt;span style=&quot;color:green&quot;&gt;The&amp;nbsp;Banner&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|&lt;i style=&quot;color:maroon&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/i&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:If this ban will cause loss of employment as a Wikipedian in Residence, wouldn't this be seen as a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] as this is threatening the editor's livelihood? Furthermore, wouldn't the effort to have editors who have any affiliation with [[Brigham Young University]] in relation to [[Mormanism]] cause a [[chilling effect]] and diminish the improvement of articles around that topic? [[User:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B22234&quot;&gt;'''Right'''Cow&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background-color: #C2B280; color:#3C3B6E&quot;&gt;'''LeftCoast'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;Moo&lt;/span&gt;]]) 23:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Surely you could ask these questions about any analogous remedy addressing a WiR or systematic COI. Surely these positions aren't immune from scrutiny; we're concerned about people being paid by BYU to edit Wikipedia, not every individual affiliated with them in any way. If you're making some other point, I am not able to tell what it is. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 23:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Strong oppose'''. Rachel Helps has been a consistent positive contributor to an essential area of religious discourse. She is professionally talented, responsive to community, an active participant on multiple open networks of movement organizers, and an ambitious trainer and supervisor for others. There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed and aims to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion. There are plenty of COI battles to fight; this isn't one of them. [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]&lt;sup&gt; [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]&amp;#124;[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:To clarify, are you opposing the topic ban for Thmazing (not Rachel Helps)? [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 20:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I've moved it to the correct section. Apologies and thanks for the tip! [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]&lt;sup&gt; [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]&amp;#124;[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **{{u|Ocaasi}}, you appear to have a) !voted in the wrong section and b) failed to read anything more than the section heading, as then you would know that the issue is that their work has not been &quot;disclosed&quot; or &quot;rigorous&quot; on subjects they were professionally connected to. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 20:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't think &quot;aiming to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion&quot; is necessarily good enough. Otherwise [[WP:CIR]] bans/blocks wouldn't be a thing. Now, maybe you oppose those bans/blocks too, but I am ''deep'' in the weeds right now of seeing how Rachel Helps's students were treating material relevant to their religion and... hooboy... even if their hearts were in the right place they are doing us no favors in articlespace. I am very, very happy she has finally told her students to work in sandboxes which, if that had been happening all along I probably wouldn't be involved in this, but the conversation I'm having with her right now is one the &quot;Open Networks of Movement Organizers&quot; should have had with her ''years'' ago about her programming. Y'all did her dirty and I'm actually angrier at her enablers than I am at her. She honestly did not know this was coming and by running defense this whole time after multiple people have sounded alarms (just look through her usertalkpage archive), you did not give her the support she would have needed to actually make something like this work (or choose to not do it at all in case, as I suspect, it would be impossible to make this stuff work). [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Point of order: she knew this was coming for the last four years at least[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Brigham_Young_University]. Thats what makes the refusal to improve and meet the standards/practices outlined by the community so bad. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Thanks for bringing that up. You neglrct to mention that there was no administrative acton resulting from that discussion, and no community admonishment or sancation. Indeed, even the person raising the issue noted {{Tq|1=&quot;They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable.&quot;}} and, later, {{Tq|1=&quot;I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions.&quot;}} &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *::::Well yeah, that discussion got mobbed by people we now know had major undisclosed COIs. You're selectively cherrypicking in a way that seems misleading at best, especially considering the things you say in that discussion. We have the same thing happening there as here, Rachel Helps is informed about best practices and rejects them saying for example &quot;In my opinion, best practices should be defined by the people doing the job.&quot; [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{tq|They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable.}} I don't really have time to go back into the history of four years ago to check if that was true then, but it is ''absolutely not the case right now''. I have been going through dozens of Book of Mormon articles that were being edited by this crew and with ''very few exceptions'' they are not NPOV nor well-sourced -- many are either [[WP:PROFRINGE]] or written in something like [[WP:INUNIVERSE]] with bizarre assumptions, turns of phrase, etc. I am finding all kinds of sources being used that have 0 citations according to Google Scholar! [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmmonihah&amp;diff=1213862128&amp;oldid=1213852106 Rachel Helps (BYU) is defending this practice of keeping such shoddy sources in these articles] much to my disappointment. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Ping|Ocaasi}} Are you also an active participant in those open networks of movement organizers? Any conflicts you should be disclosing? Pardon the question but we seem to be having an issue with undisclosed COIs on a number of levels in this discussion. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Strong support''' per Rachel Helps: &quot;{{brown|I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI.}}&quot; I am unable to trust this user in this topic area any longer. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 01:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **I believe the above admission I highlighted contrasts with several opposers' rationale, and I quote from each of them: (1) {{tq|How anyone can ... say her CoI is &quot;undisclosed&quot;}} (2) {{tq|Banning someone for a procedural error}}, (3) {{tq|Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page}}, (4) {{tq|There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed}}. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***Please don't quote me (and others) out of context; even if you do neglect to give attrbution when doing so. What I wrote and what I was replying to when I did so is avaialble for anyone to see, at the top of this thread. What you quote Rachel saying does not negate my comment. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ****{{re|Pigsonthewing}} - you defended Rachel indicating that she disclosed COI on the (BYU) account. But, she admitted undisclosed COI on the other, personal account. The same person is behind both accounts, so I am afraid she didn’t handle COI properly. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 00:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Hesitant oppose''', because I'm a little worried we're conflating some related but separate issues here. It is quite clear that Rachel Helps did a poor job of disclosing her COIs, and lost perspective when editing some topics on which she had a COI. It is clear that many BYU-affiliated editors have been writing poor content. And it is clear that many pages related to Mormonism have too much material from uncritical sources (but this isn't limited to Mormonism by any means). But I don't see this topic-ban addressing any of those issues, and indeed I think it might worsen them, because Rachel is better placed than many editors to help fix these issues. I do think her ''students'' need to be moved away from LDS-related topics: whether because they're being paid, or the rules of BYU, or their upbringing, or some combination thereof, there seems to be a recurring pattern of poor content that others need to fix. But at this moment I don't see how this TBAN would achieve much besides being a punishment. It wouldn't even fix the COI issue, because as best as I can tell religion is sort of incidental to those COI issues; it's just Rachel editing about things she's involved with in RL, which is a problem to be sure, but isn't limited to Mormonism. It seems to me Rachel is taking the concerns expressed here seriously, and we'd do better to focus on the problematic content other editors, including her students, may have introduced. For the record, I consider myself quite firmly in favor of avoiding apologetic sources and in-universe sources for religious subjects, and have argued for this position in numerous cases involving most major religions. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 03:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Okay, this is a convincing (to me) oppose. Only reason I stay supporting the ban is that I see a topic ban from LDS would probably encourage a lot of the best-case scenario stuff to happen anyway and it might get accomplished and probably more quickly. Yes, she is well-placed to fix issues and I'm sure she wants to fix them, but maybe it would be better if she and her students focused on other things that could be done at that library. The flora and fauna of the Great Basin, for example. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 05:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future (minor, because major ones receive editorial scrutiny and attention from critical sources; it's the ones that don't that seem to be the focus of the problem). [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::In that case, why not topic ban just to make it clear? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Because there's a big difference between &quot;shouldn't add substantive content to these pages going forward&quot; and &quot;isn't permitted to discuss these topics in any way shape or form&quot;. I stand by what I said above that Rachel herself is best placed to help us clean up some of this mess. Not to mention that TBANNing her when she still has active students would be quite silly; those would then be completely unsupervised. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Why would that be silly? We're all completely unsupervised and these are adult in college, not children in middle or high school. They should be entirely capable of editing wikipedia on their own, we all do. Also note that while these are student employees they are not her students in the sense that they are enrolled in a class where she is their instructor. She is an employer/manager not a teacher or professor to these editors. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::So you're describing a TBAN from articlespace? I agree that this is where most of the damage is happening--discussion spaces are much less problematic. As for your &quot;unsupervised active student&quot; argument, I don't understand it even a little bit. You already said &quot;I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future.&quot; RH would still be able to supervise them to edit articles on the flora and fauna of the Great Basin. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Very simply, those students are a net-positive largely because of Rachel's supervision, and as such I oppose any TBAN on those grounds until we simultaneously apply it to all students she is responsible for. She may technically be able to supervise them on non-LDS topics, but that's quite unworkable in practice. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' Even though the COI is greater than Mormonism this would at least serve as a warning that Helps' COI editing is causing concern. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 12:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **&quot;serve as a warning &quot; You think this thread doesn't do that? &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:Some warnings may need to be more forcefully made than others. I sympathize with the idea that Rachel Helps (BYU) probably thought everything was fine and that the complaints that had been leveled against her over the years were nothingburgers. Unfortunately, those complaints were serving as warnings that obviously went unheeded. And, to be frank, I think people like you are to blame for enabling her and not being honest with her that this was coming. Now, maybe you didn't know this was coming, but ''someone'' in your group of WMF/GLAM/WIR in-person conference/wiknic attendees should have noticed and taken her aside and given her the advice that right now is coming down like a pile of bricks. But it didn't happen. Years went by and here we are. That's right, I am much angrier at ''you'' (and the position you are representing right now) than I am at her. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' per Vanamonde93. While there are some issues, they don't amount to the kind of egregious problem that would warrant such dracionian action; and there is no previous sanction, let alone one wilfuly disregarded. I might suport some lesser remedy, such as mentiorship. or a probationary period after which we can reviist the matter if issues persist. But I believe Rachel's work has been shown to be - and wil contnue to be - a net benefit to this project. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 14:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Reply|Pigsonthewing}} I see this isn't your first rodeo[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Brigham_Young_University]. Can I ask how opinion has changed since the first time you commented on this issue four years ago? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Maybe we should start asking the harder question whether involvement in WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest. Because I see wagon circling. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::There's no question it does, the only question is whether its enough of a COI to be an issue (signs point to yes BTW given the wagon circling). [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::{{tq|WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest}} - ''Does'' WMF fund this WiR? Most WiR positions these days (AFAIK) are funded by the hiring institutions. I would be shocked if the WMF were funding this one just based on the fact that it involves on-wiki editing, which has been a line for the WMF, historically. Likewise most GLAM projects have nothing to do with the WMF. If you go to a museum and say &quot;can I tell you about Wikipedia&quot; or &quot;want to upload some photos to Commons&quot; or &quot;want to host an edit-a-thon&quot; then you're involved with a GLAM project, regardless of who funds it or whether it involves any funding at all. The extent to which the WMF is involved with most edit-a-thons is to fund an affiliate, who then e.g. buys a couple pizzas for attendees. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 16:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I don't think that sponsored and funded are synonyms there... Anything under the banner or that is allowed to use the branding is sponsored even if there is no funding provided. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *:::::Agreed. While more-or-less radically open to anyone, someone (the community) ultimately does have to agree that GLAM is appropriately attached to something so that it can be called that. This is usually pro forma, but it still ends up supported. If &quot;sponsored&quot; is the troubling word, choose another synonym that means the same without necessarily monetary support. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' - I started typing this yesterday, and find that Vanamonde has articulated some similar reasons, so partially &quot;per Vanamonde&quot;. I see evidence of insufficiently disclosed COIs, evidence that RH is working to address those problems, evidence of years of good faith engagement with the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community, evidence of problematic edits made by ''other'' people, a big thorny question about independence of sourcing in religious articles that's better addressed elsewhere, and not nearly enough diffs showing violations of our content policies by RH to justify a tban.&lt;br/&gt;That said, I would strongly urge RH to set some boundaries in the WiR role and to articulate those boundaries on their user page. Our COI guideline is messy and applied inconsistently, and often with a rhetorical flourish that tries to combine the negative connotations with ''close'' COIs and the technical definition of COI that includes ''distant'' COIs we don't actually view as a problem. All of this makes things challenging for anyone who does any editing with a close or [moderate?, for lack of a better word] COI, since you have to be able to judge how much COI is going to be too much, and be prepared for that scale to slide based on other factors (as in this case, the role of money and the role of other affiliated editors). Being transparent goes a long way, but my own $0.02 is that you should absolutely abstain from editing or assigning anyone to edit an article on any subject you've received money from, that you're on the board for, that you have a nontrivial personal relationship with, etc. That's what {{tl|Edit COI}} is for. The COI guideline doesn't ''require'' you stay away, but editing those articles while being paid is a recipe for disaster. I worry that it erodes the thin line between &quot;the kind of paid editing we like&quot; and &quot;the kind of paid editing we don't like&quot; such that the life of future WiRs will be more difficult. Enwiki's view of COI seems like it will only become more volatile.&lt;br/&gt;All in all, I think having a highly experienced Wikipedian on staff is very much a good thing. RH has the ability to translate the complicated and ever-evolving PAGs (and their interpretations) for a large community. As long as most of the problematic ''content'' edits are other people's, it would be good to have RH available to help. Besides, as I started off saying, the evidence just isn't here to justify a tban. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Mostly I agree with you, however I do assign greater accountability to RH for what you're calling &quot;other people's&quot; edits. In these cases she is both acting as the supervisor of, and ''paying'', these other people to make those problematic edits, which I think elevates her responsibility quite a bit. Especially given several of the articles she assigned to students were assigned because she felt she had too much of a COI to write them herself... [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Yes, if you have a COI and assign/pay someone to edit it, that doesn't negate the COI. It just creates another level of PAID and/or a [[WP:MEAT]]/proxy-based COI, which is probably going to be regarded as worse insofar as it obscures the COI. Along the lines of voluntary commitments and clear articulations of boundaries that I've been talking about, I'd hope something acknowledging as much would be in there, if she hasn't addressed it already. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 19:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::The best I can say is that she is asking her students to sandbox. That's the full extent of it that I've seen. She will be stepping away for a few days, but maybe you could ask her when she gets back to implement something that would make you comfortable? I'm kinda of the opinion that the more ways we try to solve this the better. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 21:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Courtesy Break (3) ====<br /> <br /> * &lt;u&gt;'''Support''' per {{u|Aquillion}}&lt;/u&gt; &lt;s&gt;'''Oppose''' per {{u|Awilley}}, {{u|Rhododendrites}}, {{u|Vanamonde93}}, {{u|FyzixFighter}} [&lt;/s&gt;I admit that the comment pointed out by {{u|Starship.paint}} is troubling.&lt;s&gt;], but at minimum a strong warning and possibly some edit-restrictions and proposals like agreements by {{u|Rhododendrites}}.&lt;/s&gt; I did &lt;s&gt;not&lt;/s&gt; see evidence of a strong warning for the behavior when it was discovered followed by a recalcitrant refusal to comply and/or apology with repeating the behavior. (If that was the case, I would reconsider.&lt;u&gt;It was per {{u|Levivich}} (thank you for providing this link: [[WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University]]), and I have hence changed my !vote&lt;/u&gt;) It appears her editing is not so much a problem as the failure to disclose the COI and paid-editing, e.g. {{u|Awilley}}’s comments. As for her students' editing as described by {{u|Vanamonde93}}, that is another matter&lt;u&gt;. I explain my position on that below in response to jps and Grandpallama&lt;/u&gt;&lt;s&gt;--I'm not sure how best to handle that. I'm not in favor of a topic ban for all of them--but consquences for those that have problematic behavior, were warned, and continued. Would support this done on case-by-case basis. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the two examples kindly provided below to see if such mass action is best.&lt;/s&gt;<br /> :&lt;s&gt;As much as I am opposed to paid editing, unfortunately, we allow it, so--unless I have misunderstood [[WP:PAID]] (and [[WP:PEW]])--our greatest concern by allowing compensation for edit (or COI) is on their ability to follow [[WP:NPOV]]. If they can’t follow [[WP:NPOV]], then the COI and paid-editing are aggravating factors favoring restriction or prohibition of editing in that area. And although non-disclosure is certainly a problem and must have consequences and accountability, it’s not clear to me there was an intent to deceive or other behavior so severe that we can’t seek an alternative accountability measures than a topic-ban.&lt;/s&gt;<br /> :I don’t know what typically happens when a failed disclosure is revealed. Has it *always* been the case that such discovery resulted in a topic ban from the subject area, site ban, or similar? Is it true as {{u|Levivich}} opined {{tq|If Microsoft hired people to create articles about its products, and these editors disclosed they were paid editors but in some cases promoted some of these products while working with other Microsoft employees who edited with undisclosed COI, Wikipedia would siteban all of them with little discussion.}} Are there such examples?<br /> :&lt;s&gt;I believe we warn the editor, give them another chance with a short leash, and bring them right back here if it continues.&lt;/s&gt; --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;small&gt;[revised 05:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC); 06:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> ::Scientology is the obvious example. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 01:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Editing around Falun Gong has also had similar problems. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 17:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{ping|ජපස|Grandpallama}} Thank you for the examples. Would you mind giving me a link or two for the mass action?<br /> ::::I do ultimately think what is done with the students might best be adjudicated separately with evidence for each student involved--if that was done sufficiently already here and I glossed over it, my apologies. I was focussed on the incorrect assumption that Rachel Helps had ''not'' been warned. That really changes everthing about my thinking about both her and how it impacted the students behavior.<br /> ::::Any that we know conclusively were paid and didn't disclose it, I would support a topic or site ban. I don't care if she said it was okay not to disclose.<br /> ::::For any that are unpaid, it is likely she misled and incorrectly advised them about proper behavior here. So, the key question, did WE advise them about proper behavior -and- did we warn them when they crossed a line? Any student who crossed the line after OUR sufficient warning--regardless of what she might have told them to the contrary--I would support an indefinite TB for students falling into that case. Those students might realize they were duped, apologize, and come clean. I do see this as a &quot;teachable moment&quot;, and I would hope we can retain some of the students who really are interested in following the rules and helping to build an encyclopedia that is NPOV. They may actually gain respect for us for holding her accountable.<br /> ::::Any in this second category that are allowed to stay here, I'd say we give each an immediate stern warning about the result of what happened to her and why, about COI and POV-editing and the consequences for their instructor for such inappropriate behavior. Let them know they will be under scrutiny moving forward and that they are on a short leash in that topic area.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 05:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> :::::I guess let [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology]] be your light reading today. There is a lot here and I'm not sure I can help wade through it all. RH and her students ''have'' disclosed that they were paid. I am not sure there are any unpaid volunteers or not, but that would be good to clarify. The warnings about COI were thwarted in the past through certain COIN discussions that were closed with &quot;no action&quot;. This was definitely unfortunate because here we are back today. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 10:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I agree with SCI (which was almost entirely about a situation like this), not so much with COFS (which was more about [[User:Shutterbug|User:COFS]]). I think [[WP:Requests for arbitration/Hunger|THP]] or [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors|MrW]] is better reading here than COFS. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 23:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thanks for the links. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{ping|ජපස}} Thanks for the links. I started to continue to write about what I thought should happen with the students given the fact that they are all paid, but the more time I spent trying to articulate a fair position, the more I realized it would be better to give space to those like yourself who know what typically happens in these cases and the policy involved. From first reading about this, I was inclined towards {{u|Levivich}}'s position of not holding the students unduly responsible for poor supervision, but my concern about paid editing is closer to {{u|Aquillion}}. I'm stepping back.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''2020 COIN''' - [[WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University]] - just want to make sure everyone is aware of the time this issue was discussed in 2020. Among the people claiming there was no COI editing at that time was Nihonjoe. We now know that the concerns raised then were real, some of the people defending it had undisclosed COI, and the discussion did not lead to improvement in how COI was handled by Rachel Helps. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Oh dear. From that thread: {{tq|Hi, I disagree with the idea that all pages I edit are COI. My job doesn't depend on showing people in a positive light.}} What she fails to say that if she started showing [[Russell M. Nelson|certain people]] in a negative light, she absolutely runs the risk of running afoul with her employer. I had a discussion with her about this on her talkpage and she said that she was worried about that when she started and her supervisor assured her that her students could write whatever ''as long as it was attributed to sources''. So if a student wrote, &quot;The Book of Mormon contains anachronisms&quot; as a statement of fact without attribution, I am not sure they would be protected by that. But more to the point, the BYU authorities themselves are not bound by this agreement. The social control that is exerted over people who are in the employ of BYU is ''absolutely real''. There is a reason that only a mere 5% of faculty at that college are not members of the LDS church. Y'all, there are lots of reliable sources that identify Mormonism's cult-like behaviors. It is on display here ''loud and clear''. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Using a term like “cult-like” is prolly not helpful here. A lack of academic freedom regarding theologically sensitive topics is pretty normal for unambiguously sectarian universities. If [[Al-Azhar University]] had a WiR, how do you think that would go down?<br /> *::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 18:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', since just asking nicely in 2020 ([[WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University|COIN]]) did not have any positive effect. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 15:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It is worth noting that, per [[WP:PROXY]], this topic ban would effectively ban any student/employee to edit under the supervision of Helps in any way that bypasses the terms of the main topic ban. So it might make sense to formally extend the sanction to any and all BYU programs. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 19:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * For Detective Levivich of the COI Bureau: While I have never had any affiliation with BYU, the LDS movement, or anything adjacent, I know more people who go/went to BYU than I can count on two hands. Which means that I know not to click on [[Soaking (sexual practice)|soaking]] in the LDS template footer, I already knew that the second item in the [[Church Educational System Honor Code]] is &quot;be honest&quot;, and I can see the irony in the editors of [[Second Nephi]] engaging in small deceptions (28:8, c'mon!). On-wiki, I spent a great deal of time about five years ago in grinding arguments at AfD over articles about non-notable LDS subjects sourced mostly to official LDS sources, church-owned media, and LDS-focused blogs. So I also have a sense of how much valuable editor time can be burned up bringing that sort of content back in line with English Wikipedia policies/guidelines.{{pb}}Rachel Helps has breached community trust while modeling behavior for students under her supervision. And it looks like we've got some content issues around assuming that stuff that's important within the LDS movement is important outside of it as well. Both of those things are bad. But a lot of the edits are good. So for us here at English Wikipedia, I think it's a matter of finding a way to rebuild trust while keeping the good parts of the BYU WiR project going.{{pb}}I '''support''' a topic ban on the WiR and all student workers, because it will clarify an important difference between 1) the BYU WiR project's main goal is to improve this encyclopedia, and 2) the BYU WiR project's main goal is to legitimize/normalize the LDS movement and institutions, and to spread its doctrines and lore by getting as much LDS-related content as possible into the highest-visibility website that still allows people to sign in and add stuff. Sometimes those goals align, but clearly there have been some problems when they don't. So for me a topic ban is not punishment, but rather a chance to recalibrate the relationship and rebuild trust. If BYU will still pay the WiR and (BYU) editors to contribute to English Wikipedia on the approximately millions of other topics, and they do that, great, let's have another conversation about lifting the topic ban once that trust is regained. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 18:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;small&gt;*chomping cigar* All right, boys, this one checks out, let 'em through. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *:I appreciate your rational approach here. I'm not the expert, but I think the role of the BYU WiR is quite a bit more narrow than just 1) improving the encyclopedia and sideways from 2) legitimizing and spreading Mormonism. Rachel would be a better person to clarify, but I understood her role more along the lines of facilitating access to and improving content related to some of the more unique collections owned by the BYU library. Most of those collections will probably have some connection to Mormonism. <br /> *:One of the things I've appreciated most about Rachel's editing is the nitty gritty source work that she does. For example: many editors are somewhat sloppy with sources... They'll take a sourced statement and modify it a bit without changing the meaning too much and move the source somewhere, maybe to the end of a sentence or clause or paragraph. Then someone else will come along a year later and do something similar. Eventually you end up with sources that are completely disconnected from the statement they were meant to support, or that original statement may be gone altogether. I've seen Rachel fixing long term problems like that, as well as immediately cleaning up after other editors when they move soures around in a sloppy way. I've also seen her cleaning up copyvios, circular references, wrong page numbers, random {{cn}} templates, and other tedious gnomish work that so many of us avoid, ignore, or take for granted. I would love to see her be able to continue this kind of work in the topic area where she has expertise.<br /> *:I think it's clear from the above that the community agrees that Rachel fell short in disclosing COI when editing and creating articles about people and organizations close to her. I personally think those shortcomings were exacerbated by scope creep, unclarity, and even contradictions in our own guidelines and expectations, but let's set that aside. There are also a lot of people who see problems in the work of her student editors, which I'm not familiar with myself, so I'll take that at face value. That suggests a lack of training, supervision, etc. on Rachel's part. I have not, though, seen significant criticisms of Rachel's own edits. <br /> *:So my question to you is: would you support some kind of narrower sanction that directly addresses the above problems but still allows Rachel to do her job as WiR and make the kind of helpful edits I mentioned above? That might include a ban on directly creating articles and a ban on editing articles where she has a (well-defined) COI. Or maybe even a ban on editing articles outside of citation management. And likely more strict restrictions on her students. I don't know what would work best, and some workshopping with Rachel would probably be helpful when she comes back from break. Thoughts? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 21:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{ping|Rhododendrites}} Okay, I'm not going to let this excuse that &quot;it was all her students&quot; slide anymore. RH has made some absolutely atrocious edits over the last few months. Fram, above, documented the result in the actual article of [[Second Nephi]], but here they are the diffs ''from her'':<br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210504480]<br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210463754] <br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207877166] <br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204248142] <br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204242867] <br /> *::These diffs are all inclusive of an extreme amount of unduly weighted apologetics content from obscure Mormon Theologians. This also, infruriatingly, includes apologias for the abject and abhorrent racism in the text. That’s right, RH is trying to apologia away the racism in her faith’s scripture. Lest that not be enough evidence for you:<br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204666111] Here she is whitewashing away the fact that Joseph Smith instituted racist dogma.<br /> *::I'm sure she saw nothing wrong with that. It's the frog in the boiling pot of water. In the LDS Church, this kind of game-playing is what happens as a matter of course. We are not the LDS church. We have a standard that is not apologetics. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::@jps: The first 5 diffs you cite are not apologetics, they're analyzing how different themes/ideas in the Book of Mormon &quot;Second Nephi&quot; have been interpreted and have influenced LDS thought and belief over time. As far as I can tell her citations are to secondary reliable sources from reputable publishers. In the 6th diff she is reverting a blatantly POV IP edit and attempting to make a clarification along the way. The original sentence, before the IP's edit, incorrectly stated/implied that Smith taught that dark skin was a curse for &quot;premortal unrighteousness&quot;. That's false, and you can verify that by scrolling down to the body of the article and doing a Ctrl+F for &quot;1844&quot;. Apparently Rachel had missed that the sentence could be read in a different way: that Smith had taught it was a curse, and that LDS leaders after Smith had taught that the curse was for &quot;premortal unrighteousness&quot;. Fortunately 2 days later, editor Pastelitodepapa (the article's original author) came along and removed all ambiguity. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1204666111] This is a normal interaction on Wikipedia. People write ambiguous sentences. People misinterpret those sentences and make mistakes. People fix the mistakes. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 06:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::@Awilley They ''absolutely are apologetics''. What they are doing is trying to recast/reframe a discussion of this book in a way to encourage understanding the text ''as though it really happened'' and offer apologia for the ways in which it clearly runs into anachronism and error. Reliability is always contextual and the context here is that these sources are being used to support preaching and proselytization (that's their raison d'etre). The claim that the IP edit was &quot;blatantly POV&quot; as absurd. The IP edit is correct. Joseph Smith supported the racism of the Mormon church as you even show ''was confirmed later on''. RH reverting that edit was acting in accordance with her faith and not in accordance with the facts. Whether intentional or not, the whole point is that this is a paid editor gatekeeping at Book of Mormon articles, paid by a Mormon faith-based institution to edit our encyclopedia. She needs to be held to a higher standard. This is faith-based POV pushing. [[WP:Civil POV-pushing]], but POV pushing all the same. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 12:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::@jps, You've got it backwards. Take a closer look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204467979 the IP edit]. It most certainly is incorrect and POV. Read the edit summary. Note the phrase &quot;...in the church we believe...&quot; Rachel was not the one trying to whitewash in that interaction, she was reverting a Mormon IP who was erasing a big part of the racist history (premortal sin theory) and pushing the modern LDS POV. Feel free to hat this as &quot;extended discussion&quot; so it doesn't bog down the AN/I. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::AH! You are right that the IP edit was bad... but now RH's edit ''is even worse''. She ''removed'' the mention of Joseph Smith, I guess in deference to the sensibilities. This is also a misleading edit summary. This is not just a revert. This is an introduction of a whitewash of RH's own making! And you're still defending her? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::No, she most likely read the sentence as &quot;...Joseph Smith taught that dark skin was a sign of God's curse for premortal unrighteousness&quot; and tried to correct that. Joseph Smith never taught that. It was after Smith's death that people came up with the &quot;premortal unrighteousness&quot; garbage. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::No, Smith did it too: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/43200880]. I know it's popular to give him a pass. The LDS apologetic line. But, again, Wikipedia is ''not for apologetics''. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::The earliest mention I can find of that rationale is from Orson Hyde in 1844 or 1845. I just looked up the reference in the paper you linked. The reference was to Brodie's ''No Man Knows My History'' page 173-4, which I happen to have on my shelf. Brodie does indeed suggest that the idea originated with Smith, but she doesn't provide any evidence to back that up. Her only citation for that is to a 1845 speech/pamphlet by Orson Hyde. This may be part of why Brodie now has a reputation for going beyond what the actual evidence supports, and why her book is listed as &quot;additional considerations&quot; on the project page instead of &quot;generally reliable&quot;. Or maybe I'm missing something. Either way, Rachel Help's edit summary said she was summarizing the article, and that is indeed what the article says. If you think the article is incorrect, a discussion on the talk page would be the logical next step. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 23:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::::Are you really unable to see the issue here? &quot;Oh, the person who claims that Smith taught about this curse doesn't back it up because it was only found in a pamphlet by Orson Hyde.&quot; Forget it. At this point, you're running interference. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic-ban''' - This smacks to me of the same type of COI editing that led to the creation of [[WP:GS/CRYPTO]] and [[WP:ARBSCI|the SCI contentious topic]], and I get the sense that the scope of this will lead to [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management|COI]] including a CTOP of some sort. The long-term deception and obvious lack of clue as to what best-practices for a COI entails are both extremely problematic, and either on their own would have justified a topic-ban with or without a CTOP designation. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose'''. I am an atheist with a long-time interest in world religions who wrote a Good Article about the [[Laie Hawaii Temple]] in 2008. In the intervening years, I have never once encountered a problem from other LDS members on Wikipedia, only my fellow non-theists and atheists, one of which, [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Black]], destroyed my work and has now made it eligible for delisting.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;diff=1118395610&amp;oldid=1105336403] [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:?? That diff shows HEB removed the citations to one dubiously-reliable apologist source, he didn't even remove any content; saying he &quot;destroyed&quot; your work is a pretty groundless aspersion. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 03:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::He removed a reference to an older version of the material because he failed to look at the date of the source, thereby making it unsourced and eligible for delisting. Furthermore, he removed links that others had added, non-controversial links to BYU computer scientist Rick Satterfield, who had spent years collecting and formulating a database for LDS. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::It doesn't matter what version of the material was being cited when the underlying source for all versions is unreliable. Even if the author was a &quot;BYU computer scientist&quot;, which he obviously isn't, that would be irrelevant since exemptions to SPS require recognized academic subject-matter expertise. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 05:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I disagree. In 2004, when user Gerald Farinas originally added the external link to the article,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;oldid=4512140] it was in wide use in LDS articles. When I arrived to the article in 2007 and tagged the source as unreliable (at the time referred to synonymously as &quot;verify credibility&quot;, whose history has beeen now lost)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;diff=167113393&amp;oldid=166990503], another user started a discussion on the talk page in response to my tagging. They assured me that the source was reliable. I looked at it, and found that the &quot;about page&quot; said that Rick Satterfield created the site as a project for his computer science classes before getting his computer science degree in 2001. In the ensuing years it had become a go-to hobbyist site for statistics about LDS architecture, which is exactly how it was used in the article. It was not used to make religious claims, it was not used to make political claims, it was used only to make factual statements about architecture. In this regard, and per the discussion, I acknowledged that it met the exemption (this was 2007) and compromised by removing the tag, a tag that I originally added. So, to recap, I was the one who originally questioned the reliability, I was the one who discussed it on the talk page with another user who argued for its use, and I was the one who engaged in the art of compromise to allow the source to be used in a specific, narrow way. I was not, however, a drive-by editor like HEB, who just arrived to the article one day and removed the source and the content on a whim because I didn't like the words in the URL. Keep in mind, in the ensuing years at some point, long after I had left the article, the URL had changed from the neutral-titled &quot;ldschurchtemples.com&quot; to &quot;churchofjesuschristtemples.org&quot;. And I continue to maintain that the underlying source for all versions was ''not'' unreliable. And it's not irrelevant that Satterfield collected the data for his computer science classes. BYU has numerous, front-facing student sites today that are and continue to be reliable sources for Wikipedia. Like ldschurchtemples.com, which provided a unique resource in the past for obscure archeological data, I continue to draw upon research from [[Brigham Young University]] for articles I write. For example, I recently wrote [[Flathead Lake Biological Station]], which cites writer Abbey Buckham of Northern Arizona University, who wrote the most comprehensive history of the station that is currently online. Her work was published by the [[Charles Redd Center for Western Studies]] which is part of [[BYU Research Institutes]]. So no, I don't agree with you, and I will continue to draw upon BYU students, graduates, and their research for my articles. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::You seem to be ignoring my entreaties on your usertalkpage, so maybe I have to respond here.<br /> *:::::I think, as others are trying to explain to you, you are making a [[strawman argument]]. There is sincere and strong evidence that this group has been skewing dozens of pages on the Book of Mormon in a very particular way that is going to take a lot of work to clean up.<br /> *:::::This proposal for a TBAN is not an attempt to ban everything coming out of BYU. We aren't even asking to end the WiR/GLAM/Paid Editing program. In fact, what you ask at the end about Flathead Lake Biological Station is exactly the sort of thing I would hope that RH's students would have been working on instead of the sloppy and over-detailed exegesis they've been focusing on for the last months. Not everything that comes out of BYU is about LDS. <br /> *:::::Yeah, with a TBAN you're not going to get RH or her students to help you write about LDS temples. Sorry. But given the streams of awful I've been wading through in the past few days trying to make sense of what is going on at Book of Mormon pages, I think that this sort of collateral damage is likely more than worth it, sorry to say. Your happy editing on one article does not excuse the 100s of articles that are absolute messes. That said, this TBAN would make it ''more likely'' that you could benefit from BYU student editors on articles like Flathead Lake Biological Station. This is likely to be a win for you since those are far and away the more common articles I see you working on than the LDS temples. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::{{ping|ජපස}} If RH and the students were TBanned, would the students really be more likely to edit in other topic areas?<br /> *::::::[[User:Heidi Pusey BYU]]'s conflict of interest statement on her user page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Heidi_Pusey_BYU&amp;oldid=1210501729 currently reads] (emphases added):<br /> *:::::::{{tq|I am employed and '''paid''' by the Harold B. Lee Library to edit Wikipedia pages '''about the Book of Mormon ''on behalf of Brigham Young University.''''' I am a student employee of [[user:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] and '''I specialize in research for early Book of Mormon studies''' as well as literary studies of the book. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I am extensively familiar with the Book of Mormon but seek to edit with a neutral viewpoint.}}<br /> *::::::Heidi's employment appears to be specific to Book of Mormon pages. It is on behalf of BYU, which makes me wonder about the academic freedom questions raised elsewhere. Isn't this declaration inconsistent with Wikipedia goals like NPOV writing without an agenda? Further, if Heidi's specialty is in this topic area, would she be interested in paid non-Book of Mormon editing... and would BYU be interested in paying for it?<br /> *::::::I wonder whether a TBAN will actually produce the outcome you describe? [[Special:Contributions/1.141.198.161|1.141.198.161]] ([[User talk:1.141.198.161|talk]]) 00:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::From what I understand in brief discussion with RH, this was set by her in discussion with RH. This topic focus could be changed. But good to confirm with RH that this really is the case, for sure. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 10:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Hi. I am currently in the process of changing my students' pages they are editing to pages that are unrelated to the LDS church or BYU. I will be changing Heidi's assignment when I see her later today. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::{{ping|Rachel Helps (BYU)}} Thanks for that information, that sounds like a wise decision in the circumstances. Heidi has commented at her user talk page that she did not intend the phrase &quot;on behalf of Brigham Young University&quot; to be taken literally, which is good to hear / know. I can see how this phrase might be chosen by an employee without considering the implications, and Heidi has acted to change the wording. I suggest that you check for any similar phrasings because, in an environment of heightened attention and scrutiny, they can create an impression that is unhelpful. In fact, I encourage you to reflect carefully on how your subordinates' words on user pages might be interpreted by outsiders. I doubt that BYU would be entirely comfortable with a statement that every action of a student editor was made on its behalf, no matter how well intentioned the student or the statements. In my various positions working for Universities, I would not have presented my every action as on their behalf, and I suspect that you would not present yourself that way either.&lt;p&gt;On Heidi's comment that her employment was specific to Book of Mormon topics, is her position (prior to the changes you are about to implement) actually tied to working on that specific topic area? If so, did focus on a narrow (compared to the scope of your library and WP broadly) that is squarely within the area of COI not raise any concerns for you or anyone connected with WiR, etc? I ask because, in charting a course forwards, it can be helpful to understand what has happened to now and how it happened. From your perspective, were any concerns raised and adequately (or inadequately, in retrospect) addressed? What might have been done differently by WiR or WP or others to have avoided the present situation?&lt;P&gt;I'm willing to assume that there were good intentions throughout this process, but can't avoid feeling that something (or multiple things) should have brought these issues into focus long ago. It looks to me like a systemic problem, made worse by some instinctive / reactive responses where considered reflection was needed. Does this seem accurate / inaccurate / partially accurate, from your perspective? Any other thoughts? Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/1.141.198.161|1.141.198.161]] ([[User talk:1.141.198.161|talk]]) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::: Heidi's job title is Student Wikipedia Editor. When I hired this batch of students last fall, I did tell them that I wanted to start a project to work on Book of Mormon pages (an initiative started by me). However, I hired my students based on their writing experience, not based on any specific experience with Book of Mormon topics. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, so please ping me again if you have a follow-up question. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 22:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Satterfield does not have subject matter expertise as recognized by strong citations by academics in academic publications. Therefore his SPS ''is not reliable''. Everything else you've said is irrelevant, though I'll note that student projects simply hosted by the university are ''also'' never reliable as published academic work and I would hope you haven't been adding them as sources. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Just because you've never encountered any issues before doesn't mean Helps is innocent. Have you read anything in this thread and the corresponding thread?? [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 03:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:What does that have anything to do with the sanction being proposed here or the user it's being proposed against? I see virtually nothing in that !vote rationale that actually addresses such matters; the only thing that ''might'' come anywhere close is the vague anecdotal claim {{tq|I have never once encountered a problem from other LDS members on Wikipedia}}. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:First of all how do you know that I am a &quot;fellow non-theists and atheists&quot;? Second that source may look legitimate but its actually a non-expert self published source unaffiliated with the LDS Church, the LDS editors actually agreed that it was a source that should be removed/improved. I didn't destroy anything or change its eligibility, looking at other articles you've significantly authored (for example [[Claude AnShin Thomas]]) it looks like the issue may be with your sourcing practices and not mine. I apologize for causing you distress but I also have no idea what that would do with your vote unless you're voting in an AN/I discussion based solely on spiting another editor. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 03:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::You're mistaken again. My sourcing is entirely reliable, and is accurately reflected in the final GA review.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;oldid=231936007] As can be seen in that link, the sources you removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;diff=1118395610&amp;oldid=1105336403] were not the versions of the sources I originally added,[https://search.worldcat.org/title/367548072] however both sources support the same, accurate information. You neglected to actually ''read'' the article you edited, because if you had you would have noticed that the citation you removed said &quot;Retrieved 2007-07-17&quot;, which refers only [https://web.archive.org/web/20070308044728/http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/laie/ to this version supporting the material]. You removed the newer version instead, which had been revised. You then left a citation needed tag in its place. As of today, there is a more current database listing on the revised site.[https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/statistics/features/] You couldn't be bothered with any of this, of course. One wonders if your poor judgment here is reflective of your other baseless criticism, such as that over at Claude AnShin Thomas, which has no known problems either. One wonders how much this kind of bias infects the rest of this discussion. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::But churchofjesuschristtemples.com/&lt;wbr&gt;churchofjesuschristtemples.org is a non-expert self published source. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Opinions differ, and policies and guidelines dynamically change over time. When the article was written, those sources were acceptable, and the author was a computer scientist at BYU who had created the only site on the internet that collected and maintained statistical data about the temples. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::I don't think they ever were a computer scientist at BYU... I see a bachelor's degree in computer science from BYU but no teaching or research position. Today that source is not acceptable and I don't think that it was when the article was written either. Looking at the talk page it looks like the reliability was actually challenged all the way back in 2007 ([[Talk:Laie Hawaii Temple/Archive 1#Credibility of source]]). [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Yes, questioned by ''me''. Did you read the discussion? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 05:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::I did... Didn't see a consensus that the source was reliable. I'm actually confused as to how that source remained in the article after that discussion. I also double checked and he was never a computer scientist at BYU (and even if he was I don't see how that would contribute to him being a subject matter expert in this context). And again none of this explains your vote here, even if everything you say is completely true your vote makes no sense. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Yes, you are confused. '''I am the one who questioned the source in the first place and originally tagged it'''. As that discussion indicates, another editor arrived to discuss it, and I removed the tag. Should I have disagreed with myself? That seems to be what you are saying here. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::I must be confused, because this none of this substantiates &quot;destroyed my work and has now made it eligible for delisting&quot; nor does it substantiate that the author was a a computer scientist at BYU nor does it explain what any of this has to do with the larger discussion (besides possibly the author's BYU connection?). [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::::You are free to see my new comments up above that address your confusion. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::[[Ignoratio elenchi]]. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 17:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Saying that every problem you've encountered on Wikipedia has come from non-theists and atheists is quite a remarkable statement. How are you able to determine the religious affiliation of your fellow editors? And even in the unlikely event that it is true, what relevance does it have for this issue? The question at hand is about one particular editor, not all LDS members or all atheists. [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 05:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Ping|Viriditas}} woah, I just noticed that you're referring to me as &quot;Horse Eye's '''Black'''&quot; in both of the original comments here. What is that supposed to mean? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::It means my keyboard is broken [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::How does a broken keyboard result in [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Black]]? Its not a misspelling, its a pipe. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Looks like a copy and paste from a typo. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 19:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Ok sure. Thank you. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 19:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::You probably need to take a step back from this discussion if you're looking this hard for implied slights. [[User:Parabolist|Parabolist]] ([[User talk:Parabolist|talk]]) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' I would have suggested a warning, but in light of the extensive COIN discussion from 2020 that appears to have not resolved this issue, I think we'd just be back here sooner or later for another rodeo.[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 05:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Exactly, its not a new phenomena. They were warned in 2020, clearly warned by admin. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 13:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose.''' Generally concur with the comments by Awilley, Ocaasi, Pigsonthewing, Vanamonde93, and FyzixFighter. I do not see anything presented that rises to the level of requiring a topic ban, and I see plenty of evidence of the positive contributions this editor has made to Wikipedia. [[User:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;Gamaliel&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/small&gt; 13:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' - I find the general oppose reasonings to be particularly uncompelling and that it does not adequately address the evidence presented in this and the prior discussion. The attempt to present this discussion as a referendum on theist vs. non-theist editors completely misses the point of the evidence provided. The only oppose rationale thus far that strikes me as valid at all is Vanamond93's comment, but I ultimately agree more with jps's rejoinder to Vanamonde93's perspective. &lt;sub&gt;signed, &lt;/sub&gt;[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' However much good faith (no pun intended) can be ascribed, this a situation which needs to be addressed directly. Treating this as a generalised COI issue to be addressed via a review of policy/guidelines elsewhere will not address the specific instutional arrangement which is engendering systemic failures with regard to core tenets - neutrality, due, fringe and reliable, independent sourcing. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Strong support'''. The opposes all miss the point entirely; paid editing that directly touches mainspace is basically never acceptable. This is not a case where &quot;positive contributions&quot; matter, not at all. Even if done with the best of intentions, it completely distorts our processes; the fact always remains that someone whose paycheck is dependent on an organization is not going to make edits that might get them fired. Even the absolute best, most well-intentioned edits, otherwise policy-compliant in every way, will distort the balance of articles when made in a systematic way by large numbers of editors whose views are all distorted in the same way by the same financial incentive. Therefore, &quot;they've made positive contributions&quot; is never a defense against a [[WP:COI]] issue. It is simply never acceptable to seriously edit mainspace in areas where your employer has a strong perspective or vested interest. If this were any other organization, that would be obvious - would we accept the arguments above for an editor paid by Amazon or Microsoft or OpenAI or some cryptocurrency startup, who wanted to edit pages obviously relevant to those topics? From the Democratic and Republican parties, or from individual political think tanks who hire and send in numerous articulate, intelligent editors who share their views? How is this different? And how, exactly, could volunteer editors maintain neutrality in the face of that? [[Wikipedia:GLAM/Wikipedian in Residence]] isn't meant to be an exception to these rules - per [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_residence the description on Meta] {{tq|In this context, there is a custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution, but rather share the knowledge of their institution.}} Furthermore, look at the examples there - it's meant to be an uncontroversial role for museum curators and the like, not for a church to employ people making sweeping sorts of edits on topics related to their faith or for a political think-tank to employ someone making edits about their politics. I think that we might want to look at some of the related policies in order to tighten them up and make them more clear, if people are somehow confused about all this, but this particular example is so far over the line that an immediate topic-ban is obvious. EDIT: Support shifted to strong to emphasize how strongly I feel that none of the rationales people are presenting are policy-based and how important it is to establish that they carry no weight. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 15:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Aquillion, I agree in general with your take on this. COI and PE are often issues that result in editing that skews away from our principles, policies and guidelines. However, in this instance Rachel and her Posse (or crew) were never concerned about &quot;making edits that might get them fired.&quot; Take a look at this conversation here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)#Academic_freedom] (Section title &quot;Academic Freedom&quot;). Essentially, throughout the whole Q &amp; A it becomes clear that none of these editors are constrained by fear of an employer or policy. It doesn't take long to read. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 20:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> :::That makes no difference to me at all, for three reasons. First, [[WP:COI]] is unequivocal that the ''appearance'' of a COI is sufficient; it does not matter one iota how thoroughly someone is convinced (or can convince others) that they are capable of being impartial. It is a red line with no exceptions. Second, this is because influence can be subtle and sometimes not even obvious to those exercising it; words are cheap, actually making the people they paid to edit Wikipedia impartial is... impossible. Third, most importantly, even if someone manages to adhere rigorously to that freedom, and even if they are flawless immaculate saints incapable of ever considering who pays their paychecks, paid editing still allows the employer to &quot;stack the deck&quot; on particular subjects by hiring people to edit prolifically simply because they know what they believe and what areas they will edit in. This doesn't even have to be intentional; it's no different from the principle of [[WP:CANVASS]]ing - unless they're hiring people ''totally at random'', they're going to be stacking the deck based on who they hire and what pool they hire from. There are ''no'' situations where someone should be getting paid to make nontrivial mainspace edits on Wikipedia, or even to contribute to discussions without the extremely rigid restrictions placed on disclosed COIs (even those restrictions are truthfully too loose for me, but in this case no one even paid lip service to them.) This is ''actually important''. Pushing back against COIs is vital to keeping Wikipedia functional; most pages and topic areas only have a few dozen really active users, or a few hundred at most, and even they have no real hope of keeping up with editors whose entire job is to edit Wikipedia. If we didn't maintain a hard line, any topic area that was targeted with paid editing would be rapidly drowned in it, with every discussion and every effort at consensus-building dominated by whoever their employer decided to employ. There's no such thing as someone being a &quot;good egg&quot; as a paid editor, because the problem is the entire structure behind their editing and what it would mean for Wikipedia if allowed to proliferate. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 04:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks. I agree with your concerns about paid editing--we should get rid of it. I've never bought the argument that making it &quot;ok&quot; means that paid editors are more likely to divulge COI. Case in point here. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''', English Wikipedia has done a gang buster job, in the past to get individuals who could contribute positively, on this platform to chase them away. &lt;!-- In addition limiting what is considered a reliable source to ensure that certain points of view, and certain subjects, are presented with a certain bias based on what has been left to be allowed as sources. --&gt; The individual editor in question has done a great job with bringing individuals who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy to improving content on this encyclopedia. Yet, there is this effort to limit that effort. What does this say about our community, but to enforce the view that English Wikipedia is not neutral, is exclusionary, and doesn't want individuals who might not align a certain way onto this encyclopedia, especially if they contribute within spaces which certain alignments oppose.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B22234&quot;&gt;'''Right'''Cow&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background-color: #C2B280; color:#3C3B6E&quot;&gt;'''LeftCoast'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;Moo&lt;/span&gt;]]) 18:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{tq|who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy}} ... no doubt an unintended Freudian slip; but that's precisely the problem, institutional devotion here has created a systemic inability to edit according to our policies and guidelines. It's irrelevant what one's intention is; the cascading effect of the relationships have created a swathe of articles and edits which are non-compliant with our tenets. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 02:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::We don't have ''tenets'' on Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines. These were applied to the best of Rachel's, her colleagues', and students's ability most of the time. And actually, their efforts and goals were the opposite of institutional devotional editing. There may be some obscure Mormon religious-character-articles that don't have good coverage. But, that is an oversight that is happening in other areas of Wikipedia in a likewise fashion. And I have to say, I have not seen you involved in any of the recent discussions on LDS/''Book of Mormon'' talk pages. So rather than denigrate the hard work of other editors I recommend pitching in. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 19:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *:::This response exemplifies the problem. This is not about well-intentioned mistakes - this is about a systemic COI failure to ensure neutrality, reliable sourcing and due. Every editor has a right to be concerned about this issue, irrespective of their efforts towards the particular topic, precisely because of the far reaching effects beyond the topic. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 23:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose.''' What Gamaliel said. Also, I would like to support this Wikipedian in Residence, and acknowledge their contributions. [[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Would you also like to acknowledge the concerns raised below (now within a collapse) by BilledMammal, which were also posted on your talk page? [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 19:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Sure. Accepting or declining in-person meetings in the workplace is pretty standard in my world. By contrast, almost every single conversation in this online environment seems like nothing but trouble. I thought that meeting a person with shared interests and a public-facing job, in a public place might be a way to clear up misunderstandings. I did not know that suggesting people try talking things over in person is considered unacceptable here. Now that I think it over a little more, I suppose that if this is literally &quot;the encyclopedia that anyone can edit,&quot; gosh knows what sort of awful, terrible person might show up at a library. Perhaps someone would delete the earlier remark for me? I've always respected the LDS for their wholesome lifestyles (even if I'm too attached to coffee to ever become LDS myself), and wouldn't want to create difficulties for the folks at BYU.-- [[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 00:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' Rachel is a positive contributor. Sure there are missteps, but those can be worked through without going to the nuclear option. Similar to Rhododendrites, I would strongly urge Rachel to institute strict standards for the content she and her students produce and to keep a very close editorial eye on her students' edits, but overall I see her work as a ''net positive''. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 02:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Conditionally support a &lt;u&gt;time-limited&lt;/u&gt; topic ban''' provided that the topic ban is interpreted in such a way as not to preclude commonsensically non-church-related topics such as the [[Bakemono no e]] which according to a presentation here [https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&amp;article=7628&amp;context=facpub&amp;type=additional] she worked with. All university libraries have a lot of holdings, and there are many ways she could continue to be a productive WiR without getting into Mormon archaeology and stuff. I also think some sort of restrictions or advisories/warnings for her student helpers could be worth considering. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I had been seriously considering striking my vote for several potential reasons including RH’s cooperativeness, the issue of proportionality, and the fact that this could set a dangerous precedent based on certain statements by a few of the most aggressive supporters. However, given 1) the apparent interactions between Rachel Helps (wearing whichever hat) and other AML-related persons of interest and 2) the apparent inability on the part of the quality-control system to effectively handle the volume of contestable changes being made by the BYU group (which is by no means the latter’s fault per se, but there is still much room for improvement).<br /> *:At the same time, I am not completely convinced that a community-imposed topic ban is the best solution and I am interested in seeing more discussion. And possibly a “no consensus for now” close that allows RH and the BYU group time to further improve their practices, because I do believe there is a possible overlap between the desire of LDS scholars and The Encyclopedia as a whole in terms of documenting LDS topics more completely. And it does sound like a lot of the LDS content had been start-class poorly sourced and OR type stuff from novice editors, the same sort of stuff that you often see in Indian local articles and Judaism articles.<br /> *:However, I think the proposal about Thmazing is ripe for a close. The community, including yours truly, has a dim opinion of the behaviors that he’s engaged in, amply. And while I’m concerned about the AML situation I would like to see more evidence of any systematic collusion.<br /> *:[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 01:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I'm the one who [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Brigham_Young_University|opened the COIN in 2020]]. If Rachel would have simply agreed that she and her students would place a COI notice on article talk pages, I wouldn't be here. But she repeatedly resorted to arguing that it wasn't strictly required, so she wasn't going to comply with the request that she do so. Multiple other WiRs came in arguing that requiring her to do so would threaten the WiR system; they're here, too, opposing this. I hate to lose the BYU folks' contributions, which I believe are generally helpful, and which we'll probably lose if there's a Tban. But until Rachel agrees to disclose '''on article talk''', even though not required to, I'm a '''support''' for a topic ban from LDS articles for Rachel and her students. {{u|Rachel Helps (BYU)}}, please, just agree to disclose. It's such a small request. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :* At this point I'm happy to comply, the difference between the TOS and the guideline seems like a hill I don't feel like dying on right now. Just tell me how you want me to do it. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:I'm sincerely glad to hear it. Best practices, even if not required, is a good thing for someone who is a WiR and in education to try to follow. You and your students can disclose at article talk by adding the &lt;nowiki&gt;{{Connected contributor|User1=username}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; template into the headers. The first person to edit a particular article can create the banner and put their own username as User1, and others who follow along can just insert |User2=, etc. There's documentation for other parameters at [[Template:Connected_contributor]], but really I'm satisfied with a simple list of COI contributors. <br /> :*:If you'll agree to make that routine going forward for all edits to articles related to BYU/LDS by you and your students, broadly construed, I'll strike my support for a tban. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::@[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] This seems reasonable. I'm curious what the threshold would be for adding the template. I ask because I've often seen Rachel reverting vandalism or other unhelpful edits or just fixing a source here and there. A quick look at her contributions shows that there are over 900 articles where she's made only 1 or 2 edits. It should be possible to find the intersection of her edits with articles within the LDS wikiproject, but I would expect the list of articles to be at least several hundred long. Should there be some threshold for what constitutes a substantive edit, or would you prefer having her place the template even for minor edits? Or would a more narrow range of articles be reasonable, like articles specifically related to the BYU, LDS Church, BYU people, etc.? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::@[[User:Awilley|Awilley]], just off the top of my head: any edit that could reasonably be marked as minor -- typo fixes, grammar fixes, expanding or combining or renaming a reference -- doesn't need a COI tag. If there's content work, and it's related to BYU/LDS, tag it. Willing to be persuaded that this isn't the appropriate threshold, though! I wouldn't want to have to tag an article talk every time I edited something for the first time, that would double the work on many minor edits and maybe discourage me from making them. I don't want this to be onerous, as I do value the contributions these folks are making, and I appreciate BYU's willingness to fund a WiR to provide access to its records. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 20:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * [[User:Valereee|Valereee]], why not make it required? What harm would that do? It seems rather bizarre to make it a condition when it's not a requirement, especially for so qualified an editor as Rachel, who is a huge asset here. (We aren't making it a condition for other COI editors, many of whom have dubious motives, making the difference in treatment even more bizarre.) The solution is to make it required for all COI editors. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#0bf&quot;&gt;PING me&lt;/span&gt;]]''''') 17:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{ping|Valjean}} - To make this a &quot;requirement&quot; rather than currently what it is as a &quot;best practice,&quot; would require community consensus. No one person can make it a requirement. Someone would have to initiate an RFC. And there is probably good reason for this not be a requirement as deemed by the community. For me, the reason for &quot;strongly discouraged&quot; (or whatever) is probably to cover most of the circumstances, with some flexibility, in contrast to overbearing rigidity. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:As said in the opening of [[The Warriors (film)]]: Can you dig it? ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:: Hi Steve. I understand and largely agree about the proper procedure. What considerations might there be against making it a requirement? What harm would it do? -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#0bf&quot;&gt;PING me&lt;/span&gt;]]''''') 18:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I believe I indicated the potential harm. With the wording as it is, there is some flexibility rather than strong rigidity. The community seems to operate best with flexibility. In any case, this is veering off topic in this forum. You might want to open a discussion about this elsewhere. Maybe the Village Pump or the COI talk page or wherever else? Also, anyone feel free to hat this part of this ANI. ----[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Valjean|Valjean]], because we'll never get buy in from other WiRs. Unfortunately it's just that simple. <br /> *:The thing is, it doesn't need to be required in order for it to be best practices, and when multiple other editors are requesting you to do something that isn't strictly required in policy ''and only costs you three seconds of time'', why would you not ''want'' to comply with those requests? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I'm not sure where to respond here, but yes, I'm happy to comply and talk to other WiRs about best practices. I just told my students that we're going to include talk page connected contributor banners from today, and it will probably take a few days for everyone to start using them (one of my students is only working on Fridays this semester). I can do the pages we've worked on in the past--does anyone know if there is a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category? Or I can dedicate a few minutes each day working on it over the summer. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::{{tq|a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category}} <br /> *:::You could try a [[WP:BOTREQUEST]]. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::AWB is also an option where you can make semiautomated edits to pages based on an intersection of categories. Like pages in the LDS Wikiproject that you have edited. Ping me on me talk page if you want help. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 15:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' per Vanamonde93. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 18:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' per Vanamonde93 and Awilley [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 02:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban, broadly construed.While it's true that her userpage is a whole heap of disclosure, the real problem is her (undisclosed) willingness to encourage other's undisclosed COI. Per Fram and Levivich: in Effect. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 18:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per the reasoning of {{U|Levivich}} - which I find particularly alarming due to the walled-garden character of a lot of BYU articles. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Weak Oppose''' per Vanamode93. Even if the COI stuff is properly resolved, or Rachel Phelps is topic-banned, we still have a massive number of LDS topics with no critical sources. This does not necessarily mean that the articles will improve. As a religious editor myself, it can sometimes take me up to an hour to find a non-fringe scholarly source to support whatever perspective I want represented. This is frustrating, but I do not try to bend the rules if I cannot find a reliable source mainstream enough to support a pro-religious perspective. See [[WP:NOTTRUTH]] for more information. However, I am opposed to a topic-ban because in my experience, student editors tend to do such a terrible job following policy, that I cannot support a topic-ban without us at least doing something about the WikiEd program as a whole. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I suppose it's possible that some of the student employees being paid by the BYU Library to edit Wikipedia are also involved in WikiEd somehow through their regular classes, but this is the first time I've seen someone bring up WikiEd as a problem here. {{u|Scorpions1325}}, since it's important enough to inform your vote, could you explain what the connection is? [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 00:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Forgive me. I misspoke. I am saying that it is not wise to let people employed at universities or anywhere else edit here for pay if they are not well-versed on policy, which is the case of BYU's students. At [[WP:AFC]] I found myself removing [[WP:PRIMARY]] and non-[[WP:INDEPENDENT]] sources every day. Paid editors, disclosed or not, tend to cause time-consuming work. Being a Wikipedia editor is something that requires commitment. Sometimes, learning the ropes can take months. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 00:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I've read this over four times and no matter how I look at it, you seem to be arguing in favor of restrictions (or rather, that it would be &quot;not wise&quot; to oppose restrictions in this specific paid editor situation, where we agree that there are problems). But maybe that's just a sign that I should have shut up an hour ago and left this for the closer. Which I'll do now, with apologies for dragging this on longer. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 00:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::It's a yes, but only if situation. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 01:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Topic ban for Thmazing=== <br /> <br /> On the basis of [[User_talk:Thmazing#Conflict_of_interest|this discussion]], I think we need to topic ban [[User:Thmazing]] from pages related to [[Association of Mormon Letters]] broadly construed. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Editors may also consider a wider topic ban on [[Mormonism]]. Note the time of this post, editors commenting before '''04:13, 15 March 2024''' will not have seen this post. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 04:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' This user has a large number of COIs, and refuses to discuss them. They are still editing, but will no longer engage in questions regarding editing about themself and their friends. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood|talk]]) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. As &lt;ins&gt;he is&lt;/ins&gt; a former president of [[Association for Mormon Letters|AML]] and current Managing Editor of its journal [[Irreantum]], I see Thmazing as the &quot;highest-ranking&quot; editor in this COI group (that I know of), and thus the most culpable. Far more culpable than Rachel Helps, who is listed as AML's Discord Admin (and I believe is a current or past board member). Thmazing should have been the one to disclose, require the disclosure, or otherwise reign in, all this undisclosed COI editing coming from AML board members, staff, and other associated editors. A TBAN from AML is really too little IMO, I would ''at least'' TBAN from all of Mormonism (same scope as Rachel Helps) for the same reasons: prevent him from not only editing about AML but also about its &quot;product,&quot; which is Mormon literature, and thus by extension, Mormonism itself. Heck, due to his high ranking nature and his particularly obstructive involvement in this entire fiasco, I'd also just support a straight site ban. But support as certainly better than nothing. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;small&gt;This is phrased a little confusingly... until the end of that paragraph, I thought that you had declared ''yourself'' the current managing editor of Irreantum.--&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier&quot;&gt;[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])&lt;/small&gt; 19:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *::&lt;small&gt;That would have been a real plot twist! 😂 Thanks for pointing it out, I added a couple words to clarify. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 21:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *:What exactly do you mean by {{tqq|by extension, Mormonism itself}}? [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 02:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per sound analysis above. &lt;s&gt;I looked at his last article [[Draft:Mike Pekovich]], originally created in the mainspace: it is blatantly promotional (&quot;His work on woodcraft [...] has influenced thousands of woodworkers over decades&quot;) as much as badly sourced (two non-independent primary sources)&lt;/s&gt;. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;ins&gt;ADDENDUM&lt;/ins&gt;: I also support a wider '''topic ban from Mormonism''', broadly construed, per Levivich, starship.paint and Steve Quinn. Also based on my striked content I suspect there could be other COIs in the mix (in addition to some obvious [[WP:CIR]] issues). --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 12:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> **The draft you link to is problematic, but I don't see how it relates to the AML. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *** You're right, I had taken for granted that the subject was an LSD member. I've strikken the side comment, which is btw telling of this user's way of editing. --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 17:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ****If anything that speaks to a broader issue, perhaps include a ban on article creation? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' maybe they will miraculously recover from the [[WP:ANI flu|unfortunate illness which prevents their typing]], but hopefully they take their &quot;breathing&quot; time to learn [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thmazing&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212609155 how to not] {{Personal attack removed}}. In this particular case, however, Thmazing's obstructionist behaviour annoyed me enough to begin investigating in the first place, so perhaps we should thank him. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:AirshipJungleman29|AirshipJungleman29]]: I've removed the personal attack. Please remain civil when describing behaviour from other editors. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{reply|Femke}} That's bollocks, &lt;s&gt;mate&lt;/s&gt; colleague. We had our [[WP:DICK|own page called that very thing]] which ''still'' directs to a page on meta. So AsJm29 should have called Thamazing a jerk, I guess. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::And there is a reason the meta page is no longer has that title. More people considered this a personal attack. Neither words are conducive to resolving issues of COI editing and civility on Thmazing's part. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 20:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per the above comments. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', but per Levivich, would easily support more, as this is ridiculously lenient. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I agree that the past president of [[Association of Mormon Letters]] shouldn't be editing articles about that group, but I'd like to have all such conflicted editors able to make suggestions and {{tl|edit COI}} requests on the talk page. With niche subjects in particular, we need to balance our need for an accurate article against our desire to have the independent editors making the decisions about what to include. It's not ultimately helpful to the main goal if we TBAN anyone who actually knows anything about the subject. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:If they are the only people who know the things about a subject, that subject may not be worthy of encyclopedic coverage. It may have not gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and may not be suitable encyclopedic matter. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 23:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Strong support''' lack of candor and accountability, repeatedly citing their own off-wiki blog posts, even this topic ban is too lenient, it should be a topic ban from Mormonism at least. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' the topic ban described above per all the comments about COI and lack of candor. I also support a broader ban to include all LDS/Mormon topics per [[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]]. --&lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Futura&quot;&gt;[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' the subject obviously has skin in the game regarding AML and they fail to adhere to COI policy. I agree that the ban should include all LDS/Mormon topics. They do not understand how to edit according to policies and guidelines. Also, I am looking for evidence that they actually cited content in articles with their own blogposts. If this is true then that is totally unacceptable as one of the primary no-no's on Wikipedia. Anyone have any diffs about them citing article content with their blog posts? I read about it in the linked conversation but was unable to discern on which article(s) this happened. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **{{re|Steve Quinn}} - perhaps you can look at the articles [[Elias: An Epic of the Ages]] (most obvious, look here first), [[Adam and Eve in Mormonism]], and [[Brad Teare]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 03:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Starship.paint}} - So yes, it is true. Thmazing has been citing content with their blogposts. This is disconcerting. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 16:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *'''Support'''; Thmazing appears to be both more culpable and less able to recognize and fix problems with their editing. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 04:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed'''. As {{slink|User talk:Thmazing#Conflict of interest}} {{small|([[Special:Permalink/1213676930#Conflict_of_interest|permalink]])}} shows, the editor repeatedly cited their self-published blog posts (from [[Substack]], [[Blogspot]], and at least one personal website) in Mormonism-related articles, including articles not directly related to the [[Association for Mormon Letters]]. These are clear violations of the [[WP:PROMOTION|policy against promotion]] and the [[WP:REFSPAM|guideline against citation spam]]. New editors who do this are indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia as a routine matter; see the reports on the [[WP:UAA|username noticeboard]] for examples. The editor's use of deflection when asked about their promotional edits and conflict of interest (e.g. {{!xt|&quot;[[Special:Diff/1212451954|I know you just got out of arbitration yourself and so I can understand why you'd want to share the love, but I feel like the conversation we've had has already solved this problem.]]&quot;}}) is highly concerning and shows that they are not an appropriate fit for this topic area. —&amp;nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#536267;&quot;&gt;Newslinger&lt;/span&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:Newslinger#top|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;'' 04:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', per extensive discussion above and elsewhere. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 05:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', per evidence presented by others. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 12:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support site ban for high conflict-of-interest, topic-ban as second choice''' - Refer to my comments in re the Rachel Helps topic-ban above; they apply equally here, with the caveat that we have community banned editors for editing blatantly to further their organisation's goals on the grounds of irreconciliable conflict-of-interest. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * &lt;s&gt;'''Oppose'''. Generally concur with the comments by Awilley, Ocaasi, Pigsonthewing, Vanamonde93, and FyzixFighter. I do not see anything presented that rises to the level of requiring a topic ban, and I see plenty of evidence of the positive contributions this editor has made to Wikipedia. [[User:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;Gamaliel&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/small&gt; 22:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/s&gt;<br /> ::&lt;small&gt;{{ping|Gamaliel}} {{ping|Oliveleaf4}} I think you may have voted in the wrong section? This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, {{ping|Viriditas}} might want to re-evaluate the &quot;per Gamaliel&quot; vote. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 06:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :::&lt;small&gt;{{ping|Gamaliel}} {{ping|Oliveleaf4}} I also think you may have voted in the wrong section! This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, {{ping|Viriditas}} might want to re-evaluate the &quot;per Gamaliel&quot; vote. ---06:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :::{{ping|Awilley}} {{ping|Steve Quinn}} Thank you! You are correct, and I've moved my !vote accordingly. [[User:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;Gamaliel&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/small&gt; 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' per Gamaliel. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *&lt;s&gt;'''Oppose''' as per Gamaliel also. Telling the BYU Wikimedian in Residence not to edit on Mormonism? We don't want to go there, folks. If we need to work with them on some aspects of wiki policy, let's not harangue them online, let's arrange for an experienced person to meet up with them. I might have a chance to go out to Utah next year, and I'd be happy to sit down with them and edit.&lt;/s&gt; [[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 04:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Why don't we want to &quot;go there&quot;? What are you implying? The community has been trying to &quot;work with them&quot; on aspects of policy for years. It hasn't worked. Why are you so confident your in-person visit is going to be successful? Do you have a track record of success with such things? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 11:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It is creepy to offer to meet in real life with editors you don't know to help them avoid a potential topic ban. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood|talk]]) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{+1|color=green}} [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Fwiw this is a WiR at a university whom anyone can walk up to and not some editor editing off their couch at home so if anything the suggestion raises the opposite sort of sussiness. Anyway… [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 05:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::One word: safeguarding. One wants to interact with another Wikipedian one does so on Wikipedia or at an event where Wikipedians have *themselves* *chosen* to attend. We should not be treating casual contact amongst editors in RL with anything other than the most serious concern for unintended consequences. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 05:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Am attempting to support efforts by a WiR, not give them a bad time! (Have attempted to comment in the other section.)[[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 18:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' The evidence is clear here as well. Currently this editor is a net-negative to Wikipedia and cost us time and energy. I cannot understand this continual impulse to let folk get away with bad behaviour and breaking policy that are clearly understood and followed by the majority of editors. That was a long conversation that was held in 2020 by administration, it was very clearly stated. Combined with the analysis done recently, makes it clear as day. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 13:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:This is quite rude and suggests an egregious misreading of my editing history. Some cherrypicked flaws in my editing past do not a &quot;net-negative to Wikipedia&quot; make. Has anyone actually looked at my entire editing history or are you just believing what you're told?<br /> *:I appreciate the fellow above who admitted he had made erroneous assumptions about an article I had started but his errors were more numerous than the one he apologized for.<br /> *:I know this isn't the place for it, but I feel obliged to point out that what's happening here is largely an on-Wikipedia doxxing of people who, in good faith, made it possible to do so.<br /> *:(Also, I might add that the idea that I've only heard about Fram in one Discord server and that you can guess which one it is is charming. She has quite the reputation as I'm sure many of you know.)<br /> *:Anyway, carry on. If you could do it without the ad hominem attacks, however, I would appreciate it. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 22:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Thmazing}} No it isn't. I did look at your entire editing history and checked a whole bunch of it as I work on article reviewing, before I commented here. I read the discussion prior to this as well. The comment is probably is a bit harsh but you made the concious choice to ignore policy and your response hasn't been particularly positive. I work up at conflict of interest board also and I see the same kind of response by coi editors every time. I am sick to death of it dude. I want you to experience a moment of catharsis and undergo an epiphany, improve and stop breaking [[WP:COI]] and particularly [[WP:NPOV]]. I only state this because of your previous work. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 08:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' - Same general rationale as my !vote regarding Rachel Helps, but with Thmazing there appears to be even less mitigating circumstances as they have not engaged with this discussion in a remotely satisfactory fashion, whereas RH has at least attempted to make amends. &lt;sub&gt;signed, &lt;/sub&gt;[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban from Mormonism, per above. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' I'm here particularly because of the refusal to acknowledge the problem. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :'''Support''' I haven’t yet decided what I think about the proposal for Rachel Helps, but given the level of incivility and defensiveness Thmazing shows on their user talk, combined with their substantive behavior with content and CoI, I think a topic ban might be warranted. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 07:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed. Even on top of the obvious COI issue for the reasons explained in my reply regarding Helps above, their replies on their talk page about it are not acceptable and show both an unwillingness to assume good faith and a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] view of Wikipedia, which is particularly incompatible with COI editing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1190835734&amp;oldid=1190608956&amp;title=User_talk:Thmazing This] they thought better of and replaced, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1190838884&amp;oldid=1190835734&amp;title=User_talk:Thmazing the replacement] is no better. {{tq|I understand your feelings may be hurt and I don't want to pile on}} and {{tq| Wikipedia is not a sport where people should strive to win or lose and I apologize if I made you feel you needed to win}} are not acceptable ways to respond to a serious concern. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1212451954&amp;oldid=1212410244&amp;title=User_talk:Thmazing This] is in some ways even worse - I'm particularly concerned by {{tq|I think you might feel better about things if you report me. I mean—you're Fram! You have a reputation to maintain! (I was lurking on a Discord channel earlier today and you came up. &quot;What a coincidence!&quot; I said to myself)}} coupled with {{tq|I'm not sure how you all ended up here (perhaps you're on another Discord channel complaining about me?)}} - I'm not sure how to interpret those two sentences other than, well, 1. Thmazing believes that people coordinate Wikipedia edits on Discord, and that this is common and normal enough to immediately leap to that assumption when COI concerns come up, and 2. Thmazing themselves is in a Discord channel which was discussing Fram around that time. The logical conclusion, to me, seems to be that Thmazing leaped to that conclusion because that is, in fact, the nature of the discord channel referenced in the first sentence, and they assume that everyone else is doing the same thing because they're approaching Wikipedia as a battleground. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:In fairness, [[WP:FRAM|we did have a massive controversy which involved harassment and Fram]], and all that seemed to come from that is that Fram has a reputation.... for being a punching bag whenever he inserts himself in anything involving any sort of controversy and getting fucked over whenever his name comes up in conjunction with anything remotely near [[WP:HARASS]]-related content (though in this case I will defend his block as justified, just not as performed by [[WP:INVOLVED|Primefac]]). This is not to justify Fram's actions or exonerate Thmazing, whose actions smack of [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list|EEML]] or [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones|WTC]] just from a brief glance, and get just as ugly as them if scrutinised. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :'''Comment''' Thmazing has been creating a lot of redirects such as &quot;John grisham&quot; (note the capitalization) and seems to be unaware that these are superfluous (unless I’m very much mistaken) due to case insensitivity. Is there a way to bulk RfD like multiple AfDs? [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 10:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|RadioactiveBoulevardier}} - actually Thmazing is correct in this regard, so no deletions should occur. For example, our current TFA [[George Griffith]] versus [[George griffith]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 12:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::How so? If I put “George griffith” into the search bar and press the button (ignoring suggestions ofc), I get sent to the article. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 13:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I see, we did different ways, {{re|RadioactiveBoulevardier}}. I typed the URL with &quot;George_griffith&quot;. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_griffith] '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 13:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In any case, there’s a reason these redirects are not created systematically. Still, I suppose they’re cheap. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 13:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I'm not particularly interested in defending myself here even though a lot of what has been said is more game-of-telephone than evidence and would never hold up in a court of law. It also makes me sad how corrosive discussions can become. That said, I thought I might add a couple bits of information for consideration.<br /> <br /> 1) I was editing AML-related articles long before I was involved in the AML. I agree that's no excuse for failing to disclose COI when it became a thing, but honestly, it never really occurred to me. I was just doing what I'd been doing before.<br /> <br /> 2) Based on the specific edits that have been used as evidence against me, it seems like we're talking about maybe a dozen of my roughly 8000 total edits---or '''0.15%'''. Even if we quadruple my infractions, which seems a number higher than likely, it's less than half of one percent of my total edits. So some of the hyperbole about me being a threat to the very existence of Wikipedia is wild.<br /> <br /> 3) Something I've noticed in these discussions before is that a few facts can become monstrous through snowballing assumptions. I would encourage anyone who thinks #2 is a lie to please check my contribs for yourself. I genuinely consider myself a gnome and a fairy and you'll see that I turn Wikipedia green. In a wide variety of subjects.<br /> <br /> 4) This conversation makes me think Wikipedia needs to have a new conversation about what COI even means. We have some cowboys that go around enforcing, imo, absurdly broad standards. I'm not sure, by their logic, that I should be allowed to edit places or people within the United States, or with the arts of any sort, or possibly things that metabolize. I know you all think I'm exaggerating here. Good! I agree!<br /> <br /> I don't anticipating posting here again. I've found that a few people (not you, of course, ''other'' people) just want a fight, while I believe in a troll-free Wikipedia. I suppose if I hadn't identified myself, none of this would have been possible. But I'm not afraid to be identified. And I'm up for being called out on my errors. What I'm not cool with is people saying things like I'm a net-negative on Wikipedia. That's not the Wikipedia culture I know. And it's not representative of the work I've done here over the last 20 years (17 with this account). Thank you for reading. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 23:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::I know I said I didn't plan to butt in again, but about an hour after I posted, a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity and describing me and my evil ways and nefarious means. (I will not be providing a link.) But the thing that made me laugh was his primary argument that I have a financial motivation in all this and it made me wonder if that's what everyone here has been thinking? Finances have always been the way ''I'' think of COI and you won't find edits where I cross that line. See if you can see what these have in common:<br /> :::Money made editing Irreantum: $0<br /> :::Money made as president of AML: $0<br /> :::Money made editing Peculiar Pages: $0<br /> :::Money made editing Wikipedia: $0<br /> ::I suppose in my mind these are all part of my efforts to make the world better using the tools I have. Anyway, if that was the (unspoken) subcutaneous concern, I thought I should address it. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 00:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::When you say &quot;a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity&quot; you do realize all that information can be found on your userpage? [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 17:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The post at…that place makes some easily verifiable claims. Other sources indicate you wholly own Peculiar Pages and have a senior position at Irreantum, so the claim that no money explicitly changed hands is not only irrelevant, but indicative of the reasons why editors (including myself) think a topic ban might be helpful to the project.<br /> :::Like, unilaterally removing a notability tag with the diff summary you did? Going about it that way is horribly disruptive to processes and doing so with a CoI is unconscionable to anyone engaged in the NPP or deletion processes (as I am).<br /> :::And by the way, unlike Nihonjoe you by definition can’t be outed, at least not while you have links to your public-facing socials and your personal website on your website. That’s not outing, it’s [[muckraking]]. If you want to claim any sort of protection for your identity, blank your user page.<br /> :::Frankly, if I had a mop I’d have given you a 24-hour block for the particular flavor of calculated incivility you’ve shown multiple editors on your user talk.<br /> :::Through your repeatedly telling people things to the general effect of &quot;[[I am not a crook]]! Was it because of [insert personal attack] that you thought so?&quot; when you know as well as they and now we do what the diffs say, you’ve turned a not that big complaint into something that a pseudonymous WikiHater thought was worth posting about.<br /> :::In fact, it should have been dealt with sooner. An admin should come along and close this because the more people vote !support, the more I get unpleasant feelings related to having just reread ''[[To Kill a Mockingbird]]''<br /> :::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *{{re|Thmazing}} - first, money doesn’t have to be made ''while editing''. The very existence of the Wikipedia pages, in a promotional way, may generate money for the entities. That isn’t my biggest concern, though. That would be that within the last year '''you literally cited your own blog''', multiple times [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elias:_An_Epic_of_the_Ages&amp;oldid=1151435889] within the [[Elias: An Epic of the Ages]]. One month after that you declared that it was your blog [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thmazing&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1153382284]. Citing yourself is blindingly inappropriate. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I've copped to that and apologized and not touched the article since. I hope that these (rare) instances will lead to other editors improving the articles with sources they see as appropriate. But of course I'm not going back to them myself. I can't imagine a better way to get more people mad at me.<br /> *:Also, I hope if I'm not responding quickly there aren't more accusations of me avoiding the conversation. This is a dreadfully busy moment for me in almost every way. Plus, most of the commentary hasn't really been to me, more at me. Thank you, @[[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]] for being so civil. (And I know you understand busy!) [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 05:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Oh, hey---serious question:<br /> *:Considering how often I could have cited myself, I rarely have. Usually I use some other source because it seems like the right thing to do. Those few exceptions are for information I didn't think was available elsewhere. I appreciate people don't appreciate the exception and I'm suitably cowed, but that gets to my question.<br /> *:There's been effort to have scientists and historians and others bring their expertise to Wikipedia. And I have to imagine, especially with a scientist bringing new information into the world, if they do so they have little choice but to cite themselves. Although I've generally avoided citing myself (as the rarity of instances proves) I've always thought that this drive to get wild-haired scientists to bring their work to the public via Wikipedia suggested a backside-covering precedent. I wonder how this understanding of the intersection between expertise and COI may have changed? [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 05:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Scientists do not need to cite themselves to contribute their expertise. Science topics generally disallow primary sources (research articles), so adding info sourced to one's own research publications isn't compliant with PAGs anyway. Issues would really only arise when editing a ''very'' narrow subject, when the editor is so prolific writing review papers that all the most up-to-date consensus info is cited to them, or when the editor has a huge number of collaborators and can't avoid citing one of them. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 06:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{re|Thmazing}} - I am afraid your response and past actions show what seems to me a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines. By citing your own self-published blog {{tq|for information I didn't think was available elsewhere}}, you are violating [[WP:COI]], [[WP:SPS]] (part of [[WP:V]]) and also [[WP:DUE]] (part of [[WP:NPOV]]). It is my opinion that any topic that desperately needs your blog as a source probably does not meet [[WP:GNG]] for an article on Wikipedia, and any article that meets WP:GNG does not need your blog. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 00:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::That's not quite what I said. All the articles are worthy of existing sans me. I only cited myself for ''specific details'' I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page. I now understand I should not have done that. Lesson learned. If my goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia, such edits would be greater than one one-thousandth of my total edits. I mean---I've written a lot of stuff. I've written about thousands of books and hundreds of movies and plenty of other stuff. If I were the sly ne'er-do-well described in this discussion, you could find hundreds more examples of self-citation to harp on. Since that's not that case, I would greatly appreciate a bit of [[WP:AGF]]. I'm trying to be a good citizen. I believe deeply in the value and importance of Wikipedia and my edit history proves I have added to that value. I'm not touching the articles I've been accused of COI on, even when it's absurd and I have stuff to add. For instance, I had collected a bunch of more recent sources on [[Brad Teare]] but I've only posted them to the talk page, even though I can't imagine a reason why I shouldn't be able to edit that page. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{tqq|I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page.}} That's what [[WP:NPOV]] says ''not'' to do: include details that aren't in secondary sources that you personally think are valuable to someone visiting the page. If the only person who wrote about a specific detail is you, then you're not the person who should be adding that detail to the Wikipedia article. What you did there was use Wikipedia to promote your own viewpoint--to promote details nobody else thought were important enough to publish. That ''is'' &quot;sly ne're-do-well.&quot; That's not being a good citizen, that's putting your head in the sand and pretending that bias and COI don't apply to you. That you don't understand or accept this, is why we have COI rules: people with COI have biases that prevent them from viewing something objectively; in particular, COI comes with a bias that makes everyone think their COI doesn't come with a bias, or the bias doesn't matter. It's inherent, it's why COI rules exist in the first place. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{re|Thmazing}} - you've asked for {{tq|a bit of WP:AGF}}, I assure you that's exactly what I have given to you. I've never called you a {{tq|sly ne'er-do-well}}, neither have I said that you have a {{tq|goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia}}. I simply think that you do not know (yet) if you should, or should not, add certain information to an article, per [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:SPS]], which you should thoroughly review. That is evident from your response: {{tq|I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page.}} '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 07:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' for disruption and ignoring NPOV. &lt;small&gt;If Thmazing thinks Fram's comment is unclear[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thmazing&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212609155] or that the draft linked above is NPOV, Fram's command of English, or at least the formal English in encyclopedias, may be better.&lt;/small&gt; It seems like a sarcastic comment to me, but either way there's been enough egregious behaviour that the camel was crushed long before the Belgian comment. [[User:Novo Tape|Sincerely, Novo Tape]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Novo Tape|My Talk Page]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Also, tagging is still editing. 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [[User:Novo Tape|Sincerely, Novo Tape]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Novo Tape|My Talk Page]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed''': Thmazing says that their COI editing is a very low percentage of their Wikipedia edits — 0.15%, according to their completely made-up estimate. If that's the case, and it's not a big deal to avoid all the pages where COI is likely, then a topic ban should be easy to comply with. In general, I'm unimpressed with Thmazing's statements — if they're still calling the COI concerns &quot;absurd&quot; after all this conversation, then they're not getting the point. If they really want to avoid a topic ban, being less defensive and dismissive would help. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 23:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:The conversation with Fram (linked above by Novo Tape) shows that Thmazing prefers deflecting away from the issue of declaring COI by essentially verbally assaulting Fram. {{redact}} Being snarky doesn't work. {{redact}} One more thing, this is not social website where we host links from personal blogs or links from other trivial venues. Thmazing, try doing some reading to learn about editing on Wikipedia. I suggest you start with reading [[WP:N]] and then follow the links from there. But, candidly, I don't see that as happening. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed''': Note that this is an ongoing issue, Thmazing continues to join in discussions without disclosing relevant conflicts of interest [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Motley_Vision&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214597917] [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{redact}} ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' broadly construed. Not merely the absolutely ''blatant'' COI, but their refusal to acknowledge it, let alone address it, means that the community must do it for them. They chose... poorly. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 18:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Canvassing concerns===<br /> :{{userlinks|BoyNamedTzu}}<br /> :{{userlinks|Awilley}}<br /> I am concerned that there has been canvassing involved in discussions related to Rachel Helps (BYU). In January 2024 there was a case here at AN/I involving myself and Rachel Helps (BYU). Both BoyNamedTzu and Awilley broke long no-edit stretches (21 November 2023-8 January 2024 and 9 December 2023-7 January 2024 respectively) to take positions strongly in support of Rachel Helps (BYU). Neither disclosed a conflict of interest. The same thing happened again with this VP/M-AN/I thread, both broke long no-edit stretches (8 January 2024-12 March 2024 and 17 February 2024-13 March 2024) to take positions strongly in support of Rachel Helps (BYU). BoyNamedTzu did not disclosed a COI, Awilley only disclosed after being asked. In between 8 January 2024 and 13 March 2024 BoyNamedTzu made no edits and Awilley made only four. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :As I mentioned above, I was alerted to the existence of these threads by pings or mentions because I had participated in a previous discussion about you and Rachel Helps. <br /> :*January 9th AN/I thread: That thread was actually about topic banning or admonishing ''you'' for hounding Helps. You say I took a strong position, but I didn't even !vote. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194089340#Admonishment_proposal Here's] the only comment I made in that thread (replying inline to another user to gently correct what I saw as a misrepresentation). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1193974962 Here's] the comment that mentioned me in that discussion. <br /> :*February-March VP/M thread: I got what looks like a more deliberate ping to that thread in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1213362422 this] comment. You will undoubtedly find that suspicious because it was the same user who pinged me to the earlier thread. In any case, there seemed to be a lot of misunderstandings and accusations flying around, so I made a similarly meandering comment trying to clear up a few issues and replied to one user. Unfortunately I can't provide diffs to my two posts because they were caught up in an oversight, but if you scroll up from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;oldid=1213635752#A_personal_analysis_and_proposal] you'll find it. <br /> :*March 13 AN/I: I got pinged to the above thread by its creator in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1213529641 this diff.] You can see my response above where I wrote, &quot;in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor.&quot; I try to say something like that whenever I !vote on AN/I threads related to religion because I've recused myself from taking admin actions in that topic area. <br /> :I didn't get any emails or off-wiki communication about these threads, and I'm not on any email lists or text threads or discord servers related to Wikipedia. From a search of my inbox, the last Wikipedia related email I received was in September 2023 from a user asking for details on how I created a certain .gif animation. As for why I chose to comment in the above threads: I have a soft spot when it comes to seeing gnomes getting attacked and sucked into wiki-drama. <br /> :Speaking of pings and notifications, it looks like the &quot;userlinks&quot; templates you used above do not automatically generate pings, so I got no notification that you had opened this thread. You might want to consider officially notifying {{ping|BoyNamedTzu}}. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The community appears to have now endorsed my concerns around Help. I am disturbed that you are only now disclosing your BYU COI despite participating in a number of discussions about the BYU wikipedia editing program. Also, given what we now know clearly not a gnome and never was. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I would also note that since pinging you to that first discussion [Hydrangeans] has disclosed a series of COIs. In hindsight that appears to be on-wiki canvassing. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Then the canvassing issue you have is with [Hydrangeans], for the first two discussions, not Awilley. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I don't agree with that. I was just writing that I'm disappointed in Awilley. In the Jan 9th thread, that's one BYU alum pinging another BYU alum for backup in a thread involving BYU's WiR, and ''none of the three of them'' disclosed it. In the VPM, ''again'' a BYU alum pings another BYU alum, again accusing HEB of &quot;hounding&quot; the BYU WiR, and again, neither of the BYU alums disclose their connection. This is all in an effort to shut down HEB when ''HEB was right all along about the COI'', in fact it's a much bigger and broader COI issue, we now know, than just involving the BYU WiR. This was super deceitful. I understod when I read &quot;I'm commenting here as an involved editor,&quot; and I thought, ''ah ha, that's why''. This is very not kosher, you should ''all'' know better than to participate in ''discussions about COI by your alma mater'' without disclosing that it's your alma mater. In hindsight, we now know, that almost all of the people defending the BYU WiR from COI allegations were also BYU people (or AML people, or both). This was all highly deceptive, which is extra disappoint when it all comes from a Christian church (yeah I said it). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 02:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I would say that this is an issue of lack of disclosure of Awilley's part, which is, the more I think about it, pretty disturbing, for the reasons you mentioned. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You're right, with that fact pattern laid out Awilley's conduct looks like harassment. They selectively participated in discussions about topics they had a COI with at a time in which they were not generally active on wikipedia in order to confront or inhibit the work of another editor (me). That would be unbecoming of any editor, from an admin it really begs the question of whether they should remain an admin. It is par for the course for disruptive editors to cry &quot;Harassment!&quot; while engaging in harassment, but I rarely see an admin do it and never without consequences. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 02:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> :::::{{tq|you should all know better than to participate in discussions about COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it's your alma mater.}} We talked thoroughly on my userpage why the [[WP:COI|conflict of interest policy]] left me with the impression that it asked about current relationships and not terminated ones, and I apologized for that, both to you personally and in the Village Pump thread. This thread is the first that I learned Awilley had any connection to BYU. I pinged Awilley, along with Drmies and Mackensen, because they had participated in a past ANI thread about HEB and I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again. There are ways of communicating about COI other than by violating the [[WP:HA|harassment and privacy policies]]. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 02:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::If you pinged people because of their past interactions with me and not their past interactions with Rachel on a discussion purely about Rachel's conduct that is not appropriate. Especially if you did it because &quot;I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again&quot; that would be canvassing with a specific goal in mind, all three are admins, were you trying to get me blocked? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 02:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I get that at the time, you didn't know Awilley was a BYU alum. But Awilley knew. I now count at least half a dozen editors who have some affiliation with BYU/AML -- almost all of them current or former employees -- who engaged in discussions about undisclosed BYU/AML COI editing without disclosing their affiliation. If all of them were part of one single conspiracy, that would be bad. But if they all each independently decided to surreptitiously influence the COI investigation without disclosing their own COI, that's even worse. That's like: what the heck are they teaching at BYU, that there are so many BYU folks who don't seem to grasp basic ethics -- and not a matter of the wording of Wikipedia policies, or even ethics tied to any religion or culture, but cross-cultural basic ethics, like that if you are going to act as a &quot;judge,&quot; &quot;juror,&quot; or &quot;witness,&quot; you'd better disclose your connection to the &quot;defendant.&quot; That's so basic. Everyone involved in these discussions about BYU/AML COI who has any connection past or present with BYU or AML should disclose that, or else stay out of these discussions. And it seems like every day I'm learning of someone else who has been involved, has the connection, but didn't disclose. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 02:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::@Levivich, up until today I didn't know that [Hydrangeans] was a BYU alumnus. And frankly knowing it now doesn't really change anything for me. She's just an editor with whom I cross paths with occasionally. There's only one Wikipedia editor I've ever knowingly met in real life. We went to lunch together and had a nice talk. Maybe he was a BYU alumnus too; I don't actually know. And it doesn't matter. Editors on Wikipedia should be judged by their words and actions, not the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 05:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Yeah, judged for actions like choosing to participate in multiple discussions about undisclosed COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it was your alma mater (though I appreciate that you finally did). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Nobody is being judged by the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended... They are being judged by their words and actions *alone*. Throwing out these red herrings and insinuations of bigotry against good faith editors is not constructive. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Indeed, and my concern at the time was that HEB pushed too hard, evening when not gaining support from other editors for their views (still feel that way, but it's not relevant here). This situation is different, and I feel seriously misled by Nihonjoe's failure to disclose their COI. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 00:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I will happily acknowledge that Rachel is my friend and the person who recruited me to Wikipedia and taught me how to edit. When I have seen her being relentlessly bullied by other editors, I have defended her. She has never asked me to do this. She has never reuqested that i participate, in any way, in any discussion about her work. She has never canvassed me or anybody else that I know about in order to solicit responses or participation. But the grenades that you and others have thrown her way have a real life impact on an actual human being that I care about, and that often propels me to action. I am conversant enough with Wikipedia conventions to find my way here without being canvassed.<br /> :I will soon be deactivating my account and leaving Wikipedia for good. I have no desire to continue to edit, and I will pledge to make no more edits to any pages. [[User:BoyNamedTzu|BoyNamedTzu]] ([[User talk:BoyNamedTzu|talk]]) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::And did you see it on the discord? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No. I did not see it on the Discord, which I have not participated in for months. I saw it in my real-life interactions with my friend. [[User:BoyNamedTzu|BoyNamedTzu]] ([[User talk:BoyNamedTzu|talk]]) 20:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::For what its worth I hope you stick around, in the future please either avoid such crossovers between your personal life and wikipedia or disclose them. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Further canvassing and meatpuppetry concerns====<br /> {{hat|This was apparently instigated by a joe job}}<br /> {{userlinks|Luke Olson (BYU)}} created an account for the purpose of !voting against a topic ban. In a discussion on their talk page, they revealed there is a discord channel where BYU editors are discussing and are opposed to this topic ban - I am concerned that other !votes may have been canvassed by that channel.<br /> <br /> In particular, I'm concerned about {{userlinks|Oliveleaf4}}, who returned after a two month hiatus and after a few hours of editing elsewhere arrived to vote against this proposal - their first ever participation at ANI.<br /> <br /> I note Awilley has already been raised above, but I'm also concerned about them; they deny being a member of this discord channel, but there is clearly some connection as Luke Olson pinged them when restoring their !vote, saying {{tq|I'm going to ping [[User:Awilley]] so he sees if someone deletes my message again.}}<br /> <br /> In general, I think this is evidence that stronger and broader action is required, perhaps similar to what was used against the Church of Scientology. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I wasn't around for any Scientology saga, but I think if broader action is required, it would likely be geared towards reducing time wasted by college students with the most poriferous opsec I've ever seen, rather than what I presume was a real operation by serious people. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 04:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :what ''did'' end up happening with scientology anyways? [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 04:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Well, there was [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology|this]], @[[User:Vghfr|Vghfr]]. [[Special:Contributions/57.140.16.57|57.140.16.57]] ([[User talk:57.140.16.57|talk]]) 13:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214295281 Diff]''' of the quote BilledMammal is referring to, for convenience. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 04:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I don't know why Luke Olson singled me out. I've asked [[User_talk:Luke_Olson_(BYU)#Curious_why_you_pinged_me|here]] on their talk page. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Most likely because you're a member of WikiProject LDS. I guess he thought that you'd back him up because you had involvement in LDS related topics [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *If any more single purpose/meatpuppet accounts show up, just tag with {{green|&lt;nowiki&gt;{{spa}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;}} directly after their sig. The closer should be an admin, and they should be able to properly weight any SPA comments. [[User:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;Dennis Brown&lt;/b&gt;]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;2&amp;cent;&lt;/b&gt;]] 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I added the &quot;not a ballot&quot; notice to the top. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 12:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:ජපස|ජපස]], @[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]], @[[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]], @[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] and others, fwiw CU data indicates that account is a Joe job. Seems like it was created to derail the discussion and cause drama for entertainment. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Glad y'all put a stop to it. This really makes [[WP:AGF]] hard, doesn't it? Now I have to reset my priors because it did not occur to me that this could have been a joe job. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{hab}}<br /> <br /> Assuming I'm no longer under under investigation for [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Awilley&amp;page=Brigham_Young_University&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max= being an agent of BYU], may I suggest that if there is truly an appetite for having an open and honest discussion about off-wiki canvassing, it might be healthy to acknowledge the real elephant in the room. The thing that I think [[User:Horse Eye's Back]] referred to as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213530736 the &quot;invisible baseball&quot;]. Above [[User:Aquillion]] above criticized Thmazing for questioning how Fram, &lt;del&gt;HEB, and company&lt;/del&gt;&lt;u&gt;and a couple other editors&lt;/u&gt; spontaneously ended up on his talk page. It seems that was a valid question after all. In that light it's a bit ironic that we have editors tracking down Oppose voters to interrogate them on how ''they'' heard about this discussion, what their alma mater is, and whether they're members of a Discord group. {{pb}}I also can't help but wonder if some part of the frustration on display above may be displaced anger for a different user who is currently out of reach of AN/I. I'd hate to see Rachel Helps and Thamazing become convenient scapegoats for Nihonjoe. I'm not asking anybody to change their votes, but I do think it would be healthy to reconsider the [[McCarthyism|BYU editor under every rock]] approach. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 03:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I don't think it was a valid question at all. I asserted, and continue to assert, that the way in which Thamazing reacted there shows a starkly [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] approach to Wikipedia. And it seems a bit silly to bring up the fact that Nihonjoe is before ArbCom as if that is something people concerned about COIs might ''object'' to. It seems clear to me that this will (and should) end up before ArbCom as well - the problem is systematic and comparable to eg. [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology]]; it is unlikely to be settled here. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 04:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :FWIW, I started watching Thmazing's talk page back in January after I submitted evidence on AML COIs to ArbCom. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 06:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It's rather hard to look at Nihonjoe's COI contributions and ''not'' notice the constant intersection with both Thmazing and the BYU editors. For example [[Annie Poon]] was created by Thmazing, with later important edits by Nihonjoe and Rachel Helps (BYU). Oh, Rachel Helps even sourced the article to two different non-[[WP:RS]] sources written by Thmazing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annie_Poon&amp;diff=733735545&amp;oldid=715763069]. Stellar work promoting AML editors in an article about an AML Award winning artist, not problematic COI editing at all. Same at [[Steven L. Peck]], created by Thmazing, expanded by Rachel Helps (BYU) with addition of a source written by Thmazing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_L._Peck&amp;diff=760551193&amp;oldid=696493939] (and e.g. a source written by Michael Austin, which whom she has a COI as well) , of course again a winner of an AML Award (as are Thmazing, Rachel Helps, Michael Austin). On other pages edited by Nihonjoe, I encountered Thmazing adding his own publications[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Wells_%28author%29&amp;diff=449048632&amp;oldid=445839510]. I have to say, Rachel Helps is rather fond of quoting Thmazing, she used him as a reference twice in [[List of Mormon cartoonists]] as well, next to of course the AML Awards. But Thmazing doesn't really need her help, he is perfectly capable of ading his own self-published work[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nephi_Anderson&amp;diff=713827919&amp;oldid=712611908], again on a page edited by Rachel Helps and Nihonjoe as well. But it is a good reference, because that work won, you guessed it, an AML Award. <br /> :Oh look, [[Dendō]]! Created by Rachel Helps, about an AML Award winning book where the Library that pays Rachel Helps owns the original artwork, and where Helps again uses Thmazing as a reference (among other not quite independent references as well). It's a walled garden which becomes very obvious once one looks at more and more articles edited by the same people referencing each other by name, each others publications, the organisations they're in, and so on... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''It seems that was a valid question after all.''' Please explain what you mean by this. I would also note that if you want &quot;to acknowledge the real elephant in the room&quot; it would be helpful to actually name the elephant... In plain English what is the concern? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Re: &quot;It seems that was a valid question after all.&quot; I was referring to the off-wiki blog post/doxing that Thamazing mentioned above and questioning whether that might have been part of the reason a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep. The earlier blog post and related on-wiki fallout was what I was referring to as the elephant in the room. I think that's about as plain as I can be without having this post redacted. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Is &quot;a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep&quot; an accurate summary of the facts? I showed up on Thmazings talk page in December 2023‎. The off-wiki blog post was made on January 18th 2024. Fram didn't show up until 6 March 2024‎, JoelleJay on the 7th, and AirshipJungleman29 on the 8th. To me that looks like JoelleJay and AirshipJungleman29 followed Fram to the page but it doesn't look like Fram was following the &quot;bad site&quot; closely. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yeah, I saw Fram's edits to the page come up on my watchlist and was curious. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how AJ29 arrived too. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::No actually, I was following you; I believe you had said something on Jimmy Wales' talk page (EDIT: yes, it was [[User talk:Jimbo Wales#French Wikipedia's new trans MOS|this thread]] which I participated in) and I absent-mindedly had a look at your recent contributions. Couple of days later I was having a look at WPO (I believe for the Nihonjoe saga), saw that thread, and thought &quot;huh&quot;. Used what I could of that thread when opening the VPM subsection after being irritated by Thmazing. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Based on these facts I would ask that you strike &quot;HEB&quot; from &quot;questioning how Fram, HEB, and company spontaneously ended up on his talk page.&quot; if you don't choose to strike the whole thing. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 22:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Although you joined the others in posting on March 7, I'll strike &quot;HEB&quot; as you requested because, as you pointed out, you had posted on Thmazing's talk page in December 2023. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::And what about those who posted on the 9th? Are they part of this clique you're alleging the existence of or is the 8th some sort of magic cutoff? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't mean to defend the blog in any way, but doesn't that editor make their real life identity abundantly clear, hence the conflict of interest? [[User:XeCyranium|XeCyranium]] ([[User talk:XeCyranium|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Correct. Thmazing made like zero effort to hide his identity, which made the COI obvious. And to be fair, I have seen some evidence that Thmazing was trying to declare COI even before he was confronted. See for instance [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irreantum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1178161024 this October 2023 edit] with the edit summary, ''&quot;conflict alert: just cited myself&quot;.'' (Still not great to cite yourself though, even if the information was mundane.) &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::So, Awilley, you claim that insinuations that I appeared at Thmazing's talk page due to some off-wiki canvassing is &quot;It seems that was a valid question after all.&quot; I guess you have some evidence for this? As far as I can reconstruct, I noticed Thmazing because of the AML and the AML Awards, which I was looking at because of the many links between them and Nihonjoe's COI articles; and because he also turned up at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 26]], which I looked at when I delved a bit deeper in Rachel Helps' edits (again after I noticed the BYU, AML, ... edits and the collaborations with Nihonjoe on GA review, edit-a-thon, ... ). I then noticed the older discussion about his COI issues, so I started looking at his edits more closely then. But feel free to post any evidence you have of any off-wiki places I was contacted or where I contacted others or ... If you don't have any, perhaps strike the accusation and don't repeat such bogus claims in the future. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 11:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Fram: I'm not trying to claim or insinuate anything. I became interested in the possibility of off-wiki collaboration when I was singled out by the &quot;joe job&quot; sock, so I did some digging and then posted the above. I don't find fault in any of your actions that you described above, and I really wouldn't care even if you ''had'' learned about Nihonjoe and the other editors on the other site. How you find the information matters much less than what you do with it. You'll have to forgive me for not being immediately familiar with all the facts. When I first commented on the Village Pump thread this month I didn't realize there was an Arbcom case afoot and Nihonjoe wasn't even on my radar, so I've been kind of piecing things together since then. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Once you look at the timeline of things, you can see that this didn't start with WPO, WPO only confirmed what people had already been saying on-wiki for ''years''. To recap:<br /> :* the now-familiar [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University|2020 COIN]]<br /> :* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1115#Another user is persistently complaining about me|2022 ANI]] started by Rachel Helps against HEB, where she writes &quot;I have invited Horse Eye's Back to bring their concerns to COIN. I would prefer that to the constant accusations that I should not be editing certain pages.&quot; This is ironic in hindsight, as these concerns had already been brought to COIN two years earlier. AFAICS, nobody in the 2022 ANI thread mentioned the 2020 COIN. The only person in the 2022 ANI discussion who was also in the 2020 COIN is... Rachel Helps. I find it not very honest of her to say &quot;take it to COIN&quot; without disclosing that this had already been done. BTW, who jumps in to defend Rachel in the 2022 ANI? Awilley.<br /> :* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Horse Eye's Back's battleground behavior|January 2024 ANI]] against HEB (for things including but not limited to the BYU/AML COI), in which Rachel Helps writes &quot;HEB has been harassing me since last year (see my talk page archive) and the students who work for me(see 1 and 2). He threatened to nominate us for a topic ban on editing pages about the Book of Mormon...&quot; (this is the one mentioned above where [Hydrangeans] pinged Awilley to the discussion) Dozens of editors participated here.<br /> :*:BTW just to toot my own horn here, I said there and then, on Jan 8, that &quot;It seems ''wildly'' obvious that 'something is afoot,' and I don't think it's limited to this thread...&quot; That there was widespread undisclosed COI editing was obvious by Jan 8. Subsequent disclosers have since validated my suspicions.<br /> :* The &quot;Let's talk about LDS editors&quot; WPO forum thread was started Jan 18. After all of the above.<br /> :* The WPO blogs were posted in Feb and March (neither one about Rachel Helps, but related)<br /> :The timeline refutes any suggestion that WPO is what brought attention to this matter. Rather, WPO laid bare the evidence that supported what was already being discussed on-wiki. We know from people's statements that editors submitted evidence to Arbcom privately in December and January. Wikipedia didn't follow WPO, WPO followed Wikipedia. People weren't canvassed from WPO to Wikipedia, it was the other way around. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm pretty damn sure that the reason WPO wrote about it was ''because'' nothing was done on-wiki. Which happens pretty regularly: if Wikipedia doesn't take care of its own problems on-wiki, the rest of the world will notice and call Wikipedia out for it whenever the problems are serious enough for the rest of the world to care. Spreading misinformation in Mormonism, the Holocaust, Israel/Palestine, Iran, etc. are examples of things the real world will care about. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Given the extensive ongoing issues and the lack of recalcitrance maybe we need to start talking about sanctions for Awilley. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you for the timeline, Levivich. That is very helpful. I remember that 2022 ANI...I think that's why I kept getting pinged back to subsequent threads on the same issue. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Right, so when you're in a hole, stop digging. This isn't McCarthyism, which you literally linked to. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 08:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Jesus this is a mess,<br /> ::::does anyone want me to contact an admin [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 02:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{ping|Maestrofin}} The admins are most likely fully aware. This forum is entitled &quot;Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.&quot; ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Do you think we should have an Request For Comment [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 06:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Several admins have participated in this thread, including Awilley above. An RfC might be needed subsequently, but not right now; you are welcome to comment on this discussion {{u|Maestrofin}}. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I suspect that {{Ping|Ocaasi}} was canvassed to this discussion per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ocaasi]. Despite being an admin Ocassi had not commented on this noticeboard since September 2015 and was not in general active on wikipedia when they came here to make a very strong comment. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Based on their user page, there are several other highly plausible explanations than outright canvassing…honestly this is getting a little too Inquisition-y for my liking and while it may well result in discoveries that a do-no-harm editor like me would never have chanced upon, ArbCom has a nasty reputation for being a little indiscriminate with its remedies. Just so you’re clear on the risks/rewards. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 01:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: There's a line between a witch hunt and hunting witches... But yes, I take your point. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Well, you ''were'' pretty much accusing the founder of [[WP:LIBRARY]] of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy not limited to LDS editors…lol<br /> :::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I think it's legitimate to point out that some GLAM higher-ups are circling WiR wagons in this dispute. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{cn}}{{clarify}} [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I join you in soliciting additional evidence of same. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Horse Eye, respectfully, how are you defining &quot;active&quot;? The link you provided shows activity every month from October 23, 2023 to March 2024. And if we go back to the next oldest 100 edits there is activity every month from May 12, 2023. And this is starting to feel a little creepy, imho. It may be best not to go down this road unless there is some sort of definitive evidence, imho. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 02:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : I'm defining active as &quot;could reasonable be expected to have found this discussion through their normal editing.&quot; If you can come up with a way they got here let me know, IMHO their appearing here is a little creepy and I'd like some context. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::This discussion is already so complex that it's going to be hard for anyone to close it. Quibbling over a single participant's possible canvassing is adding more complexity. Even if this is true, it's not important. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 16:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'd disagree. If an admin were canvassed and still !voted (I have no opinions on whether or not they were), it would be a serious [[WP:ADMINCOND]] issue, potentially warranting a formal warning. It's certainly important if true. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 18:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Agreed but…''prima facie'' evidence much? Canvassing has a specific definition. Being hypothetically informed of a WiR getting in trouble, coming over to see what’s up, and then deciding on one’s own initiative to respond in a knee-jerk way is, unless I’m very much mistaken, not canvassing.<br /> ::::Anyway, if the movement were as politics-ridden as was implied, then he in turn would, purely theoretically, probably be able to canvass a goodly number of experienced uninvolved editors who are overwhelmingly grateful to him for their free access to more things than even those enrolled at most top universities get.<br /> ::::Separately, I sense that Awilley’s vehemence is probably related to the tone taken by jps and others. Even if mainstream consensus and anti-religion PoV intersect on points of fact (like that the society depicted in the BoM is, ya know, completely fictitious and Joseph Smith was quite literally pulling it out of his hat) that doesn’t give editors a blank check to exceed or breach guidelines (any of them). [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Meh, even if it was canvassing, this is just one vote amongst many. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Closing time?===<br /> There have been no new comments in the main threads for a couple of days, so is it time for an uninvolved admin to close before the archiving bot gets trigger happy? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :This should absolutely get the attention of a closer. I look forward to reading it. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::My reading of the main thread is that it's a tricky close because of so many overlapping issues. On the one hand, there's a clear consensus that the user messed up in editing topics with a COI without adequately disclosing the COI. But there's no evidence that her editing was disruptive (quite the opposite). There's evidence that her student editors weren't doing a great job with NPOV and were too &quot;in-world&quot; on Mormonism-related topics. But she seems to be taking steps to address that as well, starting by having them only edit in sandbox for now. There are some users who seem to suggest that all paid editing should be banned, but AFAIK that argument doesn't have the force of policy behind it. There seems to be a numerical majority favoring a topic ban, but the editor is a clear net-positive on Wikipedia and shows a genuine interest in following the rules. In this thread she openly admitted fault, and then she went way beyond what is expected by listing all possible conflicts she could think of on her userpage. (See also the conversation with above with Valeree about which talk pages require a COI template.) The WiR thing is another complication that I think most people (including me) don't fully understand. And it seems the biggest COI violations (like the creation of [[The ARCH-HIVE]]) were unpaid—done on her on time from her personal account. This all makes for a thread that different admins could reasonably close in different ways. {{pb}}My suggestion would be to wait a day or two (I don't know if Rachel edits on Sundays) and see if people might be interested in finding a middle path...something between &quot;topic ban from Mormonism broadly construed&quot; and &quot;no action&quot;. There might be some solution that would satisfy more people and solve the problem too, perhaps something along the lines of &quot;Rachel Helps agrees to use the {{tl|Connected contributor}} template on all articles in the LDS Wikiproject to which she makes substantive edits, and will not directly edit articles about BYU, its current staff, or its library. She agrees to follow the advice at [[WP:COIEDIT]] for subjects she has a close connection with, including using the {{tl|edit COI}} template on the talk page. All article creations, even those from her personal account, must go through the [[WP:Articles for Creation]] process.&quot; Some guidance for what to do with her students would also be helpful. {{pb}}Is there any interest in this? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 17:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;small&gt;(involved here, in case anybody hasn't read the above thread)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :A 2007 close that led to an arbcom case above [[Special:Diff/140818119]] suggests that this discussion is gonna be difficult to close definitively…[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 18:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}I don't understand why people are opposed to a topic ban from Mormonism broadly construed even as they admit there were problems. What is the added ''benefit'' of these accounts being able to move around the pages about Mormonism? I think there is rather ''broad consensus'' that encouraging them to move towards new topics would be ideal. Wouldn't a topic ban do that? What I don't understand is why the &quot;middle ground&quot; is sought at all. If you think she and her students should be editing Mormonism pages, then she should be allowed to do so. If you do not, then why the worry about the topic ban? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:ජපස|jps]] My experience in many contentious (especially religious) topics around Wikipedia has been that there are often two major groups of editors in opposition with one another. One group usually has some affiliation with the topic that gives them three things: 1, motivation to edit, 2, above average knowledge about the subject matter, and 3, a non-neutral point of view. (1 &amp; 2 are good things, 3 is a bad thing.) These users are usually opposed by another group of users who are 1, motivated by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to counter the POV of the first group, and that, 2, have relatively little knowledge of the subject matter. It is &lt;u&gt;good&lt;/u&gt; to have some friction between these groups of editors, since Wikipedia needs motivated editors, people with deep knowledge about the subjects, and a commitment to follow its PAGs. Sometimes you will find a smaller third group of editors between these two opposing groups. These editors may some affiliation with the subject matter with the corresponding POV problem, but they have decided that when they log into Wikipedia, they are going to put Wikipedia first. They have a deep knowledge of the subject, but they recognize their bias and they take steps to mitigate that. If improving Wikipedia is the goal, these editors are a precious resource. The main reason I'm defending Rachel Helps is because I see her as being part of this third group. Does that answer your question? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You think being Mormon gives a person an above-average knowledge of Mormonism? I think it's the opposite. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Strike your comments. That is very disrespectful. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 01:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Agreed: this is a completely unacceptable PA by Levivich, and not even attached to an actual point they're trying to make. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 04:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::How is Rachel ''not'' a member of group 1? She has motivation to edit, above average knowledge of the subject (such that one might have as a member of the church), and a non-neutral point of view. You are also a member of group 1, no? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I suppose if you're technical about it, a Venn diagram would show that group 3 is largely a subset of group 1. My own relationship with Mormonism is complicated and something I prefer not to discuss on-wiki, but I have tried my best try my best to be a good member of group 3. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I think the controversy here is one over whether it is possible to be more or less in the service of NPOV. I would prefer that we simply admit that people with a ''close'' relationship with a subject will necessarily be biased. It is our job as editors to try as best as we can to put that bias aside and attempt to follow Wikipedia's consensus [[WP:PAG]]s to achieve [[WP:NPOV]]. To the extent that I think the BYU contingent has been unable to do that and to the extent it has been in the service of the particular bias which is more-or-less apparent at first glance from the consideration of their approaches in articles on the Book of Mormon is the extent to which I have concerns over [[WP:PAID]], [[WP:COI]], etc. in these areas. So while your complicated relationship with Mormonism is a concern, you (as far as I know) are not being paid to edit Wikipedia by an organization with an iron in that fire. Here is the bone of contention. This is why I am having a hard time seeing how this is amenable to compromise between &quot;just stay away&quot; and &quot;there's nothing wrong with it&quot;. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Isn't it the case that at this point, only the community can determine if a compromise is possible? I mean, the community has already reached a consensus on its preferred outcome. And admins are not likely to thwart the community's decision, imho. Also, since we are already here, wherever &quot;here&quot; is, we might as well move forward ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In other words, Rachel can appeal in six months or whatever the time frame is. Time in between now and an appeal can be a benefit because it is a chance to show a proven track record. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 22:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{tq|which is more-or-less apparent at first glance}} Except it isn't more or less apparent. The worst of those Book of Mormon topic articles were created decades ago, in the early 2000s, by completely different accounts with nothing to do with Rachel Helps (BYU) and were in far sorrier states before the BYU-paid editors actually added citations to sources other than the Book of Mormon. (To quote Ghosts of Europa, {{tq|Second Nephi and Ammonihah are in much better shape than, say, Jason, a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid.}} [for clarity, Ammonihah was not expanded by a BYU-paid editor; that's an article I expanded]) {{pb}}I'm aware of JPS having complaints. Yet some of these complaints have ranged from the genuinely inaccurate (I urge JPS to at some point accept the academic assessment of Joseph Smith as having been racist in a slightly different manner than has been insisted with repeated linking to a 30-year-old ''JWHA Journal'' article—and saying that isn't apologetics unless Max Perry Mueller's ''Race and the Making of the Mormon People'' (University of North Carolina Press, 2017) is Mormon apologetics, which would be a strange characterization for an academic book written by a non-Mormon about Mormon racism and white saviorism)—to the demandingly excessive, like at [[Talk:Ammonihah]] where JPS calls a non-Mormon literature professor a {{tq|lunatic charlatan}} and repeatedly insists the article is incomprehensible because it doesn't provide an apologetics-style anthropology of background elements in the story like supposed Nephite ecclesioilogy.{{pb}}My bone of contention is that JPS's catastrophic description of the Mormon studies topic area that Rachel Helps (BYU) and the student employees have contributed to doesn't hold up in all cases and only holds up in a couple. My bone of contention is that speaking as a trans girl who was formerly a BYU student with a BYU student job (unrelated to the Wikimedian-in-residence business; I never met Rachel Helps (BYU) at BYU and instead met her and primarily got to know her via Wikipedia), this {{tq|BYU contingent}} as JPS calls them never made me feel ashamed or like I was less than them, whereas the users most strongly insisting that Rachel Helps (BYU)'s contributions are catastrophically damaging have proceeded with a tear-down tone that's left me feeling paralyzed about editing completely unrelated things on Wikipedia. I cannot stress this enough when it's so bizarre. I ''came out as trans at BYU'', and the behavior that has been on display here at Wikipedia in the midst of this whole &quot;thing&quot; has hurt ''more'' and inflicted ''more'' shame than I experienced back then. There's been [[WP:OUTING|attempts at outing and stalking]], there's been bizarre additions to articles like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=1213942114&amp;oldid=1212611600 throwing {{tq|judge of ???}} (actually with the question marks) in body text] because apparently that was the best way to insist that article text I wrote wasn't clear enough about the intricate geopolitics of a Nephite society that NPOV means we're not supposed to be treating as nearly so real (JPS's train of thought on Book of Mormon topics more than once has resembled FARMS-style apologists much more than the 21st-century academic-critical field), I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213912940 been told my best effort to summarize available scholarship has constituted {{tq|stupid games}}]. At BYU, I didn't develop a fear I was being stalked. I didn't get talked about over the pulpit or in publicly-viewable forums. No BYU personnel ever [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick&amp;diff=1214009259&amp;oldid=1213938770 followed me to an unrelated article to loom over my shoulder].{{pb}}I don't know what's up about Nihonjoe and ArbCom, and I don't know why the heck Thmazing has been so devil may care in tone and has been making articles cited so predominantly to blog posts. Let the sanctions on ''them'' fall as they must. But to apply the same broad brush more widely and without nuance or differentiation strikes me as reminiscent of the kind of thinking at which the [[Wikipedia:List_of_cabals#Mormon_Smokescreen_Cabal|Mormon Smokescreen Cabal]] joke was supposed to poke fun. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 23:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{Ping|ජපස}}, you've certainly been around long enough to know that {{tq|???}} is poor wikivoice. A couple questions: Can you point to consensus regarding the WSJ not covering climate change accurately? [[WP:WSJ]] makes no mention of it. Are you following [Hydrangeans] around and/or intentionally scanning their contributions for errors? I'm struggling to find an explanation for these edits besides you intentionally being harsh on [Hydrangeans]'s edits, although please provide one if there is. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 00:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Oh, it's well known that the WSJ is a problem when it comes to climate change denial: [https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/Online/22952/Wall-Street-Journal-opinion-editors-are-attacked].<br /> :::::::I am not &quot;following&quot; [Hydrangeans] around. I did look at some of the articles she had last contributed to and did see this terrible &quot;hockey stick controversy&quot; WSJ article added in [[Ross McKitrick]]. This was not, to my knowledge, anything she added to the article. I do not find anything problematic about her work on that article.<br /> :::::::I think the lack of [[WP:AGF]] extended towards me from [Hydrangeans] is sad, but as you can see from our interactions on her talkpage, not surprising. I ''am'' leveling harsh critique on certain Wikipedia contributions she has made, but they aren't unforgivable sins by any means. Yes, I found the article on Ammonihah and most of the rest of the Book of Mormon pages to be pretty bad and needing a lot of cleanup. I will not apologize for being a disruptive force in those places. I think there is a lot more work to be done up to and including three question marks!<br /> :::::::[[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 01:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Who are we discussing about again is it Rachel helps or her students Or all, <br /> ::::::::Because this is a big mess [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 03:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::I don't take issue with deleting that ''Wall Street Journal'' reference on the Ross McKitrick article. I'm sorry that I wasn't paying enough attention to delete it myself; my attention was taken up by belatedly implementing the results of a talk page discussion. What I take issue with are the looming and a tone that others [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=1214739500&amp;oldid=1214681976 others have] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214576198 talked] to JPS about (the two linked diffs are written by someone who agrees with JPS on content, about a different article JPS was participating in). I take issue with someone who says he {{tq|will not apologize for being a disruptive force}} instead of wanting to be a constructive force. I can accept we disagree about the utility of literary criticism as a secondary source about texts (although I find [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmmonihah&amp;diff=1213917154&amp;oldid=1213917026 the {{tq|lunatic charlatan}} invocation a perplexing characterization, especially as apparently applied to even completely secular scholarship]), and I can accept we disagree about what makes good content in an Ammonihah article or what have you. I can accept being wrong about that, and I can accept those articles significantly changing. What I don't think I'm obliged to accept is an apparent priding of oneself on contributing [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptively]] rather than constructively, or behavior like going {{tq|LOL}} (actual quotation, multiple times) at other editors' [[WP:AGF|good faith]] interactions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmmonihah&amp;diff=1213909195&amp;oldid=1213909094 at Talk:Ammonihah], at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215406823 Talk:Massacre of the Innocents]). The presumption of good faith is a core value on Wikipedia of course—and so is the recognition that [[WP:BRIE|being right isn't enough]]. A templated dove doesn't oblige me to roll over and just take the {{tq|LOL}}s and {{tq|Whachagonnado}}s and pretend like that's restrained, polite talking. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 05:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please feel free to disagree strenuously with me, as you have been. You can even request that I reword things, if you like. I'm not saying I necessarily will agree to reword things, but I'm happy to discuss these matters on my talkpage. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::I didn't realize the WSJ's issue with climate change (though I am aware of [[WP:RSOPINION]]). Either way, thanks for answering my question about climate change. <br /> ::::::::On second thought, I think the {{tq|???}}, while not perfect, isn't worth relitigating this whole debate. I welcome a close and don't need any further answers to my questions. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thats an opinion piece... And the [[Editorial board at The Wall Street Journal]] is definitely known for bad takes on climate change. Note that [Hydrangeans] has a history of following around other editors (including to completely unrelated topics) and &quot;looming&quot; over their shoulder so their complaints are a bit much all things considered. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::My own feeling, like I said above, is that this sort of paid editing (paid editing that doesn't follow [[WP:PAID]] and [[WP:COI]], and a WIR program that doesn't follow the guidelines for those organization) is a hard red line. I'm not remotely convinced that the people in question knew more about the topic area or were in whatever respect more policy-compliant compared to the average editor, but either way it ''doesn't matter'', for the reasons I outlined above - this is an actually serious problem which, as a precedent, would have implications far beyond this specific dispute. I'm also deeply unimpressed by an argument that we should make a special exception for someone just because some people feel [[WP:YANI|they are irreplaceable]] - that is not how Wikipedia works or has ever worked. Based on that I'm unwilling to accept anything but broad topic-bans, and I expect this to go to ArbCom if necessary in order to get them - this has been discussed repeatedly, devouring massive amounts of editor time and energy, for ''four years''. If it isn't ended in an extremely conclusive manner here, then the community has failed to resolve it and a broader ArbCom case is the only way to go. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 03:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I think your third group is just the first group from its own POV. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It would probably help if a request for closing was not immediately followed by relitigation of the above debate and related events from the parties who are most unlikely to change their minds. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Hi, I'm not sure where to respond or if it's appropriate to respond. I'm open to helping to &quot;fix&quot; edits that me and my students have made if we can agree on what is appropriate for Wikipedia (including removing research). I'm open to a topic-ban. I'm open to a topic ban on just Book of Mormon pages (and BYU stuff?), since that seems to be the place where most of our edits have been criticized. I think our edits have been constructive in Mormon studies and Mormon history topics. I'm trying to be flexible here. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 18:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :That's great to hear, and will probably inform any closer's decision. But listen: since you're the one who's getting paid to edit Wikipedia, you should be the one proposing specific fixes and to-do items for yourself based on the extensive feedback you've already received over the past several years (from many unpaid, volunteer editors who could have been doing other things instead, I should add). In specific content terms, what are some of the specific edits you're planning to &quot;fix&quot;? What articles, what sections, what changes to your prior edits, specifically? Even just a few will help convey a sense of what you think is wrong with your prior edits, and how you will correct them. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::There are a lot of complaints about me personally, my job, and my edits here. One of the ones that I think is the most legitimate is the argument that we are using too much &quot;in-universe&quot; explanation for the books of the Book of Mormon. I think we could add more context to clarify on individual pages what a book of the Book of Mormon is. I'm watching the edits on BoM pages. It's difficult for me to look past [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=1214181462&amp;oldid=1213564636 jps's inflammatory language] asking for clarification on issues where I or other people used ambiguous language to summarize theology that was ambiguous in the text that we summarized (but at least he is articulating his complaints to the extent of making edits). My plan is to watch how other editors resolve these edits to try to figure out what is the most objectionable part about our edits. Was it how we wrote the narrative sections? Is there a better way to introduce analysis of the Book of Mormon by members who are also Biblical or literary scholars, if that is appropriate to include on Wikipedia? Those are the kinds of questions I am looking for answers to. My current plan is to give myself and my students a break from editing Book of Mormon pages for the rest of the semester (here that's until the end of April), which I hope will give time for some consensus to develop and for one or two pages to get to a standard that is acceptable to the community, which I could then imitate. If my team returned to editing Book of Mormon pages, it would be either me, or me and one other student, to make the pace of editing slower to wait for review from other editors. And it would be great if I could find an on-wiki mentor who is not associated with BYU or the LDS Church to go to with my editing questions. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 21:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I suspect this is one of those ANI discussions where each participant leaves with a lower opinion of every other participant, but for different reasons. That said, probably the best content-related argument against the topic ban (e.g. from Vanamonde) is that you are the editor who is most capable of fixing some of the content problems that have been identified in the topic affected by the ban. If that were true, then topic banning you would impede the process of fixing the content, making things worse overall. But from what you've said here for the first time (I think), it seems like your actual plan is to wait for other editors to (figure out how to) fix content in that topic area anyway. Not you, not now. Given this new information you've provided, that &quot;best content-related argument against&quot;, aka &quot;per Vanamonde&quot;, becomes much less persuasive, I think. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 04:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Rachel Helps (BYU)}} I have to agree with {{U|Indignant Flamingo}} above. I opposed a TBAN because I believe you're among the few editors with the time ''and'' the inclination ''and'' the ability to help clean up some of the problems with articles related to Mormonism that you and your students have worked on, which in my view largely have to do with using sources too close to their subject and language that doesn't distinguish articles of faith from accepted fact. I opposed a TBAN despite the serious concerns many colleagues raised above, because I felt you would be willing to help rectify these issues. If you would rather take a break from the topic, though, I struggle to see why I, and others, should advocate for your continued ability to edit about it. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 20:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::: {{ping|Vanamonde93}} and {{ping|Indignant Flamingo}}: Thank you for these question. I have been thinking a lot about what I have done wrong. It has been difficult for me to sift through feedback on my editing (and I have felt paralyzed by my own anxiety), but this conversation has helped me to narrow down what is important, and empowered me to have an opinion on how I think we could repair some of our work. With the Book of Mormon pages specifically, I think I got into too much of a binary mode about whether or not a source was &quot;reliable.&quot; But for scholarship in Book of Mormon studies, especially from the 1990s or 2000s, sometimes it is more complicated than &quot;this is a reliable source.&quot; Something I understood implicitly was that I shouldn't use Wikipedia's voice to summarize opinions about the Book of Mormon as a historical or archeological source--at the very least these should be consolidated into a section on apologetics, or, like you and others have suggested, excluded entirely. However, my students did not understand this implicitly like I did. They were doing what I told them--to summarize what a given source said about a topic and cite it in-line--when I should have instructed them to look more carefully at the implicit bias in scholarship, especially sources like Brant Gardner, which have some valuable analysis, but also work off of the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text. If we were to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, cleanup of archeological/historical arguments on pages we have edited would be my first priority. However, my students have experienced emotional damage from my incompetence. I would let them choose whether or not to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, with an option to continue their projects that are less connected with Mormons and the LDS Church. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Indignant Flamingo asked for an example. [[Laban (Book of Mormon)]] contains a paragraph about the brass plates under &quot;Interpretations&quot;. It is tricky because it mixes apologetic arguments with literary ones. I would remove this analysis, or introduce it differently: &quot;Brant Gardner, writing under the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text, has argued that the brass plates were a symbol of political authority and recordkeeping in the society of Book of Mormon people (Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites).&quot; I would remove the Stephen Ricks info. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Rachel, I'm so sorry this is making you feel so much anxiety. FWIW, I do not believe you have edited in bad faith, and I doubt I'm alone. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I’m not very happy about this either and in my opinion this should be spun off from the AML issues with Nihonjoe and Thmazing unless and until the inquisitorially minded editors find clearer linkages.<br /> ::::::I’m not sure how this would best be handled, but I would be very wary of any permanent remedies being applied at this point and will slightly adjust my vote accordingly.<br /> ::::::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::A clearer link than the three of them all being current/former board members of AML? What clearer link can there be than all three of their names appearing on the AML about us page? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Well, why don’t you just ask her? She’s been very cooperative so far. And anyway, while the same person wearing two hats is obviously going to rub off both ways, sanctioning Rachel Helps (BYU) would include the whole BYU outfit, and I don’t believe the standard of evidence has yet been met to say that the BYU outfit has demonstrably colluded with Nihonjoe or Thmazing. If such a thing happened, it’ll probably come out over at ArbCom.<br /> ::::::::The reason I’m now flip-flopping uncertainly is that I perceive jps as dragging their apparently long history of content disputes into this venue, and, along with others, making statements that could be reasonably interpreted as implying support of non-neutral handling of religion more generally, while HEB is making unsubstantiated allegations that faintly ooze a touch of Chekism.<br /> ::::::::Meanwhile, Fram and some others have notably tapered off, most likely because they intuit that some more wheels are turning at ArbCom and/or elsewhere and further participation in the mud bath party here is worse than useless for anyone who wants to doggedly pursue the actual application of remedies.<br /> ::::::::ANI is probably no longer an appropriate venue and pretty soon I think I’m gonna go make a formal closure request. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::There are already requests at [[WP:ANRFC]] and [[WP:AN]]. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 19:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Why don't I just ask her what? I don't have any questions. There is, in fact, evidence that Rachel Helps (BYU) &quot;demonstrably colluded&quot; with Nihonjoe and Thmazing, and others. Some of the evidence has been redacted so I can't discuss it, but there's plenty of public evidence still on this page, VPM and the arbcom evidence page -- the evidence my support votes are based on. Look, bottom line: COI concerns have been raised for years about Rachel Helps (BYU). The people who pushed back the hardest against those COI concerns fall into three groups: BYU people, AML people, WiR people. I don't know if you're aware but arbcom already considered expanding the scope of its Nihonjoe case to include Rachel Helps/BYU/AML and voted against doing so. I think ANI is still the appropriate venue for this. This will be closed eventually, it might take some time as it's a long thread, and probably the best thing we can all do, including myself, is to stop making it longer, unless we're bringing evidence of something new. Otherwise, all the evidence and the votes seem to be in. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::@[[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]]; thank you, that is somewhat reassuring. I think you should seriously consider, though, keeping your students off of topics closely intertwined with Mormonism for the foreseeable future, assuming the lot of them do not emerge from this situation with TBANs. It's quite evident from this discussion that there have been problems with the mormonism-related content they have produced. I could speculate as to why, but I won't; I'll just say that dispassionately describing faith and belief in any system is difficult, and is not the sort of task an undergraduate may be up to. I say this to save you and your students further distress, as well as to protect our content. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 21:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have not looked at your Mormon studies/history related edits in any more detail than what was required for the post at VPM and at the start of this section. I have no doubt that many, perhaps even the majority, of you and your students edits on those topics were constructive. But that is to not see the wood for the trees.<br /> :For me, COI editing is comparable to (in some ways) to [[WP:SPI|sockpuppet editing]]—let me explain. It is a question of trust. Yes, a sockpuppet can contribute productively, in improving articles, taking part in processes, getting Wikipedia to function. But it is Wikipedia policy to block all sockpuppets on sight and to put all their edits up for [[WP:BANREVERT|immediate reversion]]. Why? Because once you mislead others to that extent, the trust is gone. And that the trust, or lack of, is fundamental, because good conduct is of equal importance to good content (and I say this as someone who focuses on the latter and occasionally fails at the former).<br /> :It is the same for COI editing. After I have seen your lack of disclosures with, e.g. the account named BoyNamedTzu &lt;small&gt;(I do not know what is public and what is not, but I know that you and I and Primefac and BoyNamedTzu and most of the people in this thread and everyone on The Site That Must Not Be Named know)&lt;/small&gt; how can there be trust? Especially for a person who has held a position which by rights should indicate you are above suspicion. To find that you were actively pushing back against the basic COI suggestions as far back as 2018, and you might as well throw that trust into a shoddily-built submersible and send it down to the wreck of the Titanic.<br /> :The closer may decide that there are significant issues with your Book of Mormon editing, and that's more important. If that's the close, fair enough, I don't really mind—I know you have asked above and on WPO how to improve that aspect. But I want to be clear: I opened this section because I did not think [[WP:CIVILITY|you treated your fellow editors with adequate respect and consideration]], not because I felt you were harming articles. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 02:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{Reply|AirshipJungleman29}} earlier than that, 2016 at least [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amgisseman(BYU)/Archive_1&amp;oldid=854327236#COI]. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Inappropriate removal of NPOV tag by JayBeeEll ==<br /> <br /> {{ping|S Marshall}} closed a controversial RFC today at [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], see [[Talk:Tim Hunt#RfC: 2015 remarks]]. Whilst acknowledging there appeared to be a consensus, he reminded editors that consensus can't over-rule [[:meta:Founding principles|founding principles]], the [[WP:5P2|second pillar]], and [[WP:NPOV|core content policy]] and quoting the amplification on his talk page these ''cannot be overruled by any talk page consensus however strong''. He later emphasised this on his own talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213538308&amp;oldid=1213534477] in response to a query [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213522530&amp;oldid=1213355874].<br /> <br /> Judging by that query, it appears that the key point in the closure was being ignored; namely [[WP:PROPORTION]]. Shortly thereafter, and before any reply, an edit was made to [[Tim Hunt]] which appeared to ignore the closure[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213521275&amp;oldid=1208829572]. Noting the history of edit warring at the article, I chose to add a &lt;nowiki&gt;{{npov}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; tag and start a talk page discussion. I felt that any revert of a bold edit would result in an edit war and had no intention to revert war.<br /> <br /> My tag was removed by JayBeeEll [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213538744&amp;oldid=1213533989] with the edit summary &quot;Don't be silly&quot;, I restored the tag and it was once again removed by JayBeeEll [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213539288] with the edit summary &quot;Yes sure let's see how this turns out&quot;, which appears to be an intention to revert war. The comment in the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213539531&amp;oldid=1213535026] in response to my concerns and the unnecessary 3RR warning on my talk page appears to confirm [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWee_Curry_Monster&amp;diff=1213539690&amp;oldid=1212590941] that.<br /> <br /> On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies. As such I would suggest that the tag should remain until the closure is fully addressed. On a side note, I remain concerned about the toxic nature of any discussion in that talk page presently. Reluctantly bringing it here for further review. Please note I will not be available for a couple of days due to personal commitments. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 17:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The behavior displayed by WCM is very similar to the behavior that led to [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Tendentious_editing_by_Thomas_Basboll|this]] only one month ago; it is disappointing that he has not been able to accommodate himself to the fact that his view is a minority, both relative to WP editors and to the views represented in reliable sources. At least he stopped after a single round of edit-warring about the ridiculous tagging. As with Thomas B, my hope is that this can be settled by a change of behavior, without the need for any sanctions. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::I've no wish to comment on this ridiculous tag edit war, and I'd prefer to limit my involvement with the page to closing that one RfC, but I do want to say tempers are extremely frayed in this topic area and there's definitely scope for an uninvolved sysop to step in and restore order. Please.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 18:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::It would be a ridiculous edit war, were it not for the fact I refused to edit war over this. The fact remains that removing the tags in the way JayBeeEll did is counter to accepted policy. I would acknowledge {{ping|S Marshall}}'s comment that this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. I have been asking for that for weeks, the reference to the removal of Thomas Basboll, is exactly the point I wish to make. If editors are convinced they're right and there are enough of them make a fuss, they can remove what they see as an obstruction by lobbying loudly here. The edit war that editor attempted to start, and its clear that was his intention, was a repeat of the same tactics used previously. I have made no attempt to filibuster I simply tried to bring external opinion but that's pretty unlikely given the toxic nature of editing at present. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::The editing situation got much less toxic when you stopped participating for a few days; maybe you should try that again? Certainly it would be good for an uninvolved admin to tell you the same thing everyone else on this thread has said. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Point to anything I've said that contributes to a toxic atmosphere. As for comments contributing to a toxic atmosphere[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213538744&amp;oldid=1213533989] {{tq|&quot;Don't be silly}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213539288] {{tq|&quot;Yes sure let's see how this turns out&quot;}} whilst edit warring to remove tags that encourage outside input. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{tq|On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies.}}<br /> :That's an extremely uncharitable reading of the closure, apparently because you just don't like the results. The close was finding that the RfC consensus narrowly found for inclusion, with a warning to follow guiding principles of the Wiki while doing so. ''That's it''. The rest of it is you projecting onto the closure and making vague, hand-wavy assertions that the close is against policy.<br /> :Since you won't be available for a couple days anyway, I suggest you wait and see what proposed edits come from the RfC before making any further comments. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I at no point said the close was against policy, I actually think given the toxic atmosphere he was entering {{ping|S Marshall}} made a very good closure of that malformed RFC. The reminder that local consensus can't trump core policy seems to have fallen on deaf ears it seems. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[[WP:CON]] has by definition got to be aligned with the [[WP:PAG]]s since it embodies &quot;a process of compromise &lt;u&gt;while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines&lt;/u&gt;&quot;. So if @[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]]'s close is &quot;very good&quot;, it follows it must have correctly divined consensus, which you now need to accept. If however, you think the close has arrived at a problematic [[WP:LOCALCON]] you need to initiate a close review. Shit or get off the pot. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 11:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Precisely this. WCM, you can't have it both ways: you can't claim the close &quot;trumps core policy&quot;, while acknowledging it was a good close. The close in fact emphasizes that any proposed changes have to adhere to core policy. It seems you're claiming that the finding of inclusion ''inherently'' violates policy, so which is it? — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::At no point did I say the close trumps policy, that's your strawman. The closer clearly refers to core policies and makes it plain that they can't be overridden by a local consensus. He also singled out that I and others couldn't be ignored because we were making {{tq|well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy}} further adding {{tq|While editors are implementing option 1 and option 2A, they should have regard to core content policy, and specifically [[WP:PROPORTION]]}}. It's clear from this comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213522530&amp;oldid=1213355874] there is no intention to implement the full intention of the close {{tq|The view of myself, and I assume a lot of participants, is that [[WP:PROPORTION]] isn't terribly relevant}}. There is [[WP:TAG]] team of editors are acting in concert and per {{ping|S Marshall}}'s comment this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 17:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::''sigh'' I tried, but if you're intent on digging a [[First law of holes|hole]], I can't stop you. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :If you aren't available for the next couple of days, why the hell are you opening an ANI thread? &quot;Reluctantly bringing it here&quot; yeah right. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * WCM's editing regarding the Tim Hunt article has been as tendentious as Basboll's in staunchly refusing to [[Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_&quot;get_the_point&quot;|get the point]] regarding the fact that their viewpoint is a minority and continuing to [[WP:DEADHORSE|beat a dead horse]] and engage in [[WP:WIKILAWYERING]] in an attempt to fillibuster discussions regarding the issue, rather than just moving on. I would '''support a topic or page ban''' from Tim Hunt if WCM does not desist with his aggressive rejection of the talkpage consensus. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Given that WCM has continued his disruption regarding the article, I firmly support a topic ban now. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I haven't done any editing that would remotely be described as disruptive. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1215468029&amp;oldid=1215465703] Any editing I do is immediately reverted, this was clearly constructive. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 12:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Absolutely astonishing. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''support topic ban''' due the editor's apparent unwillingness to drop the stick and refusal to get the point of the RfC. I commented at the ANI thread where Thomas B was topic banned. Given the RfC I moved on and have not touched the article or the RfC. The level of name-calling on display at that article over an ancient ten-day kerfuffle in the bro-sphere easily matched the most acrimonious mutual accusations of genocide I have witnessed on Wikipedia. EE squared. I had never heard of Tim Hunt. He seems nice? But if the episode in question is included in the article -- and there seems no question that RS has covered it in immense detail - then the article should dispassionately state that Tim Hunt said what he said. This editor's contention that it should not (because the poor man nearly committed suicide over this) utterly lacks a grounding in policy, and no evidence was ever presented of this assertion either. It betrays an emotional investment in this incident that baffles me, frankly. I would hesitate to participate on the talk page due to this editor's past level of vitriol, and the time sink it again likely would become. I am not following this thread. If anyone has questions about what I just said, please ping me. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 12:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204016425] {{tq|I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood. Most do.}} in your on words your motives are to expose another misogynist. I am quite astounded that you'd openly mock someone driven near to suicide. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I check back at this article after taking a break from it and find the RfC has been closed, consensus established and the article fixed accordingly. Great: the journey is over, the plane has landed, and the engines are turned off .... But oddly the whining sound continues as there's one editor who [[WP:IDHT|seemingly can't move on]]. If this continues sanctions may be appropriate. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 08:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Note that the other problem editor in this mix, who was page banned from [[Tim Hunt]], has now started beating the dead horse at BLPN.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214799114] [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 07:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215140427 reported] this straight to the ban-implementing administrator this time, as this is an obvious attempt at [[WP:GAMING]], [[WP:STICK]], [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. I will remember to prefer broader topic bans next time. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Given lack of response I guess this was the wrong venue. I won't be trying to get Thomas B sanctioned for this in particular any further, but should we post some sort of final warning to [[User talk:Thomas B]]? [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:... and today [[User:Thomas B]] still continues to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215520494 post] about Tim Hunt on BLPN. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomas_B&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214802498 This] earlier comment &quot;{{tq|I won't be participating '''too actively'''}}&quot; (bolding mine) indicates that the user is going to continue to disrupt. So we have to upgrade Thomas B's page ban to a topic ban ''at a minimum''. But given this user's stubborn, prolonged refusal to cease disruption, an additional block from the whole Wikipedia for a few months is needed as a deterrent, in my view. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 18:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::And now the BLPN discussion forum-shopped by Thomas B resulted in yet another editor getting [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NewImpartial - BLP discussion touching GENSEX|dragged to ANI]]. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 13:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I've started a new ANI thread to expand Thomas B's sanctions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Thomas_B_forum-shopping,_circumventing_page_ban,_refusing_to_drop_the_stick]. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban, [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] and other issues. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 11:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' - Does this topic fall under GenSex? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:The overall Tim Hunt article wouldn't but the section on the controversy would fall under a GENSEX topic ban, as they are &quot;broadly construed&quot;. (So would this thread, I believe.) [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban''' for Wee Curry Monster. WCM had numerous opportunities to change course. All this has been sinking our time for over a month already. Since the editor is not willing to drop the stick, a sufficiently broad sanction is the only remaining solution. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban'''. Please somebody make it stop. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban''' per the really excruciating refusal to drop the stick or adjust behavior in any way. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' Pretty shameful episode for WP and ANI. [[WP:CIR]], and the lack of such competence is what created this mess. It's very clear that some editors pushed content, got an editor banned from the article, and opined in the RfC without first bothering to read the sources. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 18:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{ping|fiveby}} Your latest contribution on the talk-page is a bit cryptic, and invoking CIR here is bizarre, but I'm quite sure that if you were to participate in the constructive content discussions (i.e., the ones that don't involve WCM or Thomas B) the result would be positive. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I try and limit my participation to finding and providing sources for other editors, how is it constructive and why would i participate when the remaining editors, those who survived ANI, are those which have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to read those sources? I'll try and explain my 'cryptic' comment on the talk page. It was just a suggestion to WCM that what he is doing might be futile. You cannot force editors to read sources. An editor familiar with the reading may have reverted that content, but would never have called it &quot;disingenuous&quot; in the edit summary. As far as [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-kokomo-tribune-but-i-cant-fix-stup/34981880/ &quot;can't fix stupid&quot;] goes, tho it is couched in terms of the content generated by conflict rather than collaboration, did not my choice to use that particular phrase make my opinion clear enough? [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::There is a reason that WCM's edits to the article get reverted but your edits a couple weeks ago did not, and it's not about the unwillingness of people to read sources. I mean obviously if you change your mind but decide that what you have to add is a bunch of comments about other editors not reading the sources then I don't think that will go great. But ''almost'' everyone who has contributed in the discussions on the talk-page has shown a willingness to listen to others as part of developing a consensus. Anyhow, don't mind me, do what you want! --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban'''. This is just blatant [[WP:STICK]] and [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. The consensus in the RFC was clear. The consensus on talk about how to implement the RFC is reasonably clear. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1213533575&amp;oldid=1213481488&amp;title=Talk:Tim_Hunt comments] after the RFC were full of aspersions and battlefield behavior, ending with {{tq|Feel free to disabuse me of the presumption that having &quot;won&quot; and righted a great wrong to expose the terribly sexist misognynist that you don't intend to do that.}} --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban'''. WCM has been popping up at literally anywhere on Wikipedia this is being discussed to re-litigate a view of the RFC that literally nobody else holds. The RFC close even mentions him showing up at the close request I made to pressure whoever was going to close it. Even after the close he's totally failed to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], and thus unfortunately we've got to force the issue with a topic ban. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Comment ===<br /> <br /> [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Wee+Curry+Monster&amp;page=Tim_Hunt&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max=] My contribution history on [[Tim Hunt]]. 100% of it reverted. 0.7% of all contributions on the article.<br /> <br /> Note 2 tags added 13 March 2024. 25 March 2024 - series of edits adding context and information in [[WP:RS]] per [[WP:NPOV]].<br /> <br /> That is all of my contributions.<br /> <br /> [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Wee+Curry+Monster&amp;page=Talk%3ATim_Hunt&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max=] My contribution history on [[Talk:Tim Hunt]].<br /> <br /> Note:<br /> 13 March 2024 - comment on NPOV tags, 17 March 2024 - Further comment, 25 March 2024 - Comment on revert of my contribution.<br /> <br /> In the last month, I've made 3 comments in talk, 2 contributions to the article in total. Hardly the actions of someone who can't drop the stick.<br /> <br /> I note editors have simply alleged misconduct, largely unsupported by diffs. Addressing the talk quote taken out of context by Aquillion. This is a response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213522530&amp;oldid=1213355874], where the editors responsible for the RFC indicate they do not feel the need to respond to the closer's comments. Reference to misoginy is not mine but for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204016425] {{tq|he's just another misogynist}}.<br /> <br /> I am mentioned in the close simply because as noted {{tq|Wee Curry Monster at WP:CR, and others here, have put forth some well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy.}} I have not as claimed disputed the RFC, feel free to add a diff showing where I did but my exact comment was {{tq|a very good closure of that malformed RFC}}. I have commented, because as noted by the closer, I have raised relevant objections to what is proposed. Reference to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] isn't relevant here but [[WP:IDONTHEARTHAT]] certainly is.<br /> <br /> [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]? I haven't raised the topic in any forums. Check my contribution history. This is the one and only time I've gone to a board, in response to an attempt to bait me into an edit war so the connection to the article is tangential. My comments at [[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37#Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks]] were simply to alert any closer to what they were walking into. <br /> <br /> A number of editors have commented that the text isn't neutral and doesn't reflect what neutral sources say on the topic. This is a violation of our [[WP:BLP]] policy. I did in fact seek advice on this from {{U|Drmies}} at [[User talk:Drmies/Archive 147#Question on BLP]]. Which appears to confirm my concerns were well founded.<br /> <br /> Fiveby appears to have given up on commenting because he recognises its futile and I agree its futile. So having raised the issue, I think its time for me to simply walk away. I'm taking this off my watch list, mainly for the good of my own mental health and taking a wikibreak. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:AndyFielding]] - failure to address community concerns ==<br /> <br /> Longterm disruptive removals of birth place/date from Early life sections (examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._J._Novak&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1152634988 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna_Paquin&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1160004138 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_Poulter&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1164808003 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rainn_Wilson&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1199183562 4]). User never responds to talk page warnings (or any talk page comments at all) --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 15:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :This editor began editing in 2007, has made ~17k edits, the vast majority of which are almost certainly good, and has never been blocked. Since the start of his editing he has been using talk pages and has around 1300 edits in talk spaces. On [[Special:Diff/833988692|3 April 2018]] he wrote on his user page: {{tqq|If you disagree with any of my changes, or have questions about them, please don't hesitate to contact me}}.{{pb}}Very disappointingly, on [[Special:Diff/967772956|15 July 2020]], he changed this to {{tqq|I'm afraid I don't have time to engage in debates about my changes. If you disagree with some, undo them if you must— ...}} Since then, he has not stopped being communicative, and has, for example, made more edits to talk pages in 2022 then in all of the previous years combined.{{pb}}So this editor definitely talks in general, but consciously refuses to engage when editors inform him that some of his edits are wrong. Which is not collaborative. AndyFielding should commit to engage in consensus building, and that he understands that receiving feedback from other editors and participating in ocassional disputes does not have to be a &quot;debate&quot; every time. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :See also this announcement on the editor's talk page: {{Talk quote block|text={{fake heading|sub=3|Attention to reversals, feedback, etc.}}I'm sorry I don't have more time to attend to this page. If you feel compelled to undo any of my edits, it's your prerogative—although for the most part, only factual oversights should need correction, as my primary focus is on simpler language. (In reference works, “less is more”.){{br}}As a career writer and copy editor, I'm reasonably confident my contributions benefit WP's readers. Thus I'll continue to follow founder Jimmy Wales's injunction to [[Wikipedia:Be_bold|be bold]]. As he said: “If you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough.”{{br}}Cheers, A.|by=AndyFielding|ts=01:50, 9 January 2019|oldid=877500650}}—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> The core issue here seems to be a content issue. Have they been reverting at all to enforce their preferred version? A quick look at the diffs above shows several constructive changes mixed in with the clearly controversial birth date removals, which they're saying is based on redundancy grounds. Is he just doing step one of [[WP:BRD]], and then simply conceding any subsequent discussion? They do have several edits to article talk pages recently, but at first glance nearly all of those appear to be [[WP:FORUM]] discussions rather than anything editing related. So clearly they have time to be engaging in consensus building and simply choose not to, which ain't great even if it's unclear whether that's actually disrupting anything. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 18:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :On 29 November &lt;big&gt;''2022''&lt;/big&gt;, [[User:FMSky|FMSky]] writes the following to [[User:AndyFielding|AndyFielding]] ([[special:diff/1124561606|diff]], emphasis added):<br /> <br /> ::{{Talk quote block|text=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reese_Witherspoon&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1109721746&lt;br&gt;stop making these kinds of '''idiotic''' edits. the point of having the full name/birth date there is that you can put a source behind it --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 09:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)}} <br /> <br /> :Prior to that, FMSky's added an inappropriate {{tl|uw-vandalism2}} warning issued on 3 October 2022, with an added {{tq|''STOP REMOVING BIRTH NAMES/BIRTH DATES okay??''}} ([[special:diff/1113796103|diff]]), but I now see that it all started on Sept 24, with an identical message as the Nov one, except supplant ''idiotic'' with &quot;nonsensical&quot; and a different url cited ([[special:diff/1112035011|diff]]). And now, here we are: March 2024.<br /> <br /> :What I don't understand, so maybe FMSky can explain this, is the problem with removing the full birth date and names from the body when that info is already mentioned in the lead (AndyFielding's 'redundancy,' 'simplicity,' etc.)? What makes these {{tq|''disruptive removals''}}? Because a reference could be added to a lead, especially as a single footnote as opposed to a normal ref (i.e. so as to prevent the littering the lead with refs). But as much as I disapprove of how FMSky conducted themselves here, AndyFielding stonewalling the issue and continuing to do so for additional pages, even if not reverting anything, might not be ideal. But how intensive and extensive is it? Who knows. And it's not like there's a rule, for or against, such removals. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 08:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Maybe read what other users have posted on his talk page instead of analysing a post by me made 2 years ago. The better question is why do you think its fine to have a sentence that reads &quot;{{tq|Poulter was born{{Dummy reference}}{{Dummy reference|2}}{{Dummy reference|3}}{{Dummy reference|4}}}}&quot;. Also tagging {{ping|Soetermans}} who also left a number of talk page messages on the user's page [[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 11:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[[User:FMSky|FMSky]], I will analyze and review what I see fit and in the manner and pace I see fit. And I find your own misconduct is pertinent. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Ok, thanks for feedback on my behaviour 2 years. Now, whats actually relevant: Why do you think its fine to have a sentence that reads &quot;{{tq|Poulter was born{{Dummy reference}}{{Dummy reference|2}}{{Dummy reference|3}}{{Dummy reference|4}}}}&quot; and what do you think about the comments by other users on his page? --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 11:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::[[User:FMSky|FMSky]], I have no opinion on that, but you need to take it down a notch, or I will block you from this noticeboard. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Yes my bad, I wont post in this thread any further. I feel uncomfortable being on this page anyway (that was originally the reason why I didnt made a report earlier) --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 12:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::That might be best for now. Your reports generally tend to be subpar (lacking context and depth), I'm sorry to say. And same for the history of your interactions with the user whom you've reported. Certainly room for improvement. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Hi {{u|El_C}}, perhaps other people disagree about repeating a date of birth and that's fine. This is a collaborative effort and we try to find a consensus. But as I read [[WP:LEAD]], it is the summation of the article. Any information there should be in the article as well. We try to keep references out of the lead too ([[WP:REFLEAD]]). So it makes perfect sense to mention a date of birth in the lead ''and'' mention it in an early life section, if there is one. AndyFielding has been asked repeatedly to stop and hasn't communicated a bit about the issue. But after so many talk page messages and formal warnings, you can't feign ignorance and leave edit summaries like:<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniella_Pineda&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212952166 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity, WP style (surname except to avoid ambiguity), omitting redundant detail (birth date in lede)&quot;]<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Tucci&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212892529 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity (birth date in lede)]<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lily_Collins&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213830000 &quot;I don't know what it is about celebrity articles that induces so many WP writers to redundantly repeat these details from the lede. Fan overenthusiasm, I'm guessing. (Also, &quot;redundantly repeat&quot; is probably itself redundant—so let's face it, you can't win.) Anyone with reference experience would agree, though: It's sloppy. I just wish we didn't have to fix it one article at a time. 🤷‍♂️&quot;] from three days ago. Fan enthusiasm, really?<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Gosling&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213827719 &quot;I don't know why people do this so often in celebrity bios, but it's redundant and, frankly, seems like fawning. 🤷‍♂️&quot;], from two days ago. First fan enthusiasm, now it's 'fawning' to mention a date of birth?<br /> :So in my eyes, AndyFielding isn't just not aware of consensus, but willfully ignores it, with subtle jabs in their edit summaries. No replies on talk pages, but still going on little rants? That, combined with not communicating, sounds like disruptive behaviour to me. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I don't consider all aspects of the MOS to be mandatory, including this, but from your evidence, it does increasingly appear as a [[WP:POINT]] exercize. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Bit off topic, I was checking their edits if they've done the same. They recently made some smart-assed comments on talk pages. To an honest question, asked nearly seven years ago, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lock_%27n%27_Chase&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214144966 they responded] with &quot;Yes, tricky isn't it? Personally, I won't post videogame records unless they've been verified by space aliens.&quot; Kinda uncivil, unnecessary regardless. In a 10 year old discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Germanic_Reich&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214145396 they replied] &quot;Gee! I'll have some of whatever you were having&quot;, an inappropriate response.<br /> :::The last reply ''on their own talk page'' was in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyFielding&amp;diff=927091593&amp;oldid=927091413 November 2019]. They won't to communicate there or here - but years old discussions not a problem? [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 21:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Hi {{u|El_C}}, did you see my previous message? To be clear, those were after FMSky's note on their talk page. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Understood, {{u|Soetermans}}. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 07:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Another inappropriate edit summary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek:_Enterprise&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214614065 &quot; reckon this is what the writer meant, as &quot;conservatively modest&quot; would mean he was bashful about wearing more individualistic clothing. (By sheer coincidence, many conservatives are morons too, but that's beyond the scope of this comment.)&quot;] [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 20:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benedict_Wong&amp;diff=1214808189&amp;oldid=1214808155 More of the same]. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Take some sort of action'''. Maybe FMSky could have been more polite, but they're 100% correct on the merits. The lede is meant to be a summary of the body, so repetition between the lede and the body is ''expected'' and ''valid''. A check of some random diffs leaves me unimpressed with AndyFielding's copyediting - they appear to be, at best, enforcing a style preference on text that should honor the main contributor's style preference, and at worst making actively bad changes and being a net negative. There have been studies on this: readers do not read articles like they're novels and carefully remember every bit of information from before, but rather bounce around from section to section. So for an example other than removing birth dates from the body, despite his edit summary saying that &quot;most [readers] aren't amnesiacs—pronouns are fine&quot;, no, actually, using a last name again for clarity often makes a sentence read much simpler and work better as an excerpt, without requiring consulting earlier as to who exactly is being referred to. This could be resolved very simply by AndyFielding simply resolving and agreeing to not do things like this, but if he's going to refuse to engage or to communicate despite being reported at ANI five days ago, then a sanction is all we have. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Again: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zawe_Ashton&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214958054 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity, style, omitting redundant detail (in lede)]. I'd also like to point out that I've reverted those edits. {{u|AndyFielding}} can't feign missing notifications like this. It is disruptive. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 10:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Upgrade to ban'''. This is the dumbest and most avoidable reason for a ban, but AndyFielding seems to be of the opinion that talking with other editors is a trap or is too stressful or beneath his notice. Who knows. But simply 100% refusing to engage with legitimate concerns of other editors is not how this works. I placed a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndyFielding&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215004537 direct request] on his talk page to say something, anything, to acknowledge he is actually reading what other editors say. He's ignored it and continued to edit instead. To be sure, some of AndyFielding's copyediting seems fine, and it would be a shame to ban an editor over something so minor, but... come on. No complaint about instantly accepting any unblock request that simply promises to communicate, but communication is not optional on a collaborative project. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 16:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Block instead'''. A long-term, constant stream of bad edits mixed with a larger volume of good edits coming from an otherwise respected and trusted editor is more damaging than your daily vandal. AndyFielding's mission statement when he turned back on the idea of consensus (copied above) is against the philosophy of Wikipedia, and he has stayed on this non-collaborative track ever since. He must have understood what this would lead to and that this moment would come. It doesn't matter that most of his edits are fine when the bad edits will be repeated and there is nothing anyone can do about it but follow him around and detect and revert each one of them. And no one wants to do that and no one should be expected to do that. Alternatively, he could actually even keep not discussing as long as he remembers not to repeat the types of edits that are disputed, and for that he would at least need to read requests on his talk page not to repeat certain things and not repeat them—regardless if he thinks that the request is wrong. If he wants to prove that those particular edits are right, he would have to engage. It should be extremely easy for AndyFielding to be unblocked based on this. He can commit to respond to feedback on his talk page at least a little bit and commit not to do things that others ask him not to do without participating in dispute resolution. Therefore, an indefinite block is entirely preventative and is the only thing that can make this editor realign.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 20:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:no admin hasn’t taken any action yet [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 06:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Another odd edit summary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=District_Municipality_of_Muskoka&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215321136 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity (e.g., contrary to the apparent notion that WP readers are amnesiacs and must be continually reminded what the topic is—LOL)&quot;]. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::That's a fantastic edit with a fine edit summary. Fixing repetitive references to the subject, fixing &quot;located in&quot;, removing unprofessional wording like &quot;from generation to generation&quot;, and other needed copyediting is obviously something that this editor excels at. The problem are the bad edits, not the good edits like this one. The summary is humorous and sufficiently accurately describes the edit. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I find it odd and unnecessary to suggest &quot;contrary to the apparent notion that WP readers are amnesiacs&quot;, but maybe that's just me. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I wouldn't say it's just you. I'd say that's [[WP:UNCIVIL|uncivil]] language on AndyFielding's part. There's no need to {{tq|LOL}} at other editors' best efforts. Pointy word choice about language and style is especially troubling, since some editors are contributing with English proficiencies that are sufficient for encyclopedic language but may fall short of the high-level prose AndyFielding believes they're implementing. Improving on language isn't wrong, but [[WP:BRIE|being right isn't enough]] to justify talking down to other editors through snippy summaries and flatly ignoring collaborative feedback. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 08:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Harvey&amp;diff=1215459940&amp;oldid=1215099122 Behaviour continues]. Now the reference isn't used to source ''when'' Harvey was born, but ''that he was born''. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Someone who removes text so that the only thing left is &quot;XY was born&quot;, and does so in hundrets of articles, should be blocked per [[WP:CIR]] --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 08:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' something, whether a block or ban, or at least a formal sanction of some sort. SnowFire and Soetermans sum up well what's in the linked diffs, and the behavior continuing even with the ANI notice demonstrates how a block or ban would be preventative, as behavior will continue otherwise. Copyediting and editing for concision isn't irreplaceable. Articles will be legible in AndyFieldings's absence—and may well be more legible. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyFielding&amp;diff=1215004537&amp;oldid=1214027386 SnowFire's description of AndyFieldings's approach as constituting {{tq|code golf}} is apt]. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 08:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::And the beat [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mira_Murati&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215811451 goes on]. When is it enough to perform some kind of action? [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Could anyone do anything by any chance? 😃 --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 02:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have drafted a polite &quot;Final warning&quot; message for {{u|AndyFielding}} but I am wondering if tolerating an idiosyncratic editor might be worthwhile. The problem for me is that AndyFielding is producing good edits and it's possible that cleaning up after him might be the way to go. For example, [[Special:Diff/1215998066|this diff]] has a glitch presumably from the visual editor (search for &quot;&lt;code&gt;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&lt;/code&gt;&quot;). That glitch needs to be fixed. Would similarly cleaning up the pointy edits that remove the birth date from the article body be best for the encyclopedia? Any thoughts? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If an editor needs a minder stalking their contribution history forever, there's a problem. As I wrote above, this is the dumbest and most avoidable reason for a block ever - all AndyFielding has to do is literally just acknowledge the feedback and tone down the concision-above-all-else edits to a point that's a mere disagreement on style rather than clearly over the line. It could be done in seconds and by simply doing ''less'' work in his edits. But he isn't doing that no matter how much people have asked him to. There is a solution that doesn't involve a block and doesn't involve expecting other volunteers to clean up after him - it's just him communicating and discussing his edits, or at least just stopping the problematic behavior if he truly can't handle discussions. But if he isn't going to do that... [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 05:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Likewise, I am not proposing an indef block or a ban, but I would like to see this behaviour to stop. This discussion was started nearly two weeks ago. There have been talk page messages, direct mentions (for good measure, {{u|AndyFielding}}, please stop this and maybe reply?) and their removal of date births in early life sections have been reverted. AndyFielding has been notified repeatedly. [[WP:COMMUNICATION|Communication is required]]. Instead, they have a habit of commenting through edit summaries, like I've shown before and which continues still (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holiday_Hell&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215642671 &quot;Let's just assume from now on that, unless there's some obvious ambiguity, &quot;it&quot;, &quot;he&quot;, &quot;she&quot; or &quot;they&quot; refers by default to the article's subject. This will save us all a lot of trouble and save WP untold storage and bandwidth fees. Don't thank me.&quot;] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montegrossi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215817242 &quot;Imagine, we could use this concise format on all WP town articles. Imagine. I imagine many things like this&quot;]). Maybe it's a [[WP:CIR|competence]] issue or just a plain [[WP:IDHT|refusal to want to listen]]. Isn't a temporary edit block an option? They edit frequently, on a near daily basis. A block, say 48 hours or even a week, to prevent this disruptive editing and force them to change their attitude? If the block's over and they changed their ways there is still a competent editor, if they can continue a more drastic step can be taken. Thoughts? [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I admit I'm not very optimistic about how effective a 48-hour block will be—ignoring so much feedback over such a long period of time suggests entrenchment—but it does make sense to start with a temporary sanction and only escalate if really necessary. No need for the project to act on my lack of optimism when we could lead out with a generous attitude toward AndyFielding. All that to say, I '''support''' a temporary edit block as the step to take at this time. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 08:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Could try an escalating scheme. 31h, 72h, week, month, three months, six months, indef. with each block at least a week to a month apart (in spite of the undesirable edits reoccurring) to be able to see if the editing has changed. The [[WP:PREVENTATIVE]] grounds is that the shortest block should be tried first, then the second-shortest etc. instead of immediately indef, or 48h -&gt; indef. Instead of stalking his contributions and cleaning up after him, any editor could identify one (one is enough) undesirable edit of the type identified in this discussion, and ask any admin to implement the next block in the scheme, which that admin should do.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 09:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Please ban Fabrickator from interacting with me. ==<br /> <br /> [Edit: I have copyedited this post in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.] <br /> <br /> I'm not the only user that thinks Fabricator should be banned from interacting with me. In fact, I got the idea from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204671092 this] comment by Asparagusus on my talk page. <br /> <br /> Also, Graham Beards implied [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graham_Beards&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197633758 here] that Fabrickator and I should stop interacting with each other, which I agreed with, and Fabrickator did not agree with.<br /> <br /> I believe Fabrickator has been guilty of hounding me on Wikipedia, and has been incivil about it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196740157 Here] he sarcastically referred to an edit of mine that he disapproved of as &quot;brilliant&quot;. Something went wrong with the formatting (I think Fabrickator caused this somehow, but I'm not sure), but who said what and when is still fairly clear, I think. <br /> <br /> Fabrickator has persisted in communicating with me despite my requests that he leave me alone, and has also repeatedly ignored my questions about why he so interested in me, and in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204670096 one case], cryptically said, &quot;I'm not going to directly respond to your question.&quot; when I politely asked, yet again, why he was so interested in me.<br /> <br /> Fabrickator has reverted several good edits of mine, seemingly after following me to an article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathology&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1182405204 Here] is just one such reversion. It is notable, because firstly, it was re-reverted by Graham Beards, and secondly, Fabrickator did his reversion quietly. He did not tell me what he had done, which is remarkable, given how much irrelevant material he has posted on my talk page . I only found out he had done it much later, after Graham Beards had unreverted it. Thirdly, it is *clearly* a remarkably incompetent and fairly harmful reversion.<br /> <br /> So Fabrickator has not just been wasting *my* time, and a few other editors who have kindly taken some interest in this matter, such as Graham Beards and Asparagusus, but, more importantly, has directly harmed Wikipedia and Wikipedia's readers.<br /> <br /> I think Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, while I am not banned from interacting with him. Having said that, I would be content (delighted, in fact) with a two-way ban, if it is permanent. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 20:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :A few points here. If you want someone to stop posting on your talk page, you should make a clear request. This also means do not ask the editor any questions or otherwise talk about them on your talk page. Such a request should be respected with the exception of essential notices etc per [[WP:USERTALKSTOP]]. If [[User:Fabrickator]] had continued to continued to post on your talk page despite you asked them to stop, I think we would now be at the stage where they received a final warning before an indefinite block. I think your requests were a lot less clear than they should have been. Still I'll warn them. As for your iban proposal, that is a lot more involved and we'd need to see evidence of something more than simply posting on your talk page when you asked them to stop. If they're indefinitely blocked there's no need for an iban. A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 22:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::In [[User_talk:Polar_Apposite#sigmoid_colon_redux]], I offered to abide by an informal 60-day interaction ban. That was on February 8. I asked him to clarify whether he accepted that, he did not &quot;formally&quot; respond to that, but he did acknowledge it, and stated that he was interested in either a temporary or permanent ban. I did not ask for further clarification (the intent being to ''avoid'' interaction). So for about the last 35 days, I have refrained from any interaction with Polar (obviously, aside from this interaction, which I presume that I am obliged to respond to).<br /> ::I viewed this informal approach as having certain advantages:<br /> ::* Save administrators from having to become involved in adjudicating the dispute.<br /> ::* Also save them the trouble of officially tracking the ban, assuming it were to have been granted.<br /> ::If I were to have violated that ban, the voluntary ban would likely be viewed as a &quot;confession of fault&quot;.<br /> ::* There is neither an official determination of fault, nor an admission of fault'<br /> ::* Upon successful completion of this voluntary ban, future requests for a ban should not be based on events that happened prior to the voluntary ban.<br /> ::For the last 35 days, I have avoided any interaction with Polar. OTOH, in spite of Polar's seemingly implied commitment to avoid any interaction with me and 35 days without any interaction, he now submits this IBAN request. I request that it be denied, on the basis of this informal interaction ban. <br /> ::We should be very careful about the restriction of mere communication between users, recognizing in particular that the imposition of a ban places the banned party at a greatly heightened risk as well as creating what can be a problematic situation if (by some coincidence) they both happen to be &quot;participating&quot; in editing or commenting on the same article.<br /> ::Respectfully, [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 22:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 22:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::In point of fact, I had avoided communicating with you for 35 days. FWIW, though, you cannot reasonably avoid criticism by insisting that criticism of you (by myself and/or by somebody else) is not permitted. In any case, the appropriate place for such a discussion would be on one of the participant's own talk pages. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 23:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::If you avoided communicating with me for 35 days, and didn't revert any good edits of mine during that time, I thank you for that. But I want to *never* hear from you again, and *know* that I will never hear from you again, The only way that is possible is with a permanent interaction ban. In my opinion you should be blocked indefinitely (from Wikipedia), but I won't ask for that. You should be very grateful to if you only get a permanent one-way interaction ban. As I see it, you have nearly always wasted my time with your comments, and your reverts of my good edits is even worse, especially since you quietly followed me around Wikipedia reverting good edits of mine without even telling me. And in my humble opinion you have been uncivil while at it. It discouraged me from editing Wikipedia.<br /> :::::And you have, yet again, avoided answering my very reasonable and polite question. So I will repeat it. Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 02:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]], this is very stale. The most recent diff you provide is over a month old. <br /> :An admin should close this. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm glad you've brought this up. I've been busy with some things in real life for the last month or so, that's all. As you can see, I have almost no edits to Wikipedia during the last month. I have in a sense, been away from Wikipedia, to some extent, for the last month. <br /> ::I don't think there's any reason to believe that the situation has changed during the last month. Whether it's &quot;stale&quot; is not a real issue. In fact, the fact that I have been away actually reduces the significance of the fact that Fabricator has not posted on my user page during the last month or so. I don't know whether he has quietly reverted some more good edits of mine. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 02:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] we're supposed to [[WP:AGF]], not [[WP:ABF]]. If you had evidence of them reverted good edits of yours recently then you ought to provide evidence not state that you don't evidence that they haven't done it. The fact that you haven't provided any recent evidence of anything speaks very heavily to this being stale. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I think this is stale as well, but if the consensus is that this is not he the case, I think any interaction ban, if necessary, ought to be two-way. Fabrickator has done a poor job reading the tea leaves and should have backed off even if the request to stay off the talk was not explicit, but Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally. They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly ''announcing'' that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like &quot;harmful&quot; and &quot;incompetent&quot; needlessly in conversations.<br /> :In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 04:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Agreed. I really can't see this going anywhere. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Well I would ask that the implicit agreement of the &quot;voluntary iban&quot; (which was effectively &quot;completed&quot; by virtue of this incident being opened) should be abided by, i.e. that there shouldn't be an iban. It's not that I anticipate a desire to interact with Polar, but it will be counter-productive to have to think about this every time I edit an article or participate in some discussion. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Simply put, it's clear that Polar Apposite does not want you to post on their Talk page. You should abide by that. However, that does not mean you must avoid them on article Talk pages, and conversely Polar Apposite can't just ignore you on article Talk pages when you bring up an issue.<br /> ::::''If'' things escalate, we can start considering a two-way iban, but for now this should suffice. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :[Edit: I have copyedited this post (like I did with the OP a few hours ago) in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.] <br /> :I'll reply to myself to avoid &quot;bludgeoning&quot; anyone :)<br /> :331dot [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214161032 told me] on my talk page that, &quot;It's not bludgeoning to civilly respond to arguments/posts made in and of itself; it might be if, say, if you had a snarky response to every comment about you. I would make a single, calm comment responding to claims made about you. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)&quot;.<br /> :Accordingly, I will respond to everyone's posts in a single (hopefully calm, ha ha) comment.<br /> :I don't know whether Fabrickator should be blocked from Wikipedia, because I don't know how valuable his other contributions have been. Looking at his contributions for the first time (I was not interested until now) just now, in search of reversions of my edits, I see that he has made a lot of edits purportedly fixing broken links, which sounds good. Why stop him from doing that, if it is good work? Banning him from interacting with me would not affect, I would have thought, his ability to fix broken links. His work in general may be valuable. All I am sure of is that his interactions with me have been a huge waste of time, and quite harmful at times.<br /> :I'd like to clarify that I don't think it was ever my intention to tell Fabrickator not to post on my talk page, as that would give him an excuse to continue reverting good edits of mine without proper discussion or even notification. Also, doing so could be seen as uncivil according to the summary of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Keep_off_my_talk_page this] Wikipedia page which says, <br /> :&quot;This page in a nutshell: Editors can request that other editors keep off their user talk page. However, such demands may be considered uncivil. Disobeying such a request may or may not result in sanctions, depending on the circumstances.&quot; <br /> :I didn't want him to never post on my page, just to stop wasting my time with useless posts that seemed aimed at socializing with me, possibly trying to befriend me (we have never been friends, BTW), or to harass me, or possibly some &quot;frenemy&quot;-style mixture of the two. When I asked him why he wanted to communicate with me, and what he found so interesting about me, I really was sincerely interested in learning why. He has always chosen not to answer my question.<br /> :@[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] I thought you might want more examples of bad reversions of my work by Fabricator (I found three more) when you wrote, <br /> :&quot;A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough.&quot; <br /> :Here goes. The egregious pathology article reversion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathology&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1182405204], was not the only bad reversion of one of my edits. Another example would be @[[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] 's reversion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo_Koy&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194372531 here] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo_Koy&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194340489 this other good edit of mine] to the Jo Koy article. Notice how there's no &quot;reverted&quot; tag on my edit, making it harder for me or anyone else to notice that my edit had been reverted. His edit summary says, &quot;revert of 14:10 and 14:41 edits of 8 January 2024: both &quot;Filipino&quot; and &quot;Filipina&quot; are acceptable forms when used with &quot;mother&quot;; remove extraneous space at end of line&quot;. Wikipedia rules say that only positively harmful edits should be reverted, and so this justification makes no sense, because it acknowledges that my edit was harmless at worst. Secondly, even if both forms are acceptable (debatable, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jo_Koy#%22Filipina_mother%22_vs_%22Filipino_mother%22. my comments] on the article talk page, that doesn't mean that they are equally suited to an encyclopedia article, so, again, the edit summary is nonsensical. I argued on the talk page that &quot;Filipina&quot; is foreign or slang, or at least has that vibe about it, and therefore &quot;Filipino&quot; is more encyclopedic. I also argued that &quot;Filipina&quot; is confusing, because then what does &quot;Filipino&quot; mean? Does it refer only to males? English doesn't have this final a vs final o male/female system. But Fabrickator has not addressed any of these objections to his reversion. I have no objection to his deletion of the whitespace character I added to allow a dummy edit (an accepted technique on Wikipedia which Fabrickator seems not to have heard of, leading to his taking me to task for this elsewhere, wasting everyone's time yet again). OTOH, there was no need for him to do that, as it was harmless. If he wanted to do it, I think he should have quietly deleted the white-space in a separate edit, and marked his edit as minor, instead of making a fuss about it.<br /> :To sum up, Fabrickator has done four reversions of my edits that I know about, having looked through all his contributions in the last seven months: 1. the egregious, bizarre, and outrageous, pathology article reversion, 2. the absurd and absurdly defended Jo Koy article reversion, 3. the useless (albeit harmless) and timewasting fuss-laden reversion of a whitespace character, also in the Jo Koy article, and 4. the absurd reversion of my edit adding a citation needed tag and substituting a failed verification tag [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interdental_consonant&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1193331577 here]. Fabrickator's reversion was later unreverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interdental_consonant&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1193331860 here] by Nardog, with an edit summary saying, &quot;Reverted 1 edit by Fabrickator (talk): CN is correct, it's not cited to any source&quot;. To sum up, Fabrickator's four reversions of edits of mine comprise one outrageous one, one absurd one, one bad one, and one theoretically harmless one but accompanied by a lot of time-wasting fuss based on his not knowing what a dummy edit is and his not simply asking my why I added the white-space before berating me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196740157 here] (in quite an uncivil way, I might add. He calls the whitespace character an &quot;extraneous space&quot;.<br /> :Out of four reversions, zero were useful, two were unreverted by other editors, three were harmful, and one was quite harmful indeed. And he followed me to all those articles, it seems, in order to do what he did. And his subsequent discussion has been either zero, ignoring me, or useless and uncivil. He seems to think he is competent to overrule me without discussion, but I think he is wrong about this. I saw that some of his copyedits to the work of some other editors were good, so he should probably continue copyediting, but overzealously trying to correct *me* has led to his getting out of his depth, perhaps. That seems a charitable way of looking at this, and assumes good faith. Let him try his luck with someone else, as long as it doesn't become hounding and incivility, as I would suggest has been my experience with Fabrickator.<br /> :@[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] You wrote,&quot;Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally&quot; First, whether I have a history of &quot;bludgeoning conversations&quot; at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it? Second, could be specific about what I actually did wrong at those pages? &quot;Flooding&quot; is a bit vague. What I did in the latter case *could* be seen as simply making my case in a very thorough way, with appropriate attention to detail. As for the former, I thought I was allowed to ask as many questions as I wanted. It seems I was wrong about that, but since no one had told me about that rule, &quot;flooding&quot; seems a bit over the top, no pun intended. A giant puddle of tea come to mind :)<br /> :You wrote, &quot;They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly announcing that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like &quot;harmful&quot; and &quot;incompetent&quot; needlessly in conversations.&quot; Again, how about being specific? I think I am allowed to use &quot;harmful&quot; and &quot;incompetent&quot; needlessly on Wikipedia, am I not? And you have made no mention of any of the rude things Fabrickator has said to me. That's interesting, isn't it? You don't look very impartial right now.<br /> :You wrote, &quot;In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud.&quot; Again, are you able to be specific? What specifically did I say (you have no excuse for not being specific, as everything is there in black and white) that warrants a reprimand (light or not) to remind me that &quot;every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud&quot;? When did I ever say anything that indicates that I think that? Genuinely curious now.<br /> :@&lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; I'm actually primarily concerned about his reversions of my good edits. Out of a total of four that I could find, zero were useful, three were harmful, two were undone by other editors, and one was egregious. All of them were bizarre, and the result of following me around Wikipedia. And there was no proper discussion or notification to me. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::When people are griping about you bludgeoning discussion, posting massive, badly-formatted walls of text only vindicates those concerns. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I did what I was told to do. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'd be glad to try improve the format. What specifically did you not like about it? [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 20:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thanks for the constructive feedback. The links should have been inside words, and I put them all inside words just now. Was that what you had in mind? What else, if anything made call it &quot;badly-formatted&quot;? Cheers. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 01:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm certainly not going to read all of that. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I wasn't going to speak up in favor of any administrator(s) taking action regarding either you or Fabrickator, but as you continue to [[WP:BLUDGEON]] while ignoring [[WP:AGF]], I'm starting to wonder if you're willing to collaborate with people who disagree with you. It's really unhelpful when you post a giant wall of text, especially when a huge chunk of it is an off-topic wall of text in which you explain that you have your own guidelines that somehow override Wikipedia's at [[MOS:PHIL]]. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 04:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|First, whether I have a history of &quot;bludgeoning conversations&quot; at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it?}}<br /> ::I'm going to single this out, because the rest of that wall of text is just rambling. Yes, it does have bearing because it can indicate that the problem isn't Fabrickator, it's the fact you keep throwing these lengthy diatriabes up instead of concisely making your points. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 20:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I am just appending this comment at the bottom, I'll remind people that (if you're not subscribed to this specific discussion), it's hard to see the edits that have been made at various places in the text. You might want to look at the &quot;diffs&quot; if it matters to you<br /> :::Second, I will note that Polar has stated that he never asked me not to post to his &quot;talk&quot; page, so the fact that I made posts to his &quot;talk&quot; page is not ''per se'' an issue.<br /> :::Third, as Polar has pointed out, the Wiki software doesn't allow you to add an edit summary without making some kind of change. If you try to do this, it just silently discards the edit summary provided, so inserting a space character is just a way to get around this behavior. This was something I had been unaware of, so my criticism that he added an extraneous space was unwarranted, and I apologize for that. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 15:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Apology accepted, but I still want a permanent interaction ban, ideally one way. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 12:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I don't think it's you that should be accepting apologies or demanding things, especially not a one-way interaction ban. You really need to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] on this before it turns into a boomerang in the form of a motion from an uninvolved editor. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Okay, another minor point. The interaction ban had been proposed by [[User:Graham Beards]] in January (though it's in Graham's talk page archives for 2023 ... see [[User talk:Graham_Beards/Archives/2023#Please advise me regarding dealing with Fabrickator.]]). As is clear from this discussion, I do not go along with this proposal. I interpreted this as Graham's attempt to gracefully bow out of the dispute, but I mention it here just because I want to set the record straight. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks for being so reasonable. I think you might want to consider at least acknowledging that you were wrong in thinking that he was bowing out, and maybe apologize to him (optionally). [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You need to stop this, right now. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]], no one, I mean NO ONE, is going to read that wall of text you posted. And they are unlikely to participate in this discussion. And the one thing I remember when I was a regular here at ANI years ago is that you will never get an IBan or TopicBan without considerable community support which you don't have here and are unlikely to receive given these diatribes. You can't just request an IBan and magically have an admin impose it. It has to have support from your fellow editors which isn't going to happen. So, I suggest like most of us, you avoid editors you don't get along with or use Dispute Resolution if that is an appropriate forum for your disagreement. It also seems like this is not a current, intractible dispute but something that has bothered you in the past which makes it even more unlikely that any admin wandering through here will take action. Just my 2 cents. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;&quot;&gt;[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;&quot;&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm appending this to the end, like Fabrickator did with his comment. I'm also omitting all pings. Hoping not to be accused of &quot;bludgeoning&quot;.<br /> *:Although it is true that &quot;I've been busy with some things in real life&quot;, as I said above, it's also true that I was quite discouraged by the hostility that I've experienced on Wikpedia, and that my fellow editors seemed not to care about what Fabrickator (and some other editors, but that's another matter) had done to me. That's maybe *why* I busied myself with real life matters for a month or so. So calling the matter &quot;stale&quot; because I took a month break is not appropriate, I think.<br /> *:Did I do something wrong that can't be said out loud? Why are so many people being so hostile to me? I feel like people don't care or even would be glad to see stop copyediting Wikipedia.<br /> *:Why should Fabrickator continue to get away with wasting my time and worse, reverting my good edits, just because I got in trouble long ago as a newbie, in an unrelated matter? How long am I supposed to be punished for that? Didn't I pay my debt to Wikipedia by being blocked, so to speak?<br /> *:And anyway, shouldn't we be prioritizing the project? Good edits are good edits, regardless of who does them, or even why, right? And there's also the time wasted by third parties who undo Fabrickator's reversions of my good edits, which has happened in two out of the four cases. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 12:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::You've not provided any additional evidence or reasoning with this comment. What is the point of this? You've just repeated yourself. Stop now before this becomes a motion about you. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I was told [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214804087&lt;nowiki&gt; here]: &quot;Shorter is always better. If you feel that you have something new which will positively contribute to a discussion, you should do so. If you have been warned against excessively posting, though, consider whether you &lt;/nowiki&gt;''need'' to post it.&quot;<br /> *:::What I posted was shorter. I felt that I had something new that would be a positive contribution. I considered whether I needed to post it (and concluded that I did). I did exactly what I was I told to do. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 13:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::No, you really didn't. You posted another evidence-free diatribe. This is becoming disruptive. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 16:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Here is a [[Special:diff/1197560620/1197786525|pertinent portion]] of the discussion with Graham Beards, in which I described Graham's proposal as a way of &quot;graciously bowing out&quot; of the dispute. Fairly shortly after posting this message, I received a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&amp;user=User%3AGraham+Beards&amp;page=User%3AFabrickator&amp;wpdate=&amp;tagfilter=&amp;wpfilters%5B%5D=thanks&amp;wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist thanks from Graham]. It would be pretty juvenile to go around parading the fact of having received a &quot;thanks&quot; from somebody, but it is significant here because it seriously contrasts with Polar's interpretation of the situation. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 20:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]]... Before this thread gets closed down, I feel &quot;inspired&quot; to come back to the discussion you and I were having several weeks ago regarding the [[Special:Permalink/1203193236#Length of sigmoid colon in the diagram is not 35-40 cm. |length of the sigmoid colon]].<br /> ::I realize this is very much a sore spot for you, but I felt it showed that you had a blind spot with regard to editing Wikipedia. In this discussion, you expressed doubt about information in the article indicating the length of the sigmoid colon was 35-40 cm., based on your belief that this length was not plausible. The question I asked you was how you would advise an editor asking you this same question, but that had seemed to get you all riled up.<br /> ::I'm here now, and I'm again asking this question. Seriously, if it's not apparent which Wikipedia principle(s) should inform you on how to resolve this concern, then that casts doubt as to whether your continued editing of WP is appropriate. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 06:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'd drop this attempt at discussion. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You wrote, &quot;I don't think it's you that should be accepting apologies [...]&quot;. Did I actually get blamed for accepting an apology? That would be Kafkaesque&quot;. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 15:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::It often takes two to tango. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 23:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::A lot of editors here like to speak in riddles, I see. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::That's not a riddle. It's a [https://www.google.com/search?q=it+takes+two+to+tango+meaning&amp;rlz=1C1SQJL_enAU1053AU1053&amp;oq=it+takes+two+to+tango&amp;gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgBEAAYgAQyCQgAEEUYORiABDIHCAEQABiABDIHCAIQLhiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCjEyMTgxajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8 common saying where I'm from]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Nevertheless, it does kind of ''sound like'' a riddle. I like riddles! [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 19:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Monarchy of Canada ==<br /> <br /> I propose that [[User:Miesianiacal]] be topic banned from [[monarchy of Canada]], either broadly or more narrowly from the base article. It shouldn't require a minimum of two RfCs ([[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Meaning of reside]] and [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?]]) to insert the simple, obvious and uncontentious fact that the Canadian monarch lives in the UK. Yet, we are forced to endure [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] of debates[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213869997], [[WP:DISRUPTSIGNS|disruptive cite tagging]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213576471][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213574889][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211996854] and [[WP:POINT]]y [[tendentious editing]] from this single editor every time any other editor tries to edit an article [[WP:OWN|owned]] by Miesianiacal, who is responsible for more than 75% of edits to the page.[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Monarchy_of_Canada] The article is a farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research perpetuating a ridiculous myth that the King of Canada is Canadian. It will only improve when the influence of this editor is removed. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 21:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> - I would just like to add that, as we can see [[Monarchy of Canada#Consensus|here]], there seems to have been a productive consensus arrived at, and this without any negative behaviour that I can see. I will not pretend to be aware or delved into the material prior to my own involvement, so will not judge specific behaviour of individual editors for which I'm not aware, I only note that from my point of view, it seems that the Talk process worked and is working, and all in a respectful and positive way at Monarchy of Canada Talk and Main Space. Again, maybe there had been a bit of a breakdown warranting something, not sure, I'm only speaking to what I've seen since myself becoming a member of the discussion at that Talk page. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 16:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::If there is a consensus in that article it has been arrived at during Miesianiacal's current absence (and during his temporary ban from editing the article). [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Okay thankyou. What was his main point that was not valid? Which I mean, what part of what he was advocating for is not reflected in the current consensus? I'm having a hard time figuring out what exact statement was meriting a block. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :There seems to be two allegations here. There's bludgeoning etc at [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?]]. This has diffs and looking at the thread seems to have a basis. But the second half of the post broadens out to a [[WP:OWN]] accusation and being responsible for &quot;a farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research&quot;, but there are no diffs for that. The former (for a longstanding editor) deserves a warning. The latter needs more evidence to be actioned to a full TBAN or even a PBAN. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Not long ago, this editor searched out articles with royal-sounding names, and then added that these article were ''named after royalty''. I reverted most of the edits, as they were unsourced and probably not true, but not without pushback. You can see one of the discussions at [[Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty?]]. --[[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|DeCausa}} It took me ages to track down, but I recently removed 3 bits of original research not found in the citations from the article, and they were all added by Miesianiacal or his previous account: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213654233 Removed citation] added by Miesianiacal's old account: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=220192125]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213654233 Removed citation] added by Miesianiacal's old account: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=232790056]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213654776 Removed unverified claim] added by Miesianiacal: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=317637578]. I've only really looked at the first two paragraphs of the Residences section, so there could be more elsewhere. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Those edits are from 14/15 years ago. I don't think they would or could be used to support action now. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::The 'age' of an edit does not necessarily matter, given that there's always the possibility of erroneous information remaining in an article for years to come. &lt;span style=&quot;font:'Pristina'&quot;&gt;[[user:Keivan.f|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #1E7HDC&quot;&gt;Keivan.f&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font:'Pristina'&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:Keivan.f|&lt;span style=&quot;color: purple&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 23:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Is this editor not already block from [[Monarchy of Canada]] articles? &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight:bold;color:darkblue&quot;&gt;[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]&lt;/span&gt;🍁 04:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::He was banned on March 13 for two weeks. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{reply to|DeCausa}} The named after royalty edits were just a few months ago. There's a long-standing issue of problematic editing wrt the monarchy. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 18:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I don't really understand what's meant by &quot;The named after royalty edits were just a few months ago&quot;. All I was saying is that edits from 14/15 years won't be taken into account. I dont think that's much in doubt. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 20:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Magnolia677's post preceding post included &quot;Not long ago, this editor searched out articles with royal-sounding names, and then added that these article were ''named after royalty'' &quot;. That's why I wrote {{tq|There's a long-standing issue of problematic editing wrt the monarchy.}} [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::I did not add &quot;[this was] named after royalty&quot; to any articles, unless with a reliable source. What Magnolia677 is referring to is my adding to articles on places listed at [[Royal eponyms in Canada]] a link to that article in the &quot;See also&quot; section, a number of which were removed and I didn't dispute the deletion. I think [[Victoria Park Collegiate Institute]] is the only article on which I argued for reinsertion and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Park_Collegiate_Institute&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1172829023 found cited info] to support the connection to [[Royal eponyms in Canada]]. It was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Park_Collegiate_Institute&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1172849549 deleted] two and a half hours later and that's the way it's remained ever since. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 02:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support sanctions''', if not an article or topic ban then a revert restriction or talk page interaction ban. I don't think a warning will be adequate. This is essentially the same issue that I raised at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive467#User:Miesianiacal reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: No violation)]] and that was raised at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III]]. Miesianiacal gets away with his behaviour because he acts within the letter of the rules while ignoring their spirit; he knows how to [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|game the system]]. When challenged, he goes on the attack instead of addressing his own behaviour: for example accusing me of harassment even though I was required to notify him[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1152176368] or refusing to listen when challenged on civility: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1151467664][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1151694138]. Before [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III|IncidentArchive1127]] there were multiple requests for comment at Charles III, which closed against him; he then went to third opinion, which was rejected, and then to the dispute resolution noticeboard, which was rejected (diffs are all at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III|IncidentArchive1127]]). So, he went forum-shopping to the administrators' noticeboard with a cherry-picked selection of edits that were better than his own behaviour. That is his typical operating style: delay, dismiss, attack, and never surrender. The tactic is to pursue endless circular debate, blame everyone else, and refuse to listen to or accept any counter-argument or advice. The same thing that happened at Charles III is happening at Monarchy of Canada: we are forced to go through multiple requests for comment to make the simplest change (with the result that editors wonder what we're doing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214219395]). Once the discussion starts, we then suffer through his sabotage of the debate, such as refusing to accept sources that disprove his argument, for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214382428] backtracking from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213733542]. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> I believe there are also [[WP:OWN]] issues at [[Monarchism in Canada]] and [[Republicanism in Canada]], particularly the former. Miesianiacal has strenuously objected to updating the articles to include references to opinion polls taken in the past two years that show there is greater support for removing the monarchy than there is for retaining it. (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchism_in_Canada&amp;diff=1214387299&amp;oldid=1214075662]) and [[Republicanism in Canada]] (see [[Talk:Republicanism in Canada]]). At present the polls cited in Monarchism in Canada are at least 15 years old.<br /> <br /> In Republicanism in Canada he claimed this wording was not neutral: &quot;&quot;Polls conducted on the subject of abolition of the Canadian Crown in 2022 and 2023, following the accession of Charles III, suggested that a majority of Canadians think there should be a referendum on the future of the monarchy and that more Canadians favour becoming a republic than do retaining the monarchy&quot; (he reverted similar wording in the monarchism article.) Instead, he wrote this wording which mentions only that polling occurred without any reference to the polling result. His &quot;neutral&quot; wording was:&quot;[[Debate on the monarchy in Canada#Polls|Polls have been conducted]] on the subject of abolition of the Canadian Crown.&quot;[[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 17:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :What, if any, administrative or community action would you support? [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' - the ban could be reconsidered at a later point but at present the editor shows no capacity to negotiate or seek or accept compromise, or collaborate, let alone accept a consensus view he disagrees with. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]){{pb<br /> }}'''Supplemental''' - there are still plenty of pages regarding the monarchy in the UK and other [[Commonwealth realm]]s that Miesianiacal would be able to edit. If he can demonstrate a collaborative approach on those pages, then the Canadian monarchy topic ban can be revisited. Alternatively, if his approach does not change, the topic ban could spread to cover all articles regarding the British and Commonwealth monarchy (for lack of a better term). In any case, this topic ban wouldn't be the end of the road and he would have avenues where he could prove himself. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 16:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> * I read [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?]] and my brain attempted to leave my skull. I have ''never'' seen such a nonsensical collection of distorted logic, and yes, a narrow article ban should be considered for at least one editor (the one mentioned in the lead here). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban for Miesianiacal from the Canadian monarchy, broadly construed. If this type of behavior migrates to other topic areas, broader restrictions may be required. This is classic POV pushing. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Do not support''' There are a multitude of pieces including several articles and different conversations in this accusation, however, I did read one (the question of residency), and I am not comfortable with the idea of sanctioning a long-time editor with considerable expertise in the area simply for being firm on a specific point on a Talk page which would seem to me to undermine the point of the Talk page in the first place, and in the spirit of lively debate with a minimum standard of decorum, as that's how we elucidate (ideally) the best way forward in good-faith, as opposed to single-editor dictatorship or mob-rule, both of which are to be strenuously avoided. {{pb<br /> }}Second, the article states that Charles III lives in the UK last I checked, so I'm not quite sure what the core issue is. Clearly no one is currently standing in the way of portraying that fact.{{pb<br /> }}In this case's Talk Page, there is a valid logical argument to made on the important distinction on the separation of office from an individual person. A slightly humorous example would be that, just because the current Prime Minister is Justin Trudeau, the official residence of the Prime Minister is 24 Sussex, and Justin Trudeau is also the coach of the little league team the Ottawa Cubs, that does ''not'' mean that the official residence of the Coach of the Ottawa Cubs is 24 Sussex, nor even that Justin Trudeau even lives at 24 Sussex. So, in this case, the monarch of the UK is, from Canada's point of view, a foreign head of state. The King of Canada does not have any official residences in the UK, but the King of Canada does have official residences in Canada. Where Charles III sleeps at night, or where the King of the UK as a foreign head of state lives has no bearing on the status or the location of a Canadian official residence. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that was the sticking point or the point that was trying to me made, and as I said, I think such a point is valid as is the logic behind it. And so the consensus I believe that is reflected in the article, or should be, is that the King of Canada has official residences in Canada, and that Charles III himself predominantly lives in the UK. No one should be censured for contributing to that consensus. {{pb<br /> }}Is it a little bit arcane and pedantic? Yes. But that is often the nature of deep-dive discussions of certain topics, particularly ones swirling around constitutional politics. {{pb<br /> }}As there was a bit of a swirl of allegations, please feel free to be more specific if you feel I've missed the most salient or fundamental issue under discussion here. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 18:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I take it all are aware these are called &quot;Canada’s Official Residences&quot; would be best if terms are not madeup. Would help things alot I think. &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight:bold;color:darkblue&quot;&gt;[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]&lt;/span&gt;🍁 18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' topic ban per Cullen328. The bludgeoning has to stop. Look, I understand the kind of pedantry that surrounds the issue. My first few years on this project were almost solely devoted to peerage matters. But this is too much. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 19:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support some sort of action if''' Miesianical doesn't strongly commit to accepting feedback and accepting consensus does not always line up with his personal slant. On one hand, Miesianiacal has contributed a lot of content on royalty in Canada, which is mostly good, and deserves some shout-outs for that. And... I get it. There are some articles on Wiki where having a &quot;guard dog&quot; editor hazing new edits closely can actually be a good thing (medical articles most famously, perhaps). If Miesianiacal was providing &quot;stewardship&quot; that occasionally was a tad tendentious, I get it. However... I'm not sure that's really the case here, and rather Miesianiacal himself is the issue, inserting POV slants in articles that do not accord with the sources, which makes any OWNership concerns much more pressing. So yes, this is ANI not a content board, but it's relevant, so let's look at Miesianiacal's grasp of content. Take a look at this old revision of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchies_in_the_Americas&amp;oldid=258665472 Monarchies in the Americas] for example: it distinguishes &quot;American monarchies&quot; from &quot;Foreign monarchies&quot; as if there was some sort of substantive difference between the King of Denmark ruling Greenland from afar and Charles III ruling Jamaica from afar. Which, strictly speaking, there is a difference of course, but a wildly overblown one that is hardly section-heading level worthy. Or take the line &quot;Most pre-Columbian cultures of the Americas developed and flourished for centuries under monarchical systems of government.&quot; Totally bonkers and unsourced, and tying the &quot;flourishing&quot; to the monarchial system of government. More generally, we simply ''do not know'' the details of the government system of &quot;most pre-Columbian cultures.&quot; It's just wild speculation. That's just the start of the problems with the old article. (I'm picking on it specifically because it was at GAR a bit ago and I took a look into it, where it was wildly overplaying certain &quot;monarchies&quot; and their level of support, like treating Arucania &amp; Patagonia as if it were a real state and not a fantasy.) I'd argue that all of the provincial level &quot;Monarchies of XYZ&quot; are problematic for example, with the possible exception of [[Monarchy in Quebec]] (although... I'd really want to triple-check all the sources talking about just how much the Quebecois loved their monarch back in the day as being valid and not Anglophone Canada wishful thinking.) Take a look at [[Monarchy in Alberta]], for example, which should probably be reformulated into something else as it's a lot of talking about nothing in particular. A very small number of people turned out for some event honoring the Queen? Stop the presses. Okay, back to conduct: Miesianical being a Canadian monarchist isn't a ''problem'', exactly. But going against their wishes is really not worth it due to the risk of bludgeoning talk page conversations or edit wars (the one time I did, on something I considered a slam dunk on sourcing grounds, felt like pulling teeth, but also happened ages ago at this point, so not worth rehashing). If Miesianiacal can just seriously commit to toning it down a bit and being willing to take the L when others disagree, then no need to do anything other than verify he's keeping the commitment. But otherwise, yeah, maybe time for a topic ban. (And per above, if a topic ban happened, I'd strongly encourage Miesianiacal not to continue the exact same behavior at other Commonwealth monarchies- going around to give the same treatment to Monarchy of The Bahamas subarticles would not really solve the problems here.) [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Upgrade to support topic ban, broadly construed'''. Miesianical's response below is that actually, there is no problem and everyone is getting upset over nothing, because there's no proof of anything. I guess all the editors here taking exception to his collaboration style don't count as proof either? If he doesn't think there's a problem, then he can't fix it, so we are left with this. It's really not that hard to commit to accepting feedback, but he isn't even bothering to try. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:I ''literally'' said that I'm open to accepting I've done wrong. But, since my analysis of the evidence (spelled out below) doesn't show me how I bludgeoned or abused tags, I'm ''asking'' (like, three times now) for clarification, so I can see what I might currently be missing or reevaluate what I see. Telling me &quot;you did bad&quot; tells me nothing about what exactly I did that was bad and, therefore, gives me no idea of how I'm supposed to modify my behaviour. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 20:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:* {{ping|Miesianiacal}} I believe you that was your intent. But intentions don't matter. Just as I'm sure you thought you were making a peace offering good faith, you have to believe everyone else that what ''actually comes across'' in your posts below is a desire to continue axe-grinding and bludgeoning with DrKay. As if that was the only problem, which it isn't, nor is it even the most important problem - it's your interaction with other editors in general.<br /> **:* You mentioned below that you need to work on brevity. I can't speak for others, but for me, I'd have been willing to change my vote to avoid a formal sanction with just three sentences or so. Something like &quot;While I stand by my edits, I understand that consensus will sometimes be against me. I'll discuss these matters on the talk page rather than revert war, keep it to just a few paragraphs or so on the talk page, and let the matter drop if it seems like a one-against-many situation.&quot; And then actually do that. Something to keep in mind for your future editing. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 20:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Perhaps I'm misunderstanding AN/I, then. It appears to me it sometimes, as in this instance, acts as a quasi-court. Someone's laid a charge against me. Unrelated, some misrepresented, incidents from months or years ago have been dragged in. To my mind, ''that'', collectively, is ''all'' I'll be judged on, if I don't mount some kind of defence. Yet, at the same time, I don't want to be adamantly defens''ive''--I want to say I don't see the charges as valid, here's why, but, I still accept they could be valid and I'm open to hearing--no, literally asking to hear--how so. Up to now, I would've thought something like your suggested statement would've been taken as a kind of flippant disregard of everyone's criticisms and ''that'' would be used against me. But, what you've said has made me question my interpretation of this as a trial.<br /> :::::Alright. Well, I have no idea how long something like this goes on for. But, I hope there's time for me to reconsider my main response; I mean, what I've already written is there and, well, the consequences will be the consequences. But, my feelings and opinions aren't immutable. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 21:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Also support some sort of action''' if Miesianical doesn't make efforts to be more collaborative. I haven't had any run-ins with them in quite some time because, frankly, I have very limited interest in monarchy. However my past interactions with them are very much in line with what others have said here - a tendency toward [[WP:OWN]], bludgeoning on talk page and walking right to the edge of [[WP:3RR]]. If they're still up to these antics nearly a decade on then I'd say they should be invited to consider making some changes to their editing behaviour. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' from anything to do with the Canadian monarchy &amp; perhaps the monarchies of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms (past &amp; current) broadly construed. Indeed, ''two'' RFCs shouldn't have been required at [[Monarchy of Canada]], but I didn't know what else to do to stop the disruption. Also see [[Talk:British royal family#RfC on lede|this RfC at British royal family]], from about a year ago. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban per [[user:Cullen]]. Off the top of my head I don't remember noticing this editor's work in other areas, but certainly the Canadian area is an issue. I don't believe this editor's bludgeoning is made in good faith. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 18:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' - As mentioned, my experience at [[Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty?]] and similar articles was not positive. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 20:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' - The response by Miesianical below speaks for itself. In the RFC I asked for Miesianical to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK|drop the stick]] and the response was baffling. Hopefully the editor learns something from this discussion so the behavior doesn't spread elsewhere. - [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 20:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' on Canadian monarchy and perhaps on the Commonwealth monarchy per above. Clearly a widespread and longstanding complex of issues. Especially the apparent suppression of information regarding support for republicanism in Canada, that's the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Enough of the bias, I'll support the topic ban. [[User:JM2023|JM]] ([[User talk:JM2023|talk]]) 03:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' on all Commonwealth monarchies. I feel like a more &quot;broadly construed&quot; topic ban would be best suited here, because of how inter-connected everything is. Charles, the King of Canada, is ''legally'' distinct from Charles, the King of the UK, but I fear a &quot;Canada only&quot; topic ban would lead Miesianiacal to bring their issues to other pages like [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom]], [[Monarchy of Australia]], etc... under the guise of the fact that they are ''technically'' not discussing the &quot;Canadian royal family&quot; anymore. &lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;Canuck&lt;/span&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;89&lt;/span&gt; [[User talk:Canuckian89|(Converse with me)]] or visit [[User:Canuckian89|my user page]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; &lt;small&gt;09:04, March 26, 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> As the person who started this is pointing specifically to [[Monarchy of Canada]] and disputing something is not a crime (if it were, all those here referencing the disputes they were engaged in with me on other articles over many months through the past would be guilty of it, as well), I'm only going to address matters at [[Monarchy of Canada]]; for now, anyway. Alone, I can only deal with one thing at a time.<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213869997 This] is not ''proof'' of bludgeoning. It's one person's opinion and one can see, preceding the person's remark, they asserted, &quot;you've said your piece,&quot; when I hadn't actually said any piece, I'd [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213733542 asked a question]: &quot;So, what now?&quot; That's an invitation to move forward toward a resolution. Indeed, in the preamble to that question, I ''acknowledged'' [https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2022/10/falqs-canada-and-the-monarchy/ the source] DrKay provided and the fact it supported the statement, &quot;the Canadian monarch lives in the United Kingdom&quot;. I even made the point of the question clear: &quot;there are now two takes on this: 'the monarch is represented by viceroys in Canada because he lives in the UK' and 'the monarch is represented by viceroys in Canada because he is monarch of 14 other countries and his principal residence is in the UK', each supported by one RS.&quot; That very evidenlty ''accepts'' DrKay's source, as it sought to find a way to deal with two sources--DrKay's one and [https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pch/documents/services/royal-symbols-titles/crnMpls-eng.pdf this one]--saying two not necessarily mutually exclusive, but, different things. DrKay chose never to answer the question, thereby exacerbating dispute, rather than working toward a resolution.<br /> <br /> That continues in the same vein:<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213624979 This] is a question<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214382428 This] is agreeing with someone<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214398286 This] isn't pushing anything; it's a comment on DrKay's misunderstanding of the dispute ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214166029 he thinks] I (and at least one other) want to have the article say the monarch lives in Canada, when I never, ever (and I mean ever) did)<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214382671 This] is again agreeing with someone<br /> * [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Discussion|This]] is a civil attempt to get a reverting editor to explain his edits and/or desired edits<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214384628 This] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214396977 this] were part of an agreeable discussion<br /> <br /> And that's the sum total of my contributions to the RfC, aside from my own answer to it. If anyone can explain how that meets the definition of &quot;bludeoning&quot;, I'm truly fascinated to read it.<br /> <br /> I haven't been blocked from [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada]]. So, my absence from the discussion is only because I haven't been on Wikipedia over the past few days and correlation does not imply causation.<br /> <br /> There was more than a week between the placement of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211996854 This] tag (which was quickly thereafter [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Park_Collegiate_Institute&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1172849549 moved by me] to make clear I was ''not'' challenging the claim that the monarch resides in the UK) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213574889 these] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213576471 tags]. The latter two are two completely different tags addressing two different variations of an edited sentence. Tagging disputed material is not a crime and I clearly brought up at talk the issues the tags were flagging, exactly as one is supposed to do. Again, how that's &quot;disruptive cite tagging&quot; (even the spirit thereof) requires further explanation, including how DrKay placing numerous tags on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211858095 4 March] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211912250 5 March], employing his usual tactic of &quot;discussion by edit summary&quot;, is not.<br /> <br /> There's no proof given of &quot;WP:POINTy tendentious editing&quot;. There's no proof given of my making such edits &quot;every time any other editor tries to edit [the] article&quot;. There's no proof given of the article being a &quot;farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research perpetuating a ridiculous myth.&quot;<br /> <br /> And &quot;[this proves] how nasty and desperate you are&quot; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214420204], from DrKay on [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada]], is an overt personal attack, which a continuation of the earlier attacks from him that both crossed and didn't quite cross [[WP:NPA]]: &quot;Don't play stupid, you know damn well what's meant&quot; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1143261256]; “you are ruining more than one article on my watchlist” [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKay&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1143265674]; &quot;you don't assume good faith [...] Treat them like shit you've scraped off the bottom of your shoe and they will likely respond by blanking your messages to them and asking you not to message anymore. Please do not message me anymore&quot; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1143291211]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKay&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1152036372 this] accusation of bad faith; [[User talk:Miesianiacal/August 2022-March 2024#Accuracy of edit summaries|this]] unconstructive attempt at besmirchment; etc. There are certainly zero examples of my expressing anything to DrKay that violates WP:NPA.<br /> <br /> Again, eludication on the matters of bludgeoning and abusive cite tagging would be helpful so I can have clear understanding of the rules so I can follow them properly, if, indeed, I haven't been, so far. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 02:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :To sum up, &quot;I did nothing wrong. It's all DrKay's fault.&quot; This is a version of what I said above: blaming others and refusing to accept you've done anything wrong. You claim here that there is no evidence of bludgeoning, but then in your final link here (&quot;[[User talk:Miesianiacal/August 2022-March 2024#Accuracy of edit summaries|this]] unconstructive attempt at besmirchment&quot;) you link to a discussion where there are 13 diffs showing you making the same comment 13 times, which you claim is not bludgeoning. DrKay's behaviour is far from laudable but then you shouldn't have goaded them should you? [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 08:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I asked above for clarification on how my interactions at [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada]] constituted bludgeoning and my use of tags on [[Monarchy in Canada]] was abusive cite tagging. That is altogether different from &quot;it's all DrKay's fault&quot;. (DrKay's personal insults being my fault is an opinion I'll ignore.) DrKay making two accusations of bludgeoning against me doesn't prove I ever engaged in bludgeoning; and I need to point out here, because mention of it is absent from your remark: in response to his first accusation back in May 2023, I presented DrKay with the proof that I didn't actually &quot;[make] the same argument over and over, to different people&quot; (it was just a weeks-long and wide-ranging dispute involving many different people and some requests outside it for new people to join and possibly help break impasses). After that, he dropped the argument.<br /> ::DrKay might be at fault here; given he's violated WP:NPA numerous times to make his hatred of me clear and half of his OP at the top is unsubstantiated, negative opinion, he may possibly have revealed that his motivation is personal. He might ''not'' be at fault. It might be that he I and are ''both'' at fault, in our own ways. Even if, hypothetically, for now, DrKay did start this for the wrong reasons, that wouldn't mean I didn't actually do some of what he's accused me of. Hence, I'm requesting edification, preferrably from neutral, dispassionate parties who'll consider ''all'' the evidence in its proper contexts. Because, as I explained above, I personally, right now, don't see how the evidence backs up the charges (particularly the bludgeoning one). --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::One thing I would dispassionately recommend is to work on being more concise. These text walls contribute in part, though not in whole, to the sense of bludgeoning. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Well, I feel hung between a need to be thorough and to be concise. But, brevity is a challenge for me here and off Wikipedia; I'm working on it for reasons that exist outside of this realm. However, the walls of text contributing to a sense of bludgeoning on talk pages is a new perspective to me and interesting; I can get it. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 17:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> My edit on 4 March: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211858095], tags a self-published vanity project, an anthology of fictional works, and an official Canadian government source that says explicitly, not that the Queen resided in Canada, but that she belongs in the same category as &quot;foreign heads of state&quot; and that she &quot;visits&quot; Ottawa along with &quot;other royal visitors&quot;. The edit on 5 March: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211912250] removes an invention of Miesianiacal's that George VI's 1939 state visit to the United States was on behalf of Canada uniquely. He knows this invention is untrue because we had a long discussion about it at [[Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother/Archive 2#Royal tours]]. The same edit tags a source that does not support the material it is next to. The edits therefore demonstrate that sources are twisted and that the article includes original research. He also lists a series of uncivil edits but fails to mention that they are all in response to his baiting, which can be seen by looking at the comment(s) to which they respond or the preceding edits. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214420204] is in response to the unsubstantiated claim that I think the article used to say the Canadian monarch lives in Canada. That is untrue. I should not have taken the bait but it is difficult to avoid doing so when it is so frequently flung in my face. If Miesianiacal doesn't want to awaken bears, he shouldn't poke them with a stick. Once again in his response to this discussion, we are faced with his absolute refusal to acknowledge any bludgeoning. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 17:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' - I was not involved in this original dispute, but became involved in discussions after commenting in the second RfC. As I wasn't involved at that time, I don't think I have anything useful to add about users' conduct while the first RfC was taking place. I will say though that some of DrKay's comments since have not been particularly productive. Calling other editors comments (mine included) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215025473&amp;oldid=1215012120 &quot;Farcical garbage&quot;], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215042417&amp;oldid=1215039825 wrongly accusing them of strawman arguments], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215044541&amp;oldid=1215043365 ad hominem attacks], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215047616&amp;oldid=1215046927 deflection] aren't really helping anyone reach consensus there. It seems the temperature needs to be lowered across the board.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 19:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I withdraw &quot;farcical garbage&quot; pursuant to [[Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility]] #1d.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1216052301&amp;oldid=1216048196]. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 19:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> With all due respect. [[Talk:The Worldwide Privacy Tour#Royal family description|This discussion, concerning a cartoon episode]], was memorable. I'm not certain how to describe the content dispute that took place there, a year ago. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Okay. My apologies for the length of the following. But, there's a lot to address.<br /> <br /> I've taken some feedback and looked at the whole of what this expanded into from the initial accusations. I've been editing here for 20+ years; I have crossed paths with many, many editors. The vast majority of interactions have been without significant problem. However, I have also sometimes been a problem. Admitting as much has prompted me to improve my collaborative manner; over even eight months ago (these recent discussions--[[Talk:Royal standards of Canada#Terminology|1]], [[Talk:Republicanism in Canada#Opinion polling|2]], [[Talk:King Charles III Coronation Medal#Canadian medallions/medals|3]]--are perfectly fine). I'm okay with disagreement; I'm willing to compromise (if it's not a policy matter).<br /> <br /> But, if my self-reflection is accurate, what's still been problematic up to now is my reaction to what I perceive as not being heard; in whatever manner. I've taken it as an unnecessary drawing out of the dispute and felt an RfC will do so even more (implying an impatience on my part). I become not incivil, but... blunt in my interactions with the other party. Now I see that, ironically, my insistence on getting the other party to hear me (driven, again ironically, by a want to find a mutually agreeable resolution) often leads to an RfC, anyway. The ends truly don't always justify the means. This is not to pick on DrKay; I just think it's relevant to show that even he and I ''can'' interact in a completely decent way: [[Talk:Head of the Commonwealth#Dubious|1]], [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 20#Official lists|2]]. So, ''my'' problem must be how I've been dealing with communication breakdown; between myself and anyone I think it's happening with.<br /> <br /> Putting whatever restrictions will inevitably be imposed on me aside, going forward, I'll accept what I think are failures to communicate as soon as I believe they've happened and that the wider community then has to be brought in; I'll accept there's no deadline to complete an edit. Of course, consensus is, as always, consensus. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 05:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :In the 20+ years, there seems to be (from you) a tendency to advocate for the monarchy in Canada, to be viewed in a certain way on Wikipedia. One ''might'' see this as breaching [[WP:RGW]]. Charles III, like his mother, grandfather, etc, before him, are/were most recognized as British monarchs. That's simply how the world sees it. At [[Monarchy of Canada]] (for example), we can't be suggesting in anyway, that the monarch resides/lives in Canada. Anyways, that's my theory on what's the core of your problematic behavior. It's up to the community to decide on what to do. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If there has been [[WP:RGW]] behaviour by editors at [[Monarchy of Canada]], it appears to have occurred on both sides of the initial debate there. With all due respect, I am not sure someone calling for a Canadian Republic on their user page is the best person to cast that particular stone. It seems to me many users are talking past each other on the talk page, which seems to be continuing in the new discussions on [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Residences]]. MIESIANIACAL is one of the editors commenting in the debates there, but the persistent content dispute(s) there, and the resulting walls of text, are of many editors makings. As I said above, I think the temperature needs to be lowered across the board.-- [[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't edit as a republican &amp; have at times been considered a closet-monarchist. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::A person dusclosing a political position on their user page should not guide which pages they are permitted to edit. Only whether their edits adhere to Wikipedia standards. As an example, my strident anti-monarchism had nothing to do with my positions regarding the [[Where is Kate]] article - only BLP standards. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I think it would be dangerous if we went down the path of declaring people to be in a COI because of their ideology or belief. Monarchists (or republicans) should no more be banned from editing articles on the monarchy than Christians should be banned from editing articles on Christianity (or even articles on the church they belong to), or Liberals or Conservative supporters or members be banned from articles on the Liberal or Conservative parties or liberalism or conservatism as ideology. What we should look out for is editing conduct and POV-pushing. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 18:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Deletions of (article) talk page material ==<br /> <br /> I have a long-running dispute that has started on 8. January when [[User:Chaheel Riens]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194299127 deleted 26 KiB of talk page material]. I would like the mentioned 26 KiB of deleted talk page material to be restored (archiving it would also be fine with me). However, this dispute is interrelated with the correct interpretation of [[WP:TPO]], and it might have important consequences as such.<br /> <br /> As a justification for his actions, [[User:Chaheel Riens]] provided [[WP:FORUM]], [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:NOTHOWTO]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1194383866 here]. After some further arguments and counter-arguments, he <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1194505317 refused to properly argue]<br /> . I think that there was some amount of [[WP:LAWYERING]] involved on his part, but I don't see that as important.<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_241#Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Summary_of_the_discussion_so_far I took the issue to the DRN],<br /> but it was not successful. However, my conclusion was that DRN was not a proper venue, because the central issue is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material, which is a conduct issue.<br /> <br /> The relevant guideline related to this problem seems to be [[WP:TPO]]. Some experienced editors are interpreting it as supporting the disputed deletion, while other experienced editors are of the opposite opinion. The editors who support the deletion are referencing various parts of [[WP:OR]] to justify the disputed deletion. In my opinion, such justifications are invalid, because WP:OR clearly states: {{tq|This policy does not apply to talk pages...}} Other justifications for deletion are invalid due to similar reasons. My conclusion is that the policies are supporting my side of the argument, therefore the deleted talk page material should be restored and then archived.<br /> <br /> Currently, this dispute is stuck at some kind of status quo, as I was absent for a month, and other editors apparently refused to argue further. I think that further arguments would be futile anyway, because this dispute is essentially about two widely different interpretations of WP:TPO, as it was noticed <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Some_Follow-Up_Comments_Regarding_Removing_Material here]<br /> .<br /> <br /> This dispute is unlikely to be resolved by any kind of discussion between involved parties. I judge that WP:ANI is the relevant authority for this kind of disagreement, because deletions of talk page material are conduct issues. To escape the status quo, some definitive guidance is needed about the proper course of action in this dispute.<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Someone_has_just_deleted_all_of_my_suggestions Initial discussion at ZX Spectrum graphic modes]<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Removed_sections Link to the continuation of discussion after DRN failed].<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Removing_material_from_article_talk_pages Link to the discussion at WP:TPG talk page].<br /> <br /> - [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Is this still the same discussion where you pretty much accused me of being a scammer and a liar? I distanced myself when it because clear it was turning into a slow-motion train crash while beating the dead horse at the same time. I've given a cursory glance over it since I last commented, and you don't seem to be gaining much favour - even the editor who was critical of me seems to have washed their hands of you and the discussion. This could be a case of [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|WP:FILLIBUSTER]] where you just go on and on and on and on and on until everybody simply gives up in exasperation. I've taken the liberty of pinging the other involved editors who were missed, but the discussion is such a mess it's hard to see if all have been included. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 16:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I have never accused you, or anyone, of being scammers and liars. It is just your interpretation of one '''hypothetical statement''' of mine, which I posted in a separate discussion about copyright issues [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_136#ZX_Spectrum_graphics_(modes)] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Parrot_standard.png] that isn't really related to this one. I apologize to you any everyone involved if you were offended by a lack of clarity in my writings, because I don't think that you are a scammer or a liar.<br /> ::I argue that what you have just suggested is essentially an attempt to perpetuate the status quo. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Z80Spectrum}} You mentioned &quot;''the possbility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers''&quot;. Would you have included Chaheel Riens in that group? &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Segoe Script;&quot;&gt;''[[User:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#BC49A6&quot;&gt;City&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:Green&quot;&gt; o&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:Red&quot;&gt;f &lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]]''&lt;/b&gt; 18:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I must admit that, at that specific moment, I was quite confused about what is happening. Therefore, my statement in question did not refer to anyone in particular. The copyright issues are a serious problem, and my statement was intended to alert to the importance of those issues. I [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01#c-Z80Spectrum-20240129030400-Clindberg-20240129005500 appologized here] to another user, [[User:4throck]], who might have been most obviously affected by that unfortunate statement of mine. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This doesn't belong here or indeed anywhere. The proper path forward is to work on something else. What practical difference is there between moving this information to the talk page archive vs having it available in diffs? Unwillingness to repeat oneself endlessly is not &quot;refused to properly argue.&quot; [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 18:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Not again!''' - I tried to mediate the dispute, which was originally presented as an article content dispute, but was really mostly a dispute about the removal of talk page material. I developed [[WP:DRN Rule F|DRN Rule F]] and was preparing to mediate a discussion about the removal or restoration of the article talk page material. [[User:Z80Spectrum]] then began discussing the dispute with [[User:Ritchie333]], an end run around my mediation, so I failed the mediation. <br /> *I will comment that I started off sympathetic to [[User:Z80Spectrum]] about the talk page edits. The [[WP:TPO|guidelines on editing other editors' talk page posts]] are poorly written, and do not clarify when the removal of talk page material is in order. My opinion is that they should state that removal is only rarely appropriate, and that normally disputed talk page material should be either archived or userfied. So I started out thinking that [[User:Chaheel Riens]] had been overly aggressive, but I tried to maintain neutrality. [[User:Z80Spectrum]] soon acted aggressively, making an accusation on the talk page of [[User:Ritchie333]] that I still don't entirely understand, but that appeared to be [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]]. Two months later is late to apologize for a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] that was called out at the time. Now [[User:Z80Spectrum]] wants to reopen a dispute that had faded away more than a month ago. <br /> *This filing is a [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] thrown by [[User:Z80Spectrum]]. If the community agrees with [[User:VQuakr]] that there isn't a current issue, then the issue is what to do about this [[vexatious litigation]] by the filing editor. I think that there wasn't a current issue until this report was filed, but now this report is reopening something.<br /> *One possible resolution to this case would be a one-way [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]] on [[User:Z80Spectrum]] against interacting with or attacking [[User:Chaheel Riens]].[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm not very glad to read this opinion of yours. I would have liked it better if you had communicated it to me earlier, which wasn't the case. I'm not &quot;reopening&quot; this dispute, as the dispute was never closed. <br /> *:I would like to point out that all I want is the 26 KiB of deleted talk page material to be restored and archived (that's the primary reason for this WP:ANI report). I will accept the interaction ban on my behalf, or any similar measure, to get that deleted content restored. I also wanted to clarify the ambiguities in the WP:TPG guideline, but that is secondary. This dispute is not about opinions, it is about proper application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and those are not decided by a community vote.<br /> *:I think that your accusation of vexatious litigation is not very nice. What else should I have done to get the deleted content restored? Did I not do everything you have suggested to me? Did you communicate any other suggestions to me earlier? I do not care about any measures to [[User:Chaheel Riens]], as I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_48#ZX_Spectrum_-_additional_note said earlier on your talk page]. <br /> *:From my point of view, [[User:Chaheel Riens]] was misinterpreting my words so I felt no need to apologize on my own incentive. If he had asked me to apologize on my talk page, I would have apologized. I even apologized to one unrelated editor, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dionysius_Miller#My_aplologies]. The discussion at DRN was interrupted due to the copyright issues, and I considered those a priority over the DRN discussion. In spite of your alleged &quot;sympathetic&quot; stance towards me, your post is a one way attack against me, with not a single word said in defense of my perspective. Therefore, I doubt your neutrality.<br /> *:I certainly don't want this discussion to get derailed again by off-topic comments, so I would like to remind that the reported issue is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material. If my conduct had not been stellar, I will accept the consequences, I will accept the boomerang, but I won't accept if the reported issue is completely ignored. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 06:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': I think this boomerang has NOTHERRE written on it; way too much valuable time has been wasted on this. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 05:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ===Another Reply to [[User:Z80Spectrum]]===<br /> ::[[User:Z80Spectrum]] writes: {{tqb| I'm not very glad to read this opinion of yours. I would have liked it better if you had communicated it to me earlier, which wasn't the case. I'm not &quot;reopening&quot; this dispute, as the dispute was never closed.}}<br /> :::When earlier would you have wanted me to communicate with you? In early February? I started a discussion of talk page removals at [[WT:TPG|the Talk Page Guidelines talk page]], in which I said that the talk page guidelines about removal of talk page posts were poorly written. Between 4 March and 17 March? You took a break from editing. If you were ill, I am sorry that you were ill and hope you have recovered. If so, I apologize for any rudeness on my part. <br /> :::You say that the dispute was never closed. It was never closed at [[WT:TPG|the Talk Page Guidelines talk page]]. It was closed at [[WP:DRN|DRN]]. It appears that it was closed there because you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue, in which you said that you had evidence that some editors were scammers and liars. It was your fault that you entangled two disputes, which confused me and confused [[User:Ritchie333]], and looked to me like a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] on [[User:Chaheel Riens]]. <br /> ::It is true that I am no longer sympathetic or neutral. That is your own fault.<br /> ::If you were ill, I am sorry, and I hope that you have recovered. In any case, the talk page removal is not a conduct issue, because it is an issue of a poorly worded guideline. If there is any conduct issue, it is your conduct. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 15:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt1.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|When earlier would you have wanted me to communicate with you? }}<br /> :::For example, at any time after 21 February 2024 would have been fine, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Z80Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209366787 after I had pinged you].<br /> :::'''Pt2.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|It was closed at DRN. It appears that it was closed there because you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue [...cut...] It was your fault that you entangled two disputes [...] }}<br /> :::No, it was not my fault. Or, maybe it is my fault, if I was supposed to stop the editing completely while the DRN case was in progress. How could I had known in advance that my attempt to coordinate efforts with [[User:4throck]] would lead me to stumble upon [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:4throck&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196226931 the copyright issue] (which is at the end of a discussion with him)?<br /> :::[[User:4throck]] was previously mostly sympathetic towards me and my writings, like in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1184433585 this comment], which is a part of the 26 KiB of deleted content.<br /> :::'''Pt3.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq| [...] you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue, in which you said that you had evidence that some editors were scammers and liars. }}<br /> :::No, that is just your interpretation. I have said: &quot;You must consider the possibility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers.&quot;, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197434065 here]. There is a big difference. Notice the words &quot;'''possibility'''&quot; and &quot;'''might'''&quot;. I don't like such serious misinterpretations of my words.<br /> :::'''Pt4.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq| It is true that I am no longer sympathetic or neutral. That is your own fault. }}<br /> :::The evidence is mounting that you were never sympathetic or neutral. For example at DRN, you took no action against [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197162384 this comment], where another editor is acting contrary to your [[Wikipedia:DRN Rule F]], section 9 (also, in my opinion [[User:Chaheel Riens]] is completely misinterpreting the &quot;archiving problem&quot; there).<br /> :::Two days before that, I reported this case to WP:ANI, based on what you have said <br /> :::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1195796819 here], and based on behavior of [[User:Chaheel Riens]], where it took him 42 hours to reply with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196399728 this comment] where I was accused of making a &quot;threat&quot;.<br /> :::After I reported the case to WP:ANI, you have proposed to continue the moderated discussion, which was fine. However, after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196480778 I objected ], the case at ANI should have been reopened, and the case at DRN should have been closed, as you have previously stated. Instead, you said {{tq|I would suggest that you follow the guidance of User:Ritchie333 who closed your complaint at WP:ANI. }}, defending the inappropriate closure of my case at WP:ANI. I agreed, nonetheless. However, given all that has happened at the DRN, it was quickly getting obvious that the case has no chance of succeeding, and it was getting worse by a series of misinterpretations by [[User:Chaheel Riens]]. For example: I was the one who agreed to archiving, and I clearly stated it at least three times: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196507327 here ], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196752695 here], and much earlier, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chaheel_Riens&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194929135 here] on [[User:Chaheel Riens]] talk page. In the DRN discussion, [[User:Chaheel Riens]] was constantly making it appear as if I had something against archiving, by citing various technical trivialities, and by attempting to dodge the archiving question as long as possible.<br /> :::'''Pt5.''' However, I decided to interpret all that as a honest mistake on your part, [[User:Robert McClenon]]. I considered that the &quot;honest mistake&quot; interpretation is the most likely one.<br /> :::'''Pt6.''' By the time I raised the copyright issue, the discussion at DRN had already have failed, at least from my point of view. I also consider the legal situation with copyright to be of much higher priority.<br /> :::'''Pt7.''' I judge that all the arguments against me are either gross misinterpretations of my words or gross misinterpretations of the entire situation. From my point of view, it is now quite likely that some of those misinterpretations were intentional, and some are a consequence of common human biases (i.e. [[User:Robert McClenon]] is far from being neutral, he is just acting in support of a long term editor, and against me as a newbie). I judge that even such are a normal and expected part of discussions.<br /> ::: All the evidence shows that I was the one who had a lot of sympathy for both [[User:Robert McClenon]] and for [[User:Chaheel Riens]], and I still do. I'm willing to instantly forget all the injustices that you have done to me, under the condition that the 26 KiB of deleted material is restored. Then we can engage in a discussion whether that material is WP:OR, or not, on the &quot;ZX Spectrum graphics modes&quot; page, and any further implications of that material.<br /> :::Took me three hours to write this. I hope that you appreciate it. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 21:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Boomerang''', whether that's a [[WP:CIR]] block, or a topic ban to prevent future disruption. This should have been dropped months ago, but instead [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] has chosen to drag it out. [[WP:FORUM]] is definitely a bit vague, but this is not a good choice of edits to pick a fight over. What's more concerning is Z80Spectrum's insistence that this must be resolved to their satisfaction, after leaving it fallow for a month, as well as trying to insist the ''real'' problem is {{tq|the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material}}, rather than their dogged insistence on litigating this. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 16:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I was not &quot;insisting&quot; on anything. I don't have the power to do so. I was saying that I would very likely consider it unjust if my complaint about the deletion of the 26 KiB of deleted material is disregarded. I don't see any way in which that deletion can be justified, in the sense that I expect the deleted material to be restored.<br /> *:[[User:HandThatFeeds]] said {{tq|after leaving it fallow for a month}} ... Wikipedia is not my full-time job. As I red in one of the essays, time passes slowly here, and breaks in disputes are usually welcome. It can be easily verified that all the last comments (before I took a break in this dispute) are mine, and that it was other editors who all went silent before I took a break. I can't reply to their silence. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 22:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Z80Spectrum, I mean this with all due respect and in all good faith, but for your own good, walk away. Deciding to go to battle with Robert McClenon, who is basically Wikipedia's aptheosis of equanimity, is not going to find you favor. We know how you judge your situation, but please take into account that others may judge it differently. All the best. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 22:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Thank you for your reply, which I judge was in very good faith. Unfortunately, I habitually don't respond affirmatively to any [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority arguments from authority]. All arguments with me have to be properly justified, in a properly conducted and fair discussion. If that is unacceptable on Wikipedia, feel free to ban me. So yes, I'm going to argue against the respected [[User:Robert McClenon]], until the arguments show that I'm in the wrong, or until I'm banned. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 23:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::To be clear, I am not saying you must agree with anything Robert says. I am merely saying there is a vast swath of territory between 'disagreement' and 'picking a fight.' Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 15:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::I didn't pick a fight with him, he picked a fight with me. I didn't invite him here. I said nothing about him before he did it here first, and I only replied to his comments. I'm also giving a peaceful offer, which is the same one from the very start of this case: to forget it all, if the deleted material is restored and archieved. Perhaps I forgot to say that I will likely write about this incident on my user page, but I can try to avoid mentioning names there. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::{{tq| I'm also giving a peaceful offer[...]: to forget it all, if the deleted material is restored and archieved.}} <br /> *::::::It's [[argumentum ad baculum|either your way or total war]]?!?? &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 18:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|Wikipedia is not my full-time job.}}<br /> *::No one is saying it should be. But, after a month, the discussion is dead and over. Dragging it back out over and over to get your way is just [[WP:TEND|tendentious]]. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 15:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *{{re|Z80Spectrum}} in reviewing past interactions I was reminded of [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3AParrot_standard.png&amp;diff=843591192&amp;oldid=843256802 this] (quite specious) interaction regarding copyright. When people are talking about [[WP:CIR]] in this context, &quot;competence&quot; is regarding your ability to collaborate on a project that is defined by its collaboration. It seems to me that you have battled or argued with nearly everyone you've interacted with; is that a habit you are able to change? [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 00:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:A fair question. Primarily, Wikipedia is a system. More precisely, Wikipedia is a complex system consisting of a community of people, principles, policies and guidelines, server-side software and data.<br /> *:All complex systems have faults of significant importance, and no human-made system ever has worked without failures. I am a newbie user here. I have to defend myself from all the consequences of the Wikipedia-as-a-system, including its many faults.<br /> *:In the case you have mentioned, if the copyright information of the problematic image was invalid, then I would have been legally liable to persecution. I consider such circumstances as a physical attack on me, as a consequence of one of Wikipedia's failures. I considered it as a grave and important situation.<br /> *:Wikipedia can't claim infallibility. I can't just rely on opinions of a few editors, or on information displayed by Wikipedia. Thus I demanded an opinion of an expert. I had every right to defend myself, in my opinion. When I got a good-enough explanation, I accepted it. If I have extensively argued before that moment, it means that I always had some unanswered objections.<br /> *:'''The problem would not have existed if the disputed image was hosted on Wikipedia''', instead of a third-party website.<br /> *:Instead, Wikipedia-as-a-system forced me, under a possibility of a legal threat, to extract the necessary copyright information from Wikipedia in a somewhat aggressive way. '''No one was seriously harmed''', as far as I can tell.<br /> *:You are correct in stating that I have argued with many people on Wikipedia. '''The problem is that I joined Wikipedia with a dispute-at-hand'''. It was not just an ordinary dispute, but a dispute where [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Some_Follow-Up_Comments_Regarding_Removing_Material conflicting interpretations already existed] before I joined Wikipedia. '''That is not my fault'''.<br /> *:I would honestly suggest to Wikipedia-as-a-system to try to fix its own faults first, and to not shift blame on the users, and especially not on newbie users. Unfortunately, complex systems are similar to persons, and they don't like to be criticized, so they usually don't listen to criticisms. I would also suggest to Wikipedia-as-a-system to be more tolerant of newbies, to not try to immediately intimidate them with [[WP:LAWYER]]. When reading many pages and essays here, I came under the impression that this criticism is already well-know, and that '''the real problem is in Wikipedia's reluctance to improve itself'''. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 03:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::My thoughts:<br /> *::- There are many ways you could improve Wikipedia that don't involve trying to restore that talk page - ways which it seems to me that a lot of others in this discussion would rather be doing instead of discussing this even more. Maybe seems unfair, but it appears that that is the current state of things.<br /> *::- If you want to improve the article and discuss it in the talk page, you can still do that, if you want to look at the deleted talk page content to find ways to improve the article, you can also still do that (by looking at the talk page from before it was removed).<br /> *::- Are you right? Are you wrong? Those questions should matter a lot less than questions like &quot;How can we move on? What can we still improve? How can we discuss it in a way that won't result in someone interpreting it as violating [[WP:TALK]]?&quot;.<br /> *::The big thing here, is that this does not appear to be an issue of great significance, and the more time that is taken to either try to resolve the dispute or discuss things here in ANI (honestly, the more time that it takes to read big walls of text too) the less people are going to want to do that, because it's a lot of time for little gain.<br /> *::&lt;br&gt;<br /> *::I don't agree with people saying that you should be sanctioned for making this ANI thread and for having dug this topic after people had moved on, because you made this thread as a way to continue the dispute (which seems to have been left as a possibility in the conclusion of the the DRN discussion) and because of what your intentions appear to have been when making it, but I think that you should withdraw this ANI thread and move on from and forget this dispute before people actually do get you blocked for it.<br /> *::The value you bring to Wikipedia is directly weighed against the time that is taken away from other editors without that time being used to improve or protect the Wikipedia.<br /> *::&amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|talk]]) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::And just to be clear, since I'm unsure how aware of how things work you are, withdrawing means saying that you do, that's all. &amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|2804:F1...7E:615D]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|talk]]) 04:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::If I understand it right, you are suggesting a compromise in which I withdraw, and I also suffer no consequences. I decline such a compromise (which was provided in good faith) due to the following:<br /> *::::'''Objection 1.''' Such a compromise implies that I consent to devaluing most of my work on Wikipedia so far, in return for some kind of &quot;safety&quot;. I would turn out to be a complete coward, which I am not.<br /> *::::'''Objection 2.''' Such a compromise is not in accordance with my stated principles of justified and fair discussions. I would much rather see and suffer the consequences of the outcome which is at this moment uncertain, than to retreat without being given proper justifications.<br /> *::::'''Objection 3.''' I think that I'm fighting for the right cause. The outcome of this ANI case would likely serve as a precedent that clarifies the ambiguities of WP:TPO, which was one of my goals. One of the worst outcomes from my point of view would be the perpetuation of the status quo, in which WP:TPG remains ambiguous. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 06:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::{{tq|The outcome of this ANI case would likely serve as a precedent that clarifies the ambiguities of WP:TPO, which was one of my goals.}}<br /> *:::::You are vastly overestimating the importance of this discussion. You're also [[WP:RGW|fighting the wrong battle.]] If you want sanctions, I expect you're going to get them now. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 15:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::This isn't a battle to be won and lost based on courage or cowardice. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 00:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Z80Spectrum, if you feel being banned from the topic page or Wikipedia in general is worth making your point, then that is certainly fine. I just want to make sure you're aware that you are making the former a near certainty and the latter more and more probable. All the best however things should go. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Thank you, Dumuzid. If I'm banned, I can take it. I wasn't editing Wikipedia much before this incident, and I can certainly live without editing Wikipedia in the future. I wasn't even planning to edit Wikipedia, I was just bored, about 4 months ago. So, don't worry about me. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 01:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ===Yet Another Reply to [[User:Z80Spectrum]]===<br /> :You seem to be arguing with yourself, and one of the risks of arguing with oneself is that one may lose the argument. On the one hand, you agree that [[WP:TPO|the guideline on editing the talk page posts of other editors]] is poorly written and ambiguous. On the other hand, you say that you have reopened this [[WP:ANI]] thread because the removal of your 26K post is a conduct issue on the part of [[User:Chaheel Riens]]. If the guideline is poorly written, it is unfair to argue that there was a conduct violation, but maybe you are arguing both ways.<br /> :You have now decided that I was never neutral. You probably won't believe me, but I started out thinking that your 26K posts should be restored, because I thought and still think that deletion of talk page posts should only be done rarely. I disagreed with [[User:Chaheel Riens]], and thought that they were overreacting when they deleted your 26K post. I still think that, other things being equal, your 26K should be restored either to an article talk page archive, to your user talk page, or to a user talk page archive. I was inclined in that direction until you went to the talk page of [[User:Ritchie333]]. It appeared to me that you are asking for his help with regard to the dispute about the talk page post. I now see that you were asking for his help with regard to a copyright dispute. I still don't know what the copyright dispute was, and I am not sure whether I want to know. <br /> :You say, in '''Pt 3''', that I misunderstood what you were saying, about scammers and liars. That is probably true, but you said that you had evidence:<br /> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARitchie333&amp;diff=1197436589&amp;oldid=1197435165<br /> :You said that you had evidence. Now you say that is only my interpretation. <br /> :You write: {{tqb|I didn't pick a fight with him, he picked a fight with me. I didn't invite him here. I said nothing about him before he did it here first, and I only replied to his comments.}} If you mean me, I didn't pick a fight with you. You say that you didn't invite me here. By &quot;here&quot;, do you mean [[WP:ANI]]? It is true that you didn't ping me, but I was always here. Unlike you, I didn't take a two-week or four-week break from Wikipedia. You wrote: {{tq|I'm not &quot;reopening&quot; this dispute, as the dispute was never closed.}} So did you think that I would have forgotten about it? <br /> :I didn't pick a fight. <br /> :Thank you, [[User:Dumuzid]], for your positive comment.<br /> ====Starting Over ? ====<br /> Now, at this point, here are the issues that I think remain:<br /> *1. [[User:Z80Spectrum]] wants their 26K of deleted posts back. That material has not been [[WP:REVDEL|revision-deleted]]. Z80Spectrum can copy it to a user subpage in user space. If they want it in article talk space, they can resume the discussion of [[WP:UPG|the talk page guidelines]], but at least they will have it. A user has more control over their own user space than over article talk space. If anyone else thinks that the material is inappropriate for user space, they can nominate the material for [[WP:MFD|MFD]]. Userfication should be a satisfactory compromise that doesn't require a community decision.<br /> *2. Z80Spectrum did say that they have evidence. That was not a hypothetical statement, but an allegation against someone. They should either present the evidence, or say that they were just talking wildly. <br /> *3. Is there anything else?<br /> [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Z80Spectrum said they want {{tq|the deleted material [...] restored and archived}}, or else. &quot;Material&quot; being his [[WP:OR]]. No thanks. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 04:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I dislike your comment, Paradoctor. I repeat, again, a quote from [[WP:OR]]: {{tq|This policy does not apply to talk pages}}. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Article talk pages exist to discuss changes to the corresponding article. &quot;I dislike your comment&quot; is an oddly (bizarrely, even!) confrontational way of putting things. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 17:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Pt11.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq| You seem to be arguing with yourself ...}}<br /> :Your argument depends at least on a presumption that the property of being ambiguous can only have a yes or no answer. I argue that there exist many intermediates, or degrees, of ambiguity. WP:TPO is not ambiguous to such a degree that absolutely no conclusion can be reached. I judge that, upon careful reading, WP:TPO supports my side of the argument to a level significantly higher than the case for deletion.<br /> :I will skip the detailed justification of my previous sentence. Instead, I ask you this: '''can you quote a part of''' [[WP:TPO]] which, in your opinion, supports the case for deletion of the disputed 26 KiB? Such a quotation would be a good start of a fair discussion.<br /> :On the other hand, you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1195796819 have stated at DRN] : {{tq|However, it is my opinion that the removal of material posted by another editor to an article talk page is only allowed under unusual circumstances, and those circumstances were not present. So the removal of the large amount of talk page material was an error. }} From my point of view, it appears that you are the one who is now arguing against own previous statements.<br /> :'''Pt12.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|You probably won't believe me, but I started out thinking that your 26K posts should be restored ...}} Actually, I believe you. In the vast majority of cases, bias is sub-conscious. Biased persons are usually not aware that they are biased. Or, perhaps you were not biased, and it was some other kind of a honest mistake. Still, that DRN case was unjust towards me, primarily because it should have been closed and moved to WP:ANI when I requested it.<br /> :'''Pt13.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|I still think that, other things being equal, your 26K should be restored [...]. I was inclined in that direction until you went to the talk page of User:Ritchie333. …}}<br /> :I judge that as invalid. One thing has nothing to do with another. I see no valid logical connections between whether the content should be restored and what I said on the page of User:Ritchie333 .<br /> :'''Pt14.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|You said that you had evidence. Now you say that is only my interpretation. …}}<br /> :I have already apologized for that entire discussion on User:Ritchie333 talk page, three times: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215019037] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dionysius_Miller#My_aplologies] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01#c-Z80Spectrum-20240129030400-Clindberg-20240129005500]. I now apologize for the fourth time. I would also like to point out that I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1197467546 ended that discussion with] {{tq|You win. I've had enough. I don't even know why am I wasting time here. }}. That final post of mine was an attempt to cancel what I have said there. Obviously, it wasn't clear enough.<br /> :This insistent objections concerning those few sentences on User:Ritchie333 talk page are getting in the way of a fair discussion. I have a feeling that you and [[User:Chaheel Riens]] are trying to scare me and silence me by quoting that discussion only when I try to argue for the restoration of the deleted material. I won't search now for evidence in support of that feeling of mine, but I will do it if the issue is brought up again.<br /> :I repeat: I see no valid logical connections between restoration of the deleted material and what I have said on the page of User:Ritchie333 .<br /> :'''Pt15.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|If you mean me, I didn't pick a fight with you. […] By &quot;here&quot;, do you mean WP:ANI? }}<br /> :Yes, I mean/meant you, [[User:Robert McClenon]]. I was replying to an answer of another editor who used the phrase &quot;pick a fight&quot; first. I re-used his phrase due to concerns of clarity. Yes, I meant WP:ANI.<br /> :'''Pt16.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|Unlike you, I didn't take a two-week or four-week break from Wikipedia. }}<br /> :On WP:ANI, I have already provided an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215232772 answer to your allusion].<br /> :So, you claim that you were present on Wikipedia. Tell me, have you done something related to this dispute since February 21st? If you did, I'm still unaware of it. I was mostly absent, and I might have missed some important development, so I would like to get informed. Or, perhaps you did nothing since February 21st?<br /> :-<br /> :'''Answers to the three points titled &quot;Starting Over ?&quot;:'''<br /> :'''Pt21.''' (answer to 1.) The question is not where can I copy the deleted material, but primarily whether the deletion was justified. Perhaps you are trying to say that the deleted material belongs better to my user space, but I don't think it does. The deleted material is strongly connected to the &quot;ZX Spectrum graphics modes&quot; article, where it should be discussed. The deleted material specifically discusses improvements only to that article, and also discusses and documents methods of generating images specifically for that article.<br /> :I see no justification in the guidelines for your proposed compromise. '''Can you quote a part of''' [[WP:TPO]] that would support your proposal to move the disputed material to my user space?<br /> :A rhetorical question: '''What would you say if I proposed that every comment you wrote on any talk page should be moved to your user space, as a compromise?'''<br /> :I propose as an equally good &quot;compromise&quot; (ironically): If the 26 KB of disputed material is moved to my user space, then I should be allowed to pick 26 KB of yours and User:Chaheel Riens posts and move them to your and his user space.<br /> :'''Pt22.''' (answer to 2.) When I said &quot;I have evidence&quot;, I meant that [[User:4throck]]<br /> :a) provided me with a link to an image hosted on a third-party website<br /> :b) didn't upload the disputed image to the Commons, even after I notified him; that inaction appeared to me as a possible attempt to hide information about copyright.<br /> :c) the image he previously uploaded to the Commons was modified in a strange way, which made me extremely suspicious<br /> :'''Pt23.''' (answer to 3.) Yes, there is more. Given the totality of your objections and proposals in this discussion on WP:ANI so far, I would estimate that, generally speaking, you are not arguing properly. I ask for arguments and justifications of better quality. I especially dislike apparent constant attempts to blame me for as many things as possible, which then causes me to spend unnecessary time and space for rebuttals of each accusation (since I might be punished by WP:ANI for any single accusation of yours). To accusations, I might respond with counter-accusations, as I did. To valid arguments, I will respond with arguments.<br /> :Please, if you want to improve the quality of this discussion, then try to provide a small number of well-thought out arguments, instead of a multitude of short, but easily rebutted arguments. You can start by answering the two questions that I have partially bolded/highlighted. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Good Lord, this is becoming a veritable black hole waste of time. I didn't realise it was still ongoing, as my username was incorrectly spelled in some of the earlier pings, so I never received them. However, I'll make just a couple of observations and try to keep away in general:<br /> ::# {{tpq|I propose as an equally good &quot;compromise&quot; (ironically): If the 26 KB of disputed material is moved to my user space, then I should be allowed to pick 26 KB of yours and User:Chaheel Riens posts and move them to your and his user space}} - that depends on whether the 26Kb in question has been challenged, and the reasons behind it. As this would obviously be a [[WP:POINTY]] edit, then you would most likely find your actions had consequences that you would undoubtedly feel were unfair. (Incidentally, you state that this is a rhetorical question, but also ask for it to be answered. It can't be both, but I chose the latter.)<br /> ::# The issue here that you are still fixated on the talk page removal, and [[WP:STICK|will not let it go]] - to the extent where everything else fades out and your position ''must'' be accepted. However, to every other editor this is no longer the case - even those who supported you at first. It's now turned into a primarily a conduct issue, albeit ''your'' conduct around the original issue (even if mine was questioned at the start) - yet you refuse to accept or take advice in that respect. Even back when DRN was first mooted I was prepared to accept the outcome regardless, and recognised that {{tpq|I've interacted with Robert before in passing - he's to be respected}} [[User_talk:Chaheel_Riens/Archive_1#ZX_Spectrum_modes|here]]. I ''tried'' to support you, I really did - when you first joined I left you a [[User_talk:Z80Spectrum#Welcome!|Welcome template]] on your talk page, and recognised that you were just venting with your userpage, voting to '''keep'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Z80Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197682148], but you make it a hard row, and I feel like it's against the current. You seem to be making it personal, and that's not a good place to edit from. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt31.''' (answer to 1.) Perhaps I used a wrong word there (i.e. &quot;ironically&quot;). Precisely: that last &quot;compromise&quot; of mine should not be understood at face value. I also think that you didn't correctly identify the &quot;two questions that I have partially bolded/highlighted&quot;. It is likely a honest mistake on your part.<br /> :::Whether the disputed content should be moved to my user space is a question of justification and a question of consistence. A justification has to be found in the policies and guidelines. &quot;Consistence&quot; is about the usual and accepted ways to solve this kind of a dispute. It would be the best if both the justification and the &quot;consistence&quot; coincide into one and the same action.<br /> :::'''Pt32.''' (answer to 2.) I'll only let go if I'm provided with a valid justification (which can also be based on the concept of consistence, but such is a much more complex argument to make). &quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Without a proper justification, you can't convince me. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::[[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. If you can't convince other editors you're right, then you ''have'' to drop it. This is policy on Wikipedia. If you can't handle it, you're in the wrong place. <br /> ::::[[WP:CONSENSUS]]: {{tq|'''Consensus''' is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making [...] [[Consensus decision making|Consensus]] on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity [...] nor is the result of a [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|vote]].}} &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::No, I don't have to convince other editors. Conduct issues are decided by WP:ANI, and the deletion od 26 KB is a conduct issue. I'd like to hear the judgement of WP:ANI. I hope that it will be properly justified. Until then, I'll be posting my counter-arguments, in order to better inform the administrators at WP:ANI of my side of the argument. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 01:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|The question is not where can I copy the deleted material, but primarily whether the deletion was justified.}} This seems quite a lot like a [[WP:BATTLE|battleground mentality]].<br /> ::{{tq|...didn't upload the disputed image to the Commons, even after I notified him; that inaction appeared to me as a possible attempt to hide information about copyright....which made me extremely suspicious.}} All editing is voluntary. It is not reasonable to make demands of other editors. [[WP:AGF|Assuming good faith]], however, is not optional. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 17:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt41.''' [[User:Vquakr]] said: {{tq|All editing is voluntary. It is not reasonable to make demands of other editors. Assuming good faith, however, is not optional. }}<br /> :::OK. However, I argue that I had good reasons for being suspicious, due to the gravity (i.e. importance) of legal problems. I argue that I had the right to demand immediate clarification of the copyright problem, and that I had sufficient reasons for being suspicious. Even if it wasn't entirely so, that has no implications on the restoration of the 26 KB disputed material. The issue of my conduct is a separate issue. I can't tell how much have I overstepped, as I am a newbie here. I have already agreed to accept the boomerang. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*{{tq|'''can you quote a part of''' [[WP:TPO]] which, in your opinion, supports the case for deletion of the disputed 26 KiB?}}<br /> ::Can't speak for Robert, but ''I'' do. <br /> ::[[WP:TALKOFFTOPIC]]: {{tq|It is common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself}} <br /> ::Which OR always is, by definition. <br /> ::Which I told you more than five weeks ago, on your talk page. You have [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|hearing issues]]. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt42.''' [[User:Paradoctor]] said: {{tq| WP:TALKOFFTOPIC: It is common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself }}<br /> :::I think this is a repetition of the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Z80Spectrum#Talk_page_guidelines_vs._ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes on my talk page], in which you participated. I'll reply [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Z80Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209392534 the same as I did there], but shorter : {{tq| The deleted discussion is not a discussion about article's subject (the subject are the graphics modes), but about article content (images in the article are content). }} [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{tq|I think this is a repetition}} Uh, I literally said so. Let me repeat another bit of yours from slightly further down: {{tq|Frankly, I can't see your side of the argument at all}}. <br /> ::::Me and everyone else. So, lots of not seeing on all sides. What are we to do? The fact is, for whatever reason, and whomever you wish to blame for that, you couldn't convince anyone to accept your position. Which means your position won't result in content. <br /> ::::You dislike this, sure. I understand. But it is clear that further discussion will not lead to conversions. Attempting to continue the campaign will only waste the time of other editors. So, unless you ''wish'' to be sanctioned, it is time to [[WP:DEADHORSE|drop it]] now. Remember what Obi Wan said to Anakin on Mustafar. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 01:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I don't know what's the best way to say this, but I want to say to you that you are, by your nature, quite an amusing person. You make me smile. I would like that to be understood in a positive way. So, I can't say that I dislike your comment.<br /> :::::That was a slight digression. On the serious side, your argument is just a version of a fallacy known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Argumentum ad populum]. I would like to be given proper justifications, not fallacies. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::You know, if you try to condescend to someone, at least make sure you're right. I never said consensus makes right. I said [[WP:CONSENSUS|Wikipedia operates through consensus]], and consensus is not with you here and now. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 02:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I forgot to say that I accept only the original trilogy, so Obi Wan on Mustafar didn't happen. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :* And from [[WP:NOTFORUM]]: &quot;Per our policy on '''original research''', please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: ... #4 Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia ... bear in mind that '''article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles'''; they are '''not for general discussion''' about the subject of the article&quot; &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 18:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:'''Pt43.''' I have already discussed that in other forums. I argue that the deleted 26 KB is solely about improving the article. To verify it, you have to read the deleted 26 KB: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;oldid=1194297511#How_to_simulate_Spectrum's_PAL_output this topic (at least the first post)], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;oldid=1194297511#c-80.80.52.99-20231111154100-80.80.52.174-20231111033300 this part, which is about improving the &quot;Colour palette&quot; section of the article] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Colour_palette].<br /> :*:Also, I would like to remind that [[WP:OR]] does not apply to talk pages. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::This is your research: {{tq|Let's compute this conversion of &quot;theoretic&quot; ZX Spectrum PAL colors into sRGB color space. They are &quot;theoretic&quot; because we are assuming the maximum possible saturation that a ZX Spectrum could possibly achieve on the PAL output. The real colors produced by a ZX Spectrum on the PAL output are probably less saturated. The real colors are currently unknown, and the only way to find them out is by an oscilloscope, via the UV voltages method (by measuring amplitude-phase shift of chroma sub-carrier).}}<br /> :*::Where is the [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that says what you are saying there? <br /> :*::What do you not understand about [[WP:V]]?<br /> :*::{{tq|content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or [[Wikipedia:No original research|previously unpublished ideas or information]]. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.}} &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 01:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::I would like to remind that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::::WP:OR does not apply to normal appropriate talk page discussions, this means discussing with reliable sources improvements to the article. This type of discussion is not original research. You however are not using the talk pages for discussion within these talk page guidelines, you are using talk pages to try and publish your own thoughts, this is original research and per WP:NOTFORUM is is not allowed. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 02:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::Oh, [WP:V], sorry, here you go: {{tq|All material in Wikipedia mainspace, ...}} [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::::You are abusing talk page discussions to publish your own thoughts, these cannot be WP:V and using talk pages to try and end run around WP:V won't work. I think this is why you are so desperate to have this content put back on a talk page instead of your userspace, you can't get your WP:OR in the article directly, so the talk page is the next choice. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 02:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::::I have replied below at the start of &quot;Courtesy Break (1)&quot;. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Firstly, I'd like to clarify that I'm new to ANI, so forgive me if I miss any formalities. However, I wanted to chime in because like other editors here, I really don't see how this content dispute qualifies as a ''{{tq|chronic, intractable problem}}''. The dispute effectively amounts to a several month-old removal of talk page content, which has been dragged to death via various noticeboards. What exactly is the point of bringing this here? If it's content, this discussion does not belong here. I agree with the IP's suggestion for Z80Spectrum to withdraw this thread, before they continue to dig a hole for themselves, running the risk of potential sanctions. What I ''do'' find intractable, however, is Z80Spectrum's [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground mentality]], which has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout this thread, e.g ''{{tq|users are trying to scare and silence me}}'', (which is demonstrably false, since your own actions have led you to this point, not mine, nor anyone else's), and ''{{tq|I would turn out to be a complete coward, which I am not}}''. As @[[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] succinctly put it, this isn't a battle to be won and lost based on courage or cowardice. Irrespective of whether or not the removal was justified, I think Z80Spectrum needs to stop digging a hole for themselves. This really isn't a hill that one should die on. [[User:Bandit Heeler|Bandit Heeler]] ([[User talk:Bandit Heeler|talk]]) 22:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Courtesy Break (1)===<br /> <br /> After an approx. 15 hours break, I would like to continue the argumentation here. I'll skip the replies to all the argument so far where I estimate that they are either obviously false, fallacious, off-topic, irrelevant, or without sufficient substance. <br /> <br /> As far as I can tell, that leaves only two posts unanswered, by [[User:TimothyBlue]], where he talks about applicability of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]] policies. [[User:TimothyBlue]] said: {{tq|You are abusing talk page discussions to publish your own thoughts ... }}<br /> <br /> '''My answer is as follows.''' Generally speaking, Wikipedia talk pages contain thoughts of users. I estimate that user's thoughts form over 50% of the total Wikipedia talk page material. Wikipedia does not require user's thoughts published on talk pages to be verifiable. Upon reading the [[WP:V]] policy, it can be easily noticed that it speaks primarily about article content, and not about talk page material.<br /> <br /> Additionally, most parts of the disputed 26 KiB material are actually easily verifiable. You just need to use a calculator, and you need some introductory knowledge in the topics covered.<br /> <br /> Similar reasoning applies with regards to [[WP:OR]], which explicitly and clearly states: {{tq|This policy does not apply to talk pages... }} . If Wikipedia was to apply [[WP:OR]] to content of talk pages, it would imply that all the talk page discussions have to be just slight re-interpretations of material already published somewhere else. That would further imply the need to put inline references into all sentences published on talk pages. So, it is not any kind of a wonder that [[WP:OR]] does not apply to talk pages.<br /> <br /> [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :[[WP:PLAYPOLICY]] &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You have a right to state that opinion of yours. I argue that it is an undoubtable and obvious intention of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]] to be applicable only to mainspace (i.e. to articles, and not to talk pages). Therefore, I'm not gaming the use of policies and guidelines. Instead, I'm providing a very obvious interpretation of WP:OR and WP:V. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Topic ban===<br /> <br /> Given the above lengthy comment, which dismisses concerns as {{tq|easily rebutted arguments}} and that users {{tq|are trying to scare me and silence me}}, I can see no option besides the following:<br /> <br /> *&lt;s&gt;'''Topic ban''' [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] from [[Sinclair Research]] and related articles.&lt;/s&gt; I chose this more broad topic ban (rather than just the [[Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes]] page) as I expect this will continue at those related pages otherwise. This is the only way to put this interminable argument to rest and bring focus back to improving these articles, rather than going in circles over a months-old [[WP:FORUM]] removal from the Talk page. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 21:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|HandThatFeeds}} their area of interest/expertise is clearly linked to that subject area given their user name and editing history; topic banning them from that area rather than addressing the behavioral issues seems like an indef block by another name, and ''if'' they started editing in another area with the same behavior the same issues would arise. Put another way, this boils down to battleground mentality not the subject area so I don't think a topic ban is the right tool. As an alternative: what about a ban from arguing against or uncollapsing off-topic talk page posts, with a warning that future forum-like posts, synthetic talk page posts, or battleground behavior will likely result in a block? [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::&lt;s&gt;Z80Spectrum seems to have an interest in technology in general - a look at their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Z80Spectrum&amp;target=Z80Spectrum&amp;offset=&amp;limit=500 contributions so far] (once the talk page and ANI chaff is filtered out) shows a fairly wide breadth of computer related interests. A topic ban here would not restrict them as much as a block, indef or not. Additionally, they have made constructive edits to the [[ZX Spectrum]] article - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZX_Spectrum&amp;diff=1214435159&amp;oldid=1214433745 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZX_Spectrum&amp;diff=1211653251&amp;oldid=1211596298 here] for example. I think a topic ban would work for just the [[ZX Spectrum graphic modes]] article &amp; talk page. Not being a mop-holder, I'm also unaware, but I do - best will in the world - think that some kind of attitude warning or restriction based on the [[WP:STICK]] and battleground mentality is in order. As an involved (!) party, I'm not sure how much weight my observations carry though. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 22:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/s&gt;<br /> :::'''Indef block''' - Changed my mind based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215583779 this comment] in '''Pt32.''' (answer to 2.): {{tpq|&quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me.}} Although it's abundantly clear he has no intention of stopping, this is where he categorically states and admits it. He's not going to stop and will keep filibustering until somebody stops him instead. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 08:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::15 years, 37,619 edits, carries a bit of weight. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't think a behavioral topic ban will suit, because that's just too vague to enforce. Either an article topic ban, or a CIR block, are the only solutions I can think of to end this. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''': They really have left everyone with few options. I suppose this comes down to how much more time needs to be wasted? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215287811 Based on this] I think the underlying problem will resurface in a different form. After looking at their userpage, I think they want to be blocked to prove what they think is a point. Wikipedia has flaws large and small, but their userpage rant is even more unhinged than this discussion. However the tban is crafted, it needs to be crystal clear that if the problem repeats a block will be fast in coming. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * &lt;del&gt;'''Topic ban''' for [[ZX Spectrum graphic modes]]. I think the crux is that this is about something they put a lot of work in, and the rejection of their work has them [[WP:WIKISTRESS|running a lot hotter]] than their usual self. Let's not forget they are new here. If I'm wrong, we'll learn soon enough, but I'm willing to give them a chance to cool down.&lt;/del&gt; &lt;br&gt; &lt;del&gt;'''Block indef''' Reassessed.&lt;/del&gt; &lt;br&gt; '''Site ban''', but will accept an indef block. I have begun to see the wisdom in Remsense's words below. &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paradoctor|contribs]]) 23:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;&lt;ins&gt;; edited 02:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/ins&gt;&lt;ins&gt;; edited 10:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/ins&gt;<br /> *:However it turns out, I would like to say that I mostly enjoyed conversations with you. I'm saying this just in case that I'm banned and therefore unable to say it. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Topic ban''' or '''just block indef'''. Based on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215583779 comment in this discussion]: {{tq|&quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me.}} - it is obvious that some sort of sanction will be required. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 00:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support Indef block''': They just replied above (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;curid=5137507&amp;diff=1215583779&amp;oldid=1215582006]). They made it clear they have no intention of stopping. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' any topic ban from article space. The conduct issue here is the editor's [[WP:FILIBUSTER|filibustering]] in project space about an article talk page. I am not stating a position for or against an indefinite block or site ban, but those are not what is being considered here. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 01:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Indef block''' even now, with this discussion open, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=1215618454&amp;oldid=1215616779 just] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1215618454 can't] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1215618585 help] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1215618692 themselves]. Hopeless case of [[WP:BATTLE]]. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 07:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support Indef''' - Given the new rants and declaration they will not stop until a &quot;justification&quot; which satisfies them is presented, I'm striking my topic ban suggestion and supporting an indef block. User is [[WP:NOTHERE]] to collaboratively edit. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' a '''Site Ban''' after the subject editor wrote: {{tq|&quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Without a proper justification, you can't convince me.}}, since it is also apparent that they want to decide what is a &quot;proper justification&quot;. That insistence may be good mathematical logic, but it is not collaborative work in an electronic office. They threw a [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] at a [[kangaroo]] that wasn't there. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support site ban''' – In the course of human events, sometimes words simply fail. Here, they likely failed months ago. Z80 has been given months more time to adjust their behavior than I had initially expected—time during which they have been consistently afforded a wide variety of patient advice from fellow editors. At several points, it seemed to me that there may have been some getting through to them. Unfortunately, that no longer seems plausible. Beyond a very shallow threshold, Z80 is completely unreceptive to other editors' perspectives. This threshold is unacceptably shallow for Wikipedia. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 07:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Accusations of deception====<br /> Just a heads up that [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] is still engaging in battleground mentality, albeit on a much more low-key level over at the [[Talk:ZX Spectrum]] page, where everybody who he disagrees with is being deceptive - although it's probably an honest mistake, so he'll forgive them: (paraphrase, but also my sarcasm)<br /> *{{tpq|I also estimate that I have been deceived by Paradoctor's and VQuakr's interpretation of the situation so far, but it was probably an honest mistake on their part, so at this moment I'm willing to just forget it}}<br /> *{{tpq|This is Paradoctor's statement that I find deceptive...}}<br /> *{{tpq|This is another Paradoctor's statement that I find deceptive...}}<br /> *{{tpq|This is the VQuakr 's statement that I find slightly deceptive...}}<br /> ending with:<br /> *{{tpq|As I have said, I still consider those to be honest mistakes, provided in good faith}}<br /> The last three (and {{tpq|honest mistake}} statement) were made directly after both [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] and I asked him to stop making such comments - as Paradoctor said (I had a brain-freeze and couldn't think of the term!) they are at best condescending, and at worst insulting. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 06:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Yeah, I think at this point an admin really needs to take action here. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::[[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]]'s comment is a relatively accurate description of an issue that happened in this very recent discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum#The_leading_paragraph]. Therefore I don't have much to add there. I think that the linked discussion is quite illustrative, and I think that it speaks for itself. So I don't need to say anything additional, except my advice to read the discussion from the start to the end.<br /> ::I would like to correct myself regarding another issue here. In my reply numbered &quot;'''Pt2.'''&quot;, I said {{tq|No, it was not my fault.}} Reading it again, I think that the closure of the case at DRN might have been my fault, since my replies at User:Ritchie333's page do connect the DRN case with the copyright case. I must admit that, by the time I have posted on User:Ritchie333's page, I have probably already lost my faith in the DRN case and that I thought DRN has little chance of settling the issue. I think, as I always did, that [[User:Robert McClenon]]'s decision to close the DRN case at that time was a correct decision. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 17:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I have another correction (clarification) of another sentence of mine. In '''Pt41.''' (semicolon instead of the full-stop):<br /> ::&quot;Even if it wasn't entirely so, that has no implications on the restoration of the 26 KB disputed material''' ; t'''he issue of my conduct is a separate issue.&quot;<br /> ::I.e. the issue of my conduct is an issue separate from the issue of the 26 KB disputed material.<br /> ::Also, previously in this discussion I used the word &quot;ironically&quot; instead of &quot;sarcastically&quot; (I guess). Also, I used the word &quot;consistence&quot; instead of the word &quot;uniformity&quot;. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :The issue is battleground mentality and the inability of this editor to drop any [[WP:STICK]], ever. I think the specific concern about the connotations of the word &quot;deception&quot; are less concerning given that English isn't the user's first language, but that's just my opinion. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm not going to directly respond to VQuakr's accusation. Besides, I'm a newbie here, and I don't really know what are the accepted interpretations of Wikipedia policies. So I'll leave the judgement to others.<br /> ::Related, I would like to point out a policy of WP:HARASS, which contains a section [[WP:HOUND]]. I have no idea whether that policy applies, and what is the accepted interpretation of that policy. I'll be leaving it to others to think about it, and to respond if they think it is appropriate. Similarly, there is a guideline [[WP:CANVASS]], which might, or might not, apply in this dispute at WP:ANI. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 07:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :An editor named [[User:CodeTalker]] has just replied in the mentioned discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216223186]. I don't know whether that editor is an administrator here, and whether his answers are an official opinion from WP:ANI, or his own opinions. To be safe, at this moment I will refrain from any actions. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 20:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|Z80Spectrum}} [[WP:ADMIN|Administrators]] are not authorities that rule by decree. They are editors with extra buttons to allow technical actions. Whether they are an admin or not should have zero bearing on whether you [[WP:LISTEN]] to them. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I just figured out that better words for &quot;deceived&quot; and &quot;deceptive&quot; would have been &quot;mislead&quot; and &quot;misleading&quot;. So, I appologize for that mistake. I can correct myself, by strike-outs, on the &quot;ZX Spectrum&quot; talk page, if the offended editors agree. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 07:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::&quot;Deceive&quot; and &quot;mislead&quot; have the same negative connotations. There is no practical difference between them in this context. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 08:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::OK. I would also like to suggest &quot;misguide&quot;, &quot;misinform&quot; and &quot;misrepresent&quot; as acceptable alternatives. If, at any later time you would like me to change it, just notify me. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::All of which are synonyms. You appear unable or unwilling not to misjudge other editors. This given that your accusations have been refuted. Those against me by myself, and the one against VQakr by CodeTalker. What you should have done was to either concede your error, or offer an effective rebuttal. What we're getting instead is a concession that is not conceding anything. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 10:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I just wanted to make sure that I didn't use a word with an incorrect meaning. I was uncertain, that's all. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 10:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::🤦 &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 10:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===ArbCom? Probably not now===<br /> There is a [[WP:RFAR|Request for Arbitration]] currently open before ArbCom that is similar to this dispute, in that it is about the deletion of questionable material from article talk pages. The filing party was in the habit of restoring talk page posts by IP addresses that were deleted by other editors. The filing party was then blocked for seven days for disruptive editing for restoring the IP posts. Having come off block, they are asking for ArbCom action. Their request is unlikely to be accepted, because several arbitrators have already voted to Decline. However, I have made a statement saying that both cases, this case and the RFAR, illustrate that a poorly written and ambiguous guideline is problematic. I don't think that ArbCom considers poorly written policies to be within their scope, but have said that some sort of statement about the guideline would be useful.<br /> [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Definitely not. The way it looks to me FTM, there is consensus for an indef block, at a minimum. As regards our guidelines, they are all badly written, and ambiguities are unavoidable, given [[WP:5P5]]. Z80Spectrum's issues are not caused by that. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 10:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == User:Fred Zepelin ==<br /> <br /> I am asking for [[User:Fred Zepelin]] to be indefinitely blocked from posting to my personal talk page, and for an administrator to consider appropriate action in response to his hounding and ongoing personal attacks.<br /> <br /> During a recent content dispute, he accused me of “whitewashing” and being a “white supremacist apologist”.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABlake_Masters&amp;diff=1210112045&amp;oldid=1210099756] The two other editors involved in the discussion suggested he “focus on content, not contributors” and “clear the slate with a strike and or apology”.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Zepelin#Careful]<br /> <br /> Instead, he followed me to another article where his first-ever edit there was to revert my content and source[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrei_Cherny&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210119834] and template-warned me inappropriately.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BBQboffin#February_2024]<br /> <br /> I have asked him repeatedly to stop posting on my talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABBQboffin&amp;diff=1210139356&amp;oldid=1210138700], citing [[WP:USERTALKSTOP]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABBQboffin&amp;diff=1210737930&amp;oldid=1210736842] and telling him that I would view future violations as harassment. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFred_Zepelin&amp;diff=1212439892&amp;oldid=1211599745] But days later he again posted there again, and with another personal attack.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABBQboffin&amp;diff=1214772992&amp;oldid=1212595355] [[User:BBQboffin|BBQboffin]] ([[User talk:BBQboffin|talk]]) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Which they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BBQboffin&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214772992 immediately reverted and apologized for] (and was in regards to what was not a PA at all). What are you asking us to do if the other user already self-resolved it? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 17:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Immediately reverted - yes. Apologized for casting aspersions about alleged &quot;whitewashing&quot; - no.[[User:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue&quot;&gt; ''Isaidnoway'' &lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:black&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/b&gt;]] 18:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::So what is being asked for, then? The editor immediately reverted so there's nothing to revert, though it looks like the two have had a running content dispute for the last month but not to a block-worthy extent. I just can't stand when the reporter leaves out something on purpose (the reversion) to try to have an action done, without the other in the dispute being able to respond. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&quot;I forgot&quot; is neither an excuse for harassment nor is it an apology. Posting &quot;Knock off the whitewashing&quot; and then reverting is like someone throwing a punch and pulling it back at the last minute. It doesn't &quot;self-resolve&quot; a situation; it has an intimidating effect. And this isn't the first time FZ has done this: he had been warned about respecting [[WP:USERTALKSTOP]] with another editor[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1060198549], ignored the warning, and got himself a 48-hour block[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&amp;oldid=1130765395#December_2022]. What I want is for him to just stop posting to my talk page: if he can't be banned from posting there permanently, maybe a 72-hour block would help him remember next time that harassment (of me or anyone else) is not OK. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::The edit summary on their self-revert, &quot;''forgot, this particular user asked that I not post on thier talk page,''&quot; gives me faith they'll stop posting there. Do you agree but still think they need to be blocked, or do you think if they're not blocked they'll continue messaging you there? &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Segoe Script;&quot;&gt;''[[User:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#BC49A6&quot;&gt;City&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:Green&quot;&gt; o&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:Red&quot;&gt;f &lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]]''&lt;/b&gt; 22:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I can’t know if he's going to forget again. A talk page block would make it 100% certain. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Sorry but that wasn't what I asked. And they're not going to be blocked from your talk page because it's possible they'll have messages they're required by policy to leave for you. &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Segoe Script;&quot;&gt;''[[User:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#BC49A6&quot;&gt;City&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:Green&quot;&gt; o&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:Red&quot;&gt;f &lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]]''&lt;/b&gt; 02:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::In lieu of a talk page block I would accept a promise from FZ not to post on my talk page anything beyond required-by-policy messages. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::It's been four days and they haven't posted since you took them to ANI, which is '''not''' a result I want for anyone as &quot;chilling&quot; an editor from posting again is a major reason we discourage ANI reports of this kind if an issue is easily solvable by using a talk page to discuss editing concerns. We're certainly not going to take action on the above because of that, and I truly hope you didn't needlessly scare a productive editor away because of this overreaction to an honest mistake. But in the reverse, Fred had been warned to step back from editing on a particular article on their talk page, so we're not going to warn someone either from taking a break and pausing editing, then coming back a better editor if they do so. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 16:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Fred did return and going by their response, they felt this ANI thread was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&amp;oldid=1215718380 completely frivolous (but put it more profanely)] and resumed editing elsewhere. Next time, use the user talk page first before going to ANI, because nothing is happening here. He's done with you, be done with him, and move on, BBQ. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Ok, next time I'll use the user talk page more than I did, but I don't think this is an &quot;easily solvable&quot; issue. I will move on, although on his first day back I see another editor has already become exasperated with Fred and asked him not to post to their talk page[[User talk:Alansohn#The longest quotes in references ever seen|[1]]]. Fred certainly has value to the project for his tenacity and skill in ferreting out sockpuppets and their ilk, but it would be nice if he would show mutual respect to his fellow editors. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == TonyTheTiger is gaming the WikiCup through GAN spam ==<br /> Over the course of a few days, {{user1|TonyTheTiger}} has increased the number of articles he had pending at GAN from a handful to [[Special:Diff/1214753203|nearly 70]]. When [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations|asked about it]] by {{u|Ganesha811}}, TonyTheTiger basically admitted to [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] to score [[Wikipedia:WikiCup|WikiCup]] points, saying that he'd only be willing to withdraw if another backlog drive was guaranteed to him later in the year (at which point he hoped to have date priority on nominations). Such a huge strain on the process might be understandable if his submissions were all carefully scrutinized, but the only charitable explanation is that they clearly were not. 25 of his submissions have been quickfailed by 13 separate reviewers (myself included) on several grounds, including poor sourcing, unsourced sections, poor prose, unhandled maintenance tags, lack of substantive contribution, and lack of breadth. On multiple occasions, after an article was failed, he lashed out at the reviewer before renominating the article with little substantive change. {{u|Premeditated Chaos}} rightly pointed out that this was a pretty clear abuse of the GAN process, {{u|Epicgenius}} (who is a WikiCup judge this year) warned him that his conduct could be seen as gaming, and {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} noted that he was TBANed from [[Wikipedia:Featured sounds|Featured sounds]] back in 2011 for this exact pattern of conduct.<br /> <br /> His behavior pretty much only gets worse from there. If you look at [[Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)|one of his renomination attempts]], you'll see that TonyTheTiger, who has been editing since 2006 – rather than choosing to respond to any of the admins, backlog drive coordinators, or other senior editors who had raised concerns about his conduct on his talk page in the past day – chose to go after {{u|Generalissima}}, a relatively new editor on the scene, telling her, &quot;{{tq|You are bending over backwards to fail this article... Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know.}}&quot; He then told everyone else to {{tq|Calm down and stop quickfailing stuff for no reason... If you fail a 20-25% {{sic}} of my articles that does not make me a problem editor.}} He told another quickfailing reviewer, {{u|Teratix}}, {{tq|I assume you are lieing {{sic}} to pick a fight.}} He has now claimed in multiple places that a vague group of &quot;vindictive&quot; editors [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Open season on qfing me|are conspiring to fail his articles for WikiCup points]], claiming that articles like his get through GAN in good shape all the time. If he's right, I worry. In the meantime, multiple editors have asked him to find and withdraw his poorer-quality nominations, and he has refused, while continuing to making spurious renominations. This is clearly disruptive behavior that needs to be addressed. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 22:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Proposed sanctions ===<br /> :This is really disappointing, because many of his past FAs and GAs ''are'' high quality. His [[Wikipedia:Featured topics/Four Freedoms|FT on the Four Freedoms by Rockwell]] is great work! Why he has decided to take such a big step down with his quality control in favor of mass-nomination of Start/C-class articles is beyond me; the only way many of these articles would get through GAN is if either a newbie reviewer picks them up without fully understanding the GA criteria, or if a reviewer painstakingly holds his hand the entire way from start class up to meeting the criteria. <br /> :I feel a fair response to this would involve suspension from this year's Wikicup for openly trying to game the system, alongside a tight restriction to how many GANs he can have at once, to prevent this sort of waste of reviewers' time in the future. Maybe just one GAN at a time to start out with? &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::given his past pattern of similar behavior, including disruption at FAC &amp; DYK, i worry that this kind of thing will just continue in another area of the project. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::That is fair enough. I would absolutely support a '''topic ban from Wikicup''', as I feel this is the primary cause for his behavior. However, a '''topic ban from GAN''' should be instituted if this sort of abuse continues outside of the cup. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 02:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Upon all the new evidence being brought forward of his consistent behavior in this respect, mark me down as in favor of a '''TB from GAN/DYK''' too. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 22:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *A look back to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Featured Sounds Process|this very noticeboard in 2011]]: Tony is topic banned from a) participating in the Featured Sounds process and from b) uploading pictures relating to himself (this is as absurd as it sounds, so let's ignore it). Why was he TBANned from FS? Well:<br /> **{{green|TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured...He wants to add stars to his trophy wall, and he wants to feed his ego...TTT has a strong case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and is pursuing his own self-aggrandizing agenda at the cost of significant community patience, and in this case, the quality of Featured Sounds}}<br /> **{{green|Tony previously caused similar issues at FPC, nominating pic after pic after pic relating to Chicago...He has also caused problems with mass nominations at DYK (which reflected very poorly on the WikiCup, in which he was participating)}}<br /> **{{green|TonyTheTiger seems unable to understand the ways in which he disrupts and abuses of featured content processes and other editors' time in his goal of promoting himself...he disrupted DYK in his attempt to win WikiCup, there was an issue at TFA/R, and FAC instituted a special rule to limit repeat noms because of his repeatedly using FAC as Peer review for ill-prepared articles, and bringing back ill-prepared noms the minute the previous one was archived...I don't know if topic bans are a solution, because he just moves on and does the same thing in another area}}<br /> **{{green|I am also very unimpressed with the shouting and calling of specific others &quot;liars&quot;, and would note the lack of support for his position by any other party on this page.}}<br /> *Move on 13 years, and Tony is again nominating anything that he thinks will have a remote chance of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back and immediately renominating unsuccessful nominations, clogging GAN with items that don't deserve to be GAs, disrespecting every other editor involved in the Cup and GAN, and calling other editors &quot;liars&quot; while facing unanimous disagreement, all to feed his ego. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 22:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **For the record, I support a '''TBAN from the Cup and nomination restrictions at GAN'''; hopefully that ends the disruption. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{A note}} Tony *has* withdrawn a few of his nominations since the debacle started ([[Special:Diff/1215223230|Benji (2012 film)]], [[Special:Diff/1215224630|Essex on the Park]], [[Special:Diff/1215224964|NEMA (Chicago)]] and [[Special:Diff/1215225403|The Flick]]). Everything else in your comment is spot on. – &lt;code style=&quot;background:#333;border:1px solid #999&quot;&gt;[[User:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#fff;text-shadow:0 0 5px #fff&quot;&gt;Hilst&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#090&quot;&gt;&amp;lbrack;talk&amp;rbrack;&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/code&gt; 22:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Within my areas of expertise I am still a bit unsure as to why articles are being failed. I think offensive linemen [[Michael Schofield (American football)]] and [[Heath Irwin]] compare well with my current GA for [[Patrick Omameh]]. At [[Talk:1000M/GA1]], I responded completely to the review before renominating. It was not until after a second fail when reviewers explained what the issues were. Had I understood these were the issues, I would have addressed them. Everyone thinks I understand why the articles are deficient in advance of the reviews. I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems. To people who review in any of certain fields the flaws may seem obtuse, but I did not look at the articles and realise the flaws and then nominate them. The reviews are informative to me. I don't understand why &quot;[[Humble and Kind]]&quot; is not regarded as in the general quality range of my 2022 GA &quot;[[Sheesh!]]&quot; except for a tag. I am finding the reviewer responses confusing. I have started removing some of my nominations that I are further afield from my expertises.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 22:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Tony, if you are so flabbergasted by the reviews you're getting, then that is more indicative of you ''not reading them'' than it is an indictment of over a dozen other editors' feedback. Anyways, this is not a place to air your grievances about the quality of the reviews you're receiving, this is a discussion about your ''behavior''. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 23:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Noting I have nominated Omameh for GA reassessment, as it clearly does not meet the GAC in its current state. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I think it is clear that the WikiCup is not good for TonyTheTiger (it is supposed to be a fun competition, but he seems to think it is something he needs to win) and TonyTheTiger is not good for the WikiCup (as a fun game, it really should not take such a heavy toll on the GAN backlog; abusing the general community like this endangers the Cup). A '''topic ban from the WikiCup''' is the minimum that should happen (full disclosure: this would slightly benefit me, as I am also a competitor in the Cup). However, there are wider [[WP:IDHT]] and almost [[WP:CIR]] issues related to [[WP:GAN]]: TTT has nominated (and sometimes renominated directly after a quickfail) several articles that he last edited years ago, and some of them are significantly out of date, have maintenance tags or other obvious issues (I re-quickfailed one of them, [[1000M]]). So a '''topic ban from GAN''' should be at least considered. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 23:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Mark me down in favor of a '''topic ban from GAN''' entirely, given the continued IDHT and inability to take any accountability for his actions, and repeated poor attitude towards other editors. It's clear Tony will not stop this behavior unless he is forced to. The past behavioral issues put me more firmly in support of a restriction. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 23:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *for the record, i also '''support a topic ban from both GAN and the WikiCup'''. the above-mentioned behavior is entirely disruptive, rude, and a waste of our time. the GAN process and the WikiCup do not exist to serve TTT's ego. i concur with Kusma about the IDHT &amp; potential-CIR issues; how ''anyone'' could read [[Humble and Kind]] (for example) and think it's even slightly close to GA quality is beyond me. patience has run dry. &lt;br&gt;'''edit:''' as other people have also mentioned they're competing in the Cup, i'll disclose that i am as well. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 23:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **For the record, without an explanation, I don't understand why (other than one tag) &quot;[[Humble and Kind]]&quot; is worse than &quot;[[Sheesh!]]&quot;. I believe the majority of my recent nominations were in the range of proximity to [[WP:WIAGA]] to be reasonable nominations. After hundreds of GA reviews, you should know that I am not a problem at GA in general. I feel that the intersection of the GA and the CUP is the issue. I do feel I could work productively at GA without the competitive element of the CUP.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 23:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:{{tq|After hundreds of GA reviews, you should know that I am not a problem at GA in general.}} Doug Coldwell also used his number of GAs to justify his poor behavior and shoddy work... and look where that got him. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 23:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:It didn't take long to find a [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/interview-tim-mcgraw-new-album-dueting-daughter-6753874/ half-dozen] [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/lori-mckenna-album-1988-interview-1235375769/ reliable] [https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/humble-and-kind-how-lori-mckenna-wrote-tim-mcgraws-hit-single/ sources] [https://www.tennessean.com/story/entertainment/music/story-behind-the-song/2021/01/25/story-behind-song-tim-mcgraws-humble-and-kind/4228236001/ covering] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/12/22/why-humble-and-kind-was-the-hit-song-we-really-needed-this-year/ the song's] [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/tim-mcgraw-humble-and-kind-video-oprah-6851683/ production], some in great detail, that just aren't being used. Even [https://cmt.com/news/dqi1jz/humble-and-kind-meant-spaghetti-day-for-lori-mckenna the CMT piece] has a lot of untapped material. The fact that I can find this many sources for one section of the article reflects poorly on the rest. To put it bluntly, &quot;[[Sheesh!]]&quot; covers all the major aspects of its topic, &quot;[[Humble and Kind]]&quot; does not. An editor as experienced as you should realize this. [[User:Averageuntitleduser|Averageuntitleduser]] ([[User talk:Averageuntitleduser|talk]]) 00:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **addendum, after reading others' comments: i don't think a time-based restriction will work. his history of disruption goes all the way back to 2011. while i support a full TBAN from GAN (and certainly from the Cup), i would also be supportive of a strict limit on how many GANs he can make at a time, should a full TBAN not gain consensus here. i think his entitled attitude is the single biggest problem here, as PMC pointed out below. i don't see why we have to give him so much more leeway than he has given his fellow editors. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * [[User:TonyTheTiger|Tony]], would you be willing to go through all your pending GA noms and withdraw all except those of ''exceptional'' quality (or just all). Its looking like you could be heading for a GA topic ban, something I'd think would be a shame since you seem to have a great record of producing good content. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 23:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Topic ban from GAN and the WikiCup''', with regret. TonyTheTiger has [[Special:Diff/1215170109|continued (re)nominating]] articles with issues today, well after many editors have expressed both general and specific feedback about the inappropriateness of his mass nominations. His reaction to this feedback has been to deny or underplay issues and shows a lack of regard for other editors' time and the research required for ensuring his nominations are [[WP:GA?|broad in their coverage (#3)]]. Overall, his recent activity has been detrimental to the processes and to the task of building a high-quality encyclopedia. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|&lt;span style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]''') 23:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''No ban on anything''', Wikipedia eating its own? Assume good faith is a thing. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:with all due respect, did you read the thread? every avenue has been tried before ANI - [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations|his talk page]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Open season on qfing me|the WikiCup talk page]], [[User talk:Teratix#Heath Irwin review|Teratix' talk page]], the [[Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2024#Reason for &quot;backward&quot; progress|GAN drive talk page]], and numerous individual reviews. he has been uncivil, [[WP:IDHT|refused to listen]], and continued to engage in the same disruptive behavior after over a dozen editors, including multiple admins, have asked him to stop. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Yes, I read the thread before responding. Have now read Tony's talk page, and there seems a mix of failed and under review Good articles. He now is pulling some back, as mentioned above. My comment was only about jumping from concerns to banning TtT from GAN, where he has excelled for years. Wikipedia eating its own is a thing, as seen many times on this page when that kind of jump is made from discussion to &quot;Get 'em!&quot;. But good faith is one of the best things, so let's use that one instead. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Tony has not assumed good faith of those who have reviewed his articles. he said to Generalissima &quot;{{tq|You are bending over backwards to fail this article... Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know.}}&quot; he claimed &quot;{{tq|There is an overzealous posse of editors quickfailing my articles.}}&quot; at the Cup talk page. he accused Teratix of &quot;{{tq|lieing to pick a fight.}}&quot; i could go on; what else is there to do at this point? &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic bans from GAN and the WikiCup''' (disclosure: I'm technically still a contestant in the Cup but I have no hope of progressing to the next round). There are seven distinct grounds:<br /> #Mass-nominating GANs to an extent that would be absurd and disrespectful of volunteers' time ''even if'' all nominations were impeccable.<br /> #Mass-nominating GANs with especially obvious, gaping flaws, indicating Tony either does not read the articles he is nominating or fails to understand the GAC. [[Talk:1000M/GA1]] is a representative example (where Tony either didn't notice or didn't care about an entirely promotional and unsourced section) but I recommend reading his other quickfailed articles for the full perspective.<br /> #Renominating GANs after quickfails without fixing the article's problems. See [[Talk:1000M/GA2]], [[Talk:Kenny Demens/GA2]], etc.<br /> #Openly admitting this behaviour is motivated by tactical concerns related to his WikiCup performance. See [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations]]<br /> #Displaying an appalling attitude towards how the GAN process runs, believing the project should bend over backwards to schedule backlog drives and grant special exemptions from date priority for his benefit. Read his replies to Ganesha811 on [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations]]. I have never seen more entitled behaviour.<br /> #Behaving uncivilly towards reviewers and critics. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATonyTheTiger&amp;diff=1215214325&amp;oldid=1215211986 Thebiguglyalien's summary], I'm by no means sure this is comprehensive.<br /> #Not recognising and in many cases doubling down on this bad behaviour.<br /> *&lt;li style=&quot;list-style:none;&quot;&gt;To be clear, I see the GAN and WikiCup bans as inseparable – neither sanction on its own would adequately address these problems. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/li&gt;<br /> *:Tony's behaviour has been appalling enough already but I want to add an eighth ground – openly admitting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215238004&amp;oldid=1215237796 &quot;I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems&quot;]. Or, in other words, '''&quot;I nominate articles in areas where I know I cannot competently assess whether they have issues and rely on volunteer reviewers to inform me of obvious inadequacies&quot;'''. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support GAN nomination ban, temporary or indef''' (edit: or a wider ban that includes GAN) GAN reviewers' time is precious. Wasting it is disruptive. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &amp;#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;buidhe&lt;/span&gt;]]''' 02:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from GAN and WikiCup'''. Buidhe and Teratix have both put it very well. Frankly at this point I'm inclined to support a block. This is not the first time Tony has gamed Wikipedia processes for his own arbitrary personal goals, but it is the first time he's been quite so nakedly honest about what he's doing. No one who would make a statement like {{tq|I am willing to stop nominating new articles until April 1 if you can promise that there will be another backlog drive in October}} is operating in good faith. That's right everyone, if we can '''promise''' Tony that we'll organize an entire backlog drive on '''his''' schedule, he'll stop mass-nominating garbage. '''For now'''. Oh, how kind of him! The level of entitlement he feels to other peoples' effort so that he can have points for a '''game''' fucking boils my blood. &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 02:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:For the record, I'm fine with a limited TBAN from GAN (ie X number of noms at once, or for X number of months, or whatever). &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 03:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *There's rightly been a lot of outrage about Tony's abuse of process, both here and elsewhere. Surely a GAN/WC ban is an inadequate response to a very serious conduct issue? Tony's behaviour is a very clear case of [[WP:NOTHERE]] and [[WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT]]. His abuse of process is borderline vandalistic and certainly disruptive edit-warring. His personal attacks on other editors have been unwarranted and severe. He seems to have no intention of changing his behaviour and continues to persevere with a perverse victim mentality. Other editors have been blocked for less. I don't understand why editors in this discussion are not considering a harsher response. '''[[User:–C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 02:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **'''Project block''', minimum one month, preferably indefinite. Per my comment above. Editors in this discussion are ''far'' to eager to excuse serious, sustained, and deliberate misconduct from an editor with an obvious NOTHERE attitude who really ought to know better. If unblocked, permanent ban from WC, GAN, FAC, and DYK. All the red flags have been there for years now. '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 02:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***Tony hasn't got the message – he's written a reply apologising for his abuse of process, but not for his abuse of other editors. I do not believe that his misconduct towards other volunteer members of the project have been properly addressed, either by other editors here or by Tony himself. As such I continue to support a minimum one month block from the enwiki project, just to make sure the message finally gets through that this behaviour will not be tolerated, even from people who have produced good content in the past. '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 13:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Can anyone show that Tony is like this when ''not'' participating in the WikiCup? I don't understand how {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} has turned up quotes from 13 years ago that basically could have been written yesterday. Has everything been fine in the intervening 13 years? Is this a case of someone losing their senses specifically because of the WikiCup competition and otherwise being mostly normal? What is even going on here? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{tq|Has everything been fine in the intervening 13 years?}} No, there was also a debacle last August when he tried to make a special date request for his sister's article (that he wrote) to appear on DYK on her birthday. Discussion is here: [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#COI issue at Carla Vernón]]. &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 02:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::That is just bizarre. He did not see to understand why we don't do any of that, including pictures of himself. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 12:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]]: I can say that I think Tony [[WP:BLUDGEONING|bludgeoning the process]] isn't limited to the Cup or GAN. My first interactions with him were on the [[Wikipedia:Vital articles|vital articles]] project, where my impression of him quickly became that he would relentlessly [[WP:BADGER|badger]] anybody (and sometimes everybody) that disagreed with one of his proposals. I don't have the energy to revisit all of it, as this was a big reason why I left the VA project, but I recall [[Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Archive_2#Add_Anna_Kournikova|one particularly bad thread]] in which he (in the words of [[User:The Blue Rider|The Blue Rider]]) {{tq|&quot;[came] after everyone who hasn't supported his proposals enough times&quot;}}. In this same thread, I also expressed discomfort over what I felt were some ''very'' inappropriate remarks about a woman athlete, which he doubled down on. In [[Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Archive_4#Add_Ed_Asner/Remove_Leslie_Nielsen|an earlier thread]], only a few days before this, Tony opened a comment saying {{tq|&quot;Forgive me if it seems I am badgering the voters, which does not seem to be something that we do here&quot;}} before going on to badger the two users that opposed his proposal. <br /> *:I'm not going to comment one what I believe should be done, as I'm not an admin so I don't think this is my place, I'm just recounting some of my past experiences with him. -- [[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk:Grnrchst|talk]]) 14:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::@[[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] it now looks like it isn't limited to bludgeoning, either. The bottom of this thread is in conspiracy theory territory. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 00:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from both GAN and WikiCup''' – Before continuing, I will disclose that I am also a contestant of the WikiCup like others have listed above, so therefore something like this would effect me. At first glance, I didn't think these mass nominations were ''that'' bad, many editors keep a backlog on a backburner. I didn't think it was much of an issue until realizing the quality of them and noticing TTT's behavior beyond this. I view the comments he made towards Generalissima and other editors, as well as the ones he has used to defend himself or make demands (ex. demanding a backlog drive) as unacceptable. I simply can not understand how any editor with good intentions can blatantly attack other users over a game. Hell, knowing his previous topic bans for similar reasons, this is something where the punishment could go beyond a topic ban, and if this discussion escalated to that I'd support that such action be taken. Absolutely egregious. &lt;span style=&quot;border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px&quot;&gt;'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#264e85&quot;&gt;'''Negative'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#7d43b5&quot;&gt;'''MP1'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 03:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from GAN and Wikicup, at the very least''': I was there for the featured sound debacle and well remember it. This is just history repeating again. I'd also support anything from a ban from all article nomination processes up to a block of any length, including indefinite. Enough is enough. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 03:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Weak oppose an outright GAN TBAN'''. While The Tiger's recent acting is...erm...concerning, to say the least, we should not ignore his previous great work, including a bazillion actually good GAs, and an outright TBAN is too much over a single incident with an otherwise constructive editor. I don't have the energy to workshop it, but I would support a proposal that limits how many GANs he can submit per day/week/month and/or a limit on how fast he can renominate GANs. No opinion on a WC TBAN; for disclosure's sake, I participated in round 1 of the cup, but was eliminated. {{not watching}} [[User:Queen of Hearts|queen of 🖤]] (they/them; [[User talk:Queen of Hearts|chat]]) 04:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I would be willing to drop down to just a tban from the cup if Tony would actually take responsibility and agree to only nominate a few articles at a time, articles which he has actually put serious work into (and I think we all know he is perfectly capable of writing quite good articles when he puts his mind to it). But I have not seen that just far, only demands for us to bend our backs for him because he feels entitled to spam half-baked nominations for the sake of a contest where the prize for winning is nothing more than bragging rights. He has yet to even show he understands ''why'' his nominations are being failed despite the reviewers offering clear reasons and actionable feedback. Bottom line, Tony did this to himself despite being given multiple opportunities to self-correct and avoid any sanctions. I don't take any pleasure in supporting a TBAN from creating quality content, but this has gone well past the line of acceptable behavior. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose TBAN from GAN''', but like queen of 🖤, I would also support an alternate proposal for some limitations on how many he can submit in a given time frame. This thread has only been open for a few hours, and going from zero to sixty seems kind of extreme in my view. No opinion on WikiCup.[[User:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue&quot;&gt; ''Isaidnoway'' &lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:black&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/b&gt;]] 05:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * ''' support CUP tban '''. If [[User:TonyTheTiger]] apologises for lashing out at reviewers, I think a cap of 1 open nomination at GAN may work. TTT has engaged well with the process in the past, and if seems the intersection between the competition and the uneven GAN process is driving his behaviour. Without recognition that his behaviour towards reviewers was unacceptable, I do not have trust in TTT engaging with the process. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm also happy to support Schrocats suggestion below, except for the fact that I would like to put the max 5 nominations as part of the restriction to give clarity to TTT. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 09:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Five nominations sounds too many. I think stick to your suggestion of 1. This isn't just about flooding GAN, it's the personal attacks that have come with it. Editors have a right not to face that kind of chilling behaviour. Tony will be lucky to escape a GAN outright ban here so allowing one at a time seems reasonable to me. &amp;nbsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You're right, I was too hasty: any rope here should be accompanied by TTT showing they understand why their behaviour was unacceptable. A cap of up to 3 would still seem reasonable to me after a 3-month ban, 5 indeed stretches it. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 10:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::What about a limit of 1 to start with, and if those have a decent 75% rate of passing after [some unit of time] it could maybe creep up to 3. That’s just my idea reading this, let me know if this makes no sense. [[User:Geardona|Geardona]] ([[User talk:Geardona|talk to me?]]) 10:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::75% is quite a low pass rate. I expect a near 100% pass rate for experienced nominators. Otherwise, this makes sense. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 11:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::It's one thing to have a pass rate of less than 100% (though I'd be embarrassed if my pass rate dropped below near 100%, personally). It is another ''entirely'' to have nominations so poor they are being routinely quickfailed. We are dealing with the latter here. I would support Femke's proposal if Tony would take feedback seriously, but thus far he has refused to do so, leaving us with only sanctions as an option to change his behavior. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 15:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from the cup; three month ban from GAN'''. The cup seems to be the driver for the disruption, so ban from that. GAN is where the disruption is taking place, so a more limited ban from that (on condition that all nominations are withdrawn). There’s no point in pushing a harder ban that’s harms the encyclopaedia and punishes TTT after the cause of the disruption has been sorted. He has three months to be able to work on whatever he wants, but a similar mass nomination at GAN (more than five articles in the process at any one time), should be a trigger for further time out off the process. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 08:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from the cup; three month ban from GAN''' per SchroCat. Let's keep remedies simple. I want to address the question of good faith. It's an inevitable feature of the discussions around erring senior editors that we must assume the good faith of an editor who has declined to do the same in return. Good faith really has nothing to do with it. Tony's behavior is disruptive regardless of his intentions. The question is whether Tony is prepared to acknowledge that other editors have a problem with his conduct and change his behavior. That's your standard feedback cycle. Editors get shown the door when they can't or won't change. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 10:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from the cup and remove all his current nominations'''. Tony knows perfectly well how to nominate good quality articles at GAN; if he continues to nominate clearly unready articles that's a problem we can address then, perhaps with a short GAN ban, but I see no reason why he would without the cup as motivation. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 11:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *There is a narrative emerging among a couple of editors' comments here along the lines of &quot;Tony is basically competent to submit GANs but in this case he went too far because he was competing in the WikiCup&quot;. I want to push back on that a little and draw these editors' attention specifically to Tony's comment earlier in this thread, where he says {{tq|Within my areas of expertise I am still a bit unsure as to why articles are being failed.}} That is, he looks at a review like [[Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1]], and actually can't understand what the problem with the article is. And that's in an area he claims to be comfortable editing in. {{pb<br /> }}When it comes to areas he describes as outside his expertise, it gets worse: {{tq|Everyone thinks I understand why the articles are deficient in advance of the reviews. I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems.}} That is, he nominates articles to GAN, outside his experience, knowing he lacks the ability to tell whether the articles contain basic deficiencies or not, and uses volunteer reviewers as a crutch to paper over the gaps.{{pb<br /> }}I understand these sort of discussions balloon very rapidly, and there are a lot of comments to read through. But if your position is &quot;support an indefinite Cup ban but more hesitant on an indefinite GAN ban&quot;, Tony's comment here should be ringing alarm bells. It speaks not just to a specific incompetence to edit under competitive pressure, but a more fundamental lack of understanding about GAN. It has definitely pushed me to favour an indefinite ban from GAN over a time-limited ban or restrictions on the number of simultaneous nominations. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 11:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;s&gt;i'm inclined to agree with this, unfortunate as it is. an indefinite ban is not necessarily permanent, and if Tony can demonstrate that he can once again produce quality work, i see no reason why he couldn't be unbanned. i do think that the Cup is the inciting factor here, but Teratix is right that he seems to not understand GAN itself, which is very strange.&lt;/s&gt; yeah upon further thought now that i'm more awake, one really can't have gotten multiple FAs and not understand GAN &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I think I disagree here. If somebody has multiple FAs, they know full well what to do for a GA, but choose not to, and perhaps overplay ignorance as an excuse not to prepare their nominations sufficiently, or an unwillingness to take the time to take in reviewers comments. I think the issue is primarily behavioural, rather than competence. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 16:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Agree that seeing this as a competence issue makes no sense, and it's strange that Tony appears to be trying to spin it as one. Someone who keeps a writing habit doesn't just spontaneously forget how to write, barring literal brain damage. Something else is obviously going on. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::good point. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 20:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Femke, you may be interested in reading Gog the Mild's comments on his behaviour at FAC – he hasn't had an article promoted in ten years and his last ten nominations have been archived without success. I'm speculating here, but it could be a case of the project's standard for quality content advancing over time while Tony's writing standard remains the same, resulting in a misperception of what's required. It is difficult for me to explain Tony's comments here as merely the product of Cup pressure. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 01:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{u|Teratix}}, you're right that Tony has engaged in problematic behaviour at GAN, but I think it's clear that the current issue is related to the WikiCup, and since there is ample evidence that he does know how to write good articles, I think we ought to limit the response here. This thread is already giving him ample warning about future GA nominations. I don't think more is needed. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Tony's longer statements have slightly changed my view. My speculation on a mismatch between Tony's and GAN's writing standards was wrong, he is still capable of submitting GANs of acceptable quality in some cases. However, he still doesn't seem to understand that excessive mass nominations can be problematic independent of article quality. To me it seems a one-GAN limit could be a good solution, allowing Tony to continue submitting his absolute best content but also protecting GAN reviewers' time and energy. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 06:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''TBAN from the cup and GAN''' GAN reviewing can be hard enough even when the article is relatively high-quality; you're reading through an entire bibliography and acting as a copyeditor for a basically thankless job. It is not reasonable to expect GAN reviewers to hand-hold somebody who's been around here for so long through writing a GA-quality article; if you don't understand what makes a GA in a certain topic, ''don't nominate 70 of them to figure it out''. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 12:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:In case it matters: I'm participating in the WikiCup and will probably qualify for the next round. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 12:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I'd support a Wikicup ban without question at this point, as it seems like per the above any reward-based area seems to bring out the worst in him. I'm not opposed to an outright GAN ban, but I'd perhaps prefer an indefinite strict nomination limit, no more than 3 so that the articles can actually be properly written. A three month ban stated above isn't going to work since the mass-nomming of articles that don't meet GA standards will just continue. [[User:Wizardman|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#030&quot;&gt;'''''Wizardman'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Changing my stance to '''Support Cup/GAN/DYK ban''' per the added evidence, it's clear that he's not getting it, and seems to think this is a game that he has to win at all costs rather than just writing article to write them. [[User:Wizardman|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#030&quot;&gt;'''''Wizardman'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' I'll note we've seen similar behavior at DYK, including [[Special:Diff/1194391967|arguing about his apparent interest in gaming of DYK rules]] by saying, {{xt|All rules are made to be broken and gamed.}} {{pb<br /> }}Example of how he intends to game [[Special:Diff/1198340366|here]]: {{xt|As I think of my next potential DYK candidate, Joanne McCarthy (basketball) that I have 5xed over the weekend, the new set of rules allows two alternatives. 1. I could DYK now and GA-DYK in 5 years with minimal change 2. I could GA now and DYK within 7 days after it gets approved with a 2nd DYK only possible with another 5x in 5 years.}} This was in a discussion of whether DYK should allow repeat appearances. Tony literally is planning 5 years out so he can get repeat DYK credits. {{pb<br /> }}I'm actually a little concerned that a tban from GAN/WikiCup might just transfer the issue to DYK full time. Tony seems to be extremely interested in scorekeeping. Which of course can be a motivator for some people, and he's certainly created or improved a lot of articles. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 13:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&quot;All rules are made to be broken and gamed&quot; that is absolutely ridiculous, and i think you're right that this disruption will just move over to DYK. his idea of &quot;GA-DYKing in 5 years with minimal change&quot; says to me that he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about how GAN works. probably both. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::He didn't do that, though: [[Talk:Joanne McCarthy (basketball)/GA1]]. Also, in the [[Joanne McCarthy (basketball)]] review, the CUP points gaming again comes up as an issue in a couple of ways. He requests the reviewer promote in a specified time frame ({{tq|Also, be advised that I am competing in the [[WP:CUP]]. Do not promote on Feb 28 or 29.}}) and in response to a sourcing concern about the subject's Polish heritage, a source is quickly added to the article that likely does not meet [[WP:BLP]]. The McCarthy article is not a problematic page (loads of pages have small sections or a few missing sources), but Tony is clearly capable of better writing ([[Juwan Howard]]) outside of this CUP context. [[User:Rjjiii|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps;&quot;&gt;Rjj&lt;sup&gt;iii&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 15:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::i'm not entirely sure if you're disagreeing with me (or if you were intending to respond directly to Valereee's comment?) but i agree with the substance of what you're saying &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 19:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Not so much disagreeing with either of you, but pointing out the nuance that even though his talk page comment was regarding DYK, the actual disruptive edits (overloading GA and placing a bizarre citation into a BLP) were again done in the context of the CUP. To be clear: I would '''support a WikiCup TBAN''', but I'm not speculating on how he'll react. I empathize with the frustration from editors in this discussion about the need for this discussion to get this far, but don't see the need to impose the various restrictions mentioned in this thread all at once. Apologies if I was opaque before, [[User:Rjjiii|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps;&quot;&gt;Rjj&lt;sup&gt;iii&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 02:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::no worries! i just wasn't entirely clear on your position. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 02:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I am not familiar enough with the WikiCup situation to have any firm opinion on it, but '''when it comes to GAN I support, at minimum, the removal of all outstanding nominations'''. I noticed the nomination of [[Malcolm (Macbeth)]], which is very obviously very far from GA standards even at a quick glance. An editor with both hundreds of successful GA nominations of their own and hundreds of reviews of other people's nominations surely knows better; on the off chance that they genuinely do not, I think it's reasonable to conclude that they likely never will. Nominating articles that are not ready would appear to be a pattern; looking at the user's talk page, I saw that during the course of a 24-hour time period (20:25 UTC on 22 March to 20:25 UTC on 23 March), no fewer than 25 &quot;Failed GA&quot; messages were left by ({{u|ChristieBot}} on behalf of) ten different reviewers. This indicates to me that leaving the remainder of the (rather large number of) nominations up would not be a good use of the community's time. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 14:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I think part of the problem is with the editor but part of it is with the WikiCup... Its not set up for an honest editor to win, its set up for the winner to be the person who games the system the hardest without betting disqualified. The WikiCup clearly encourages gaming the system because a significant number of the recent winners won that way. The difference is that most of those editors were more subtle about it than this one. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:This is a valid criticism, and indeed is why I declined to participate in the cup this year. My suggestions to balance scoring to stop this have yet to be adopted. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 16:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::For the curious, can you link to those suggestions? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::The suggestions are at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2023/1#Points for next year]]. For what it's worth, any Wikipedia contest such as the Cup will by its very nature be competitive and could be considered by some as gaming; however, the vast majority of editors don't also violate Wikipedia guidelines or policies while participating. &amp;ndash; [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 18:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I agree that the WikiCup encourages users to time their nominations for maximum score (instead of nominating when the article is ready). I'm not sure that this is a huge problem; different people have won the Cup using different strategies over the last years, and some of them increased my respect for the winners, others did not. The issue here is that TTT did not just try to score WikiCup points with little effort, but disrupted other processes while doing so. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 16:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I agree its not generally a problem, its kind of a poster child for something that is objectively a net positive... But that doesn't mean it doesn't have downsides. But on the other hand these are issues the community should never be having to deal with, the whole point of the game having referees/managers is to prevent this sort of community disruption and time wasting from happening. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I checked the past four WikiCups and you can't say any of the winners were gaming; they all did a fair number of FACs and otherwise earned their points in a lot of ways, from doing lots of GANRs to making large GTs to ITN. Only one winner mainly relied on points from GAs, and nominating 60 articles you've worked on over the course of the year over two months is hardly gaming. This is poor decision-making on TTT's part and not something that's a trend with the cup. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::More than one way to game the system. Agree to disagree on whether this is a trend, but note that it would be remarkable if a competition like the wikicup didn't come with the negatives normally associated with open entry organized competitions. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *For the sake of completion I note that TTT's last ten nominations at FAC have all been archived. Nine are from 2014–2016 and one from 2023. This included five nominations of [[Emily Ratajkowski]]; in the last of these TTT received a coordinator warning &quot;Tony, I'm not prepared to allow accusations of bad faith leveled at reviewers without substantive evidence. Please strike these immediately and keep your comments focused on the content, not the editor. This isn't the venue. Additionally, there are many occasions when nominators and reviewers come to an impasse about content. I'd prefer you let [the FAC coordinators] weigh the matter rather than posting repeated pings and harangues when the reviewer has disengaged.&quot; TTT [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FEmily_Ratajkowski%2Farchive5&amp;diff=727511236&amp;oldid=727508803 kicked back]. (Disclosure: I have been a FAC coordinator since 2020 and closed TTT's 2023 FAC nomination.) [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 17:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Based on the assembled examples of tendentious behavior in relation not only to GAN/WikiCup, but also DYK, FAC, and COI editing, I think that a GAN/WikiCup ban is the bare minimum sanction, and that a broad WP-space ban may in fact be more appropriate (although this is somewhat complicated by the fact that these various processes exist across multiple Wikipedia namespaces). What I see here is a pattern of behavior for over a decade of consistently engaging with quality-control/content-promotion processes in an entirely self-serving fashion, conveniently ignoring guidelines when it suits them, and accusations of bad faith against editors who don't provide review results to their liking. There's little reason to believe that this behavior will change other than by barring them from engaging with such processes. &lt;sub&gt;signed, &lt;/sub&gt;[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from WikiCup and GAN'''. TTT has an ''extensive'' history of NOTHERE gaming the system for Wikipedia points and self-promotion. I would support further bans as well. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support WikiCup TBAN''' I don't like commenting at ANI, but this seems like a good time to step in as someone who has experience with Tony from the Vital Articles project. Sadly, it would appear that a TBAN from the WikiCup is needed to deal with disruption, but I believe that he can be productive. I also '''weakly support a restriction on open GANs''' as a fair step to prevent disruption without barring him from making good content entirely. I '''oppose an indefinite ban''' because he has shown himself to be a quality contributor who can contribute productively when not doing stuff like this. I believe a WikiCup TBAN and a restriction on GANs will solve the problem while allowing him to continue to contribute productively. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 18:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support WikiCup TBAN''' with the suggestion of leaving our snarky remarks at the door in the future. [[User:Panini!|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#F40&quot;&gt;Panini!&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;span style=&quot;color:#F40&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; [[User talk:Panini!|🥪]] 20:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support permanent WikiCup TBAN and temporary GA and DYK TBAN''', as a minimum. I was prepared to limit my support only to a TBAN from WikiCup, as the current locus of disruption, until I saw Valeree's comment quoting TTT as very recently saying &quot;All rules are made to be broken and gamed&quot;. No. That is not the sort of collegiality and cooperation that we should be bringing to Wikipedia editing. Some rules are obstructions but almost all were created as a response to a specific problem, and TTT's behavior is a problem that is currently producing a push for more obstructive rules at [[WT:GAN]] that could slow down the whole GA system for everyone. If we take away WikiCup, it seems likely that GA badge counts will become the next personal contest to game. The GA process needs time away from TTT's disruption, for one thing to evaluate what is to be done to distinguish TTT's many valid Good Articles from those that may need reconsideration (with at least two currently under formal reassessment). Valeree's comment raises DYK as another very likely locus of disruption and a temporary TBAN could well head that off. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I'm going to stay neutral on the GAN and CUP topic ban proposals, since I don't think I have anything more to add to those discussions, but I '''oppose a topic ban from DYK''' in any form, at least for now. TonyTheTiger's conduct at DYK has only peripherally been discussed in this thread, and while there would be some more to unpack if it were focused on, I'm unconvinced that the DYK-specific evidence could necessitate action at this time. TBANs are preventative, but they're &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; preemptive. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 22:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I agree with tlc. I wasn't intending to suggest a ban from DYK just because if banned from GA/cup, that's the only place left to keep score. It might even be good to allow that one last place for TTT to show us they can learn from this. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support permanent WikiCup TBan'''. TonyTheTiger's participation in the WikiCup has caused problems since at least 2010 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&amp;oldid=386613217 &quot;Michigan basketball overload&quot;, 2 sections at [[WT:DYK]]). I also '''propose topic ban on solo nominations in any article recognition venue''': FA, GA, FP, FL, DYK&amp;nbsp;... anything. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194391967 &quot;All rules are made to be broken and gamed&quot;] on January 8, 2024 (after repeated discussion of his gaming and overwhelming at review venues, including sanctions applying to specific venues); the attempts to bargain by making new demands on backlog drive dates, also recent; and the admissions of insufficient knowledge about topics on which he is submitting articles for GA consideration. The COI promotional submission at DYK is the cherry on top. He's too focused on collecting accolades and evidently will continue clogging any recognition process in which he participates. If he wants to create and improve articles for the benefit of the encyclopedia, let him collaborate with other editors on nominations. Otherwise, do without the potential recognition. (And yes, I recommend a procedural quickfail of all his current GA nominations. Someone else can further improve an article they believe has GA potential and renominate it; at GA level there's always room for further improvement, and the list can be a useful source of improvement candidates.) (I have not participated in the WikiCup for many years, or in DYK for a similar number of years, except for a couple of nominations of articles I'd worked on by someone else.) [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 23:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from GAN and DYK, also remove all his current GANs'''. This diff in particular is just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194391967 shameless], also given past incidents of gaming the system.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 01:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Block''' from any &quot;awards&quot; whether GAN, WikiCup, DYK or what have you. Should have been when he tried to get his sister onto the fromt page with blatant disregard for COI. [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_195#COI_issue_at_Carla_Vernón]] but escaped it then. Clear history of acting in his own interest and not that of the project. [[User:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#be33ff;&quot;&gt;Star&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#ff33da;&quot;&gt;Mississippi&lt;/span&gt;]] 01:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:He tried to get his SISTER on the front page? Jesus Christ. I've collaborated with him on some FAs, but no one with the interests of the encyclopedia in mind would dare to pull that. Chalk me up as well as advocating a '''Block from all &quot;awards&quot;''' as per Star Mississippi. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''&lt;span style=&quot;background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF&quot;&gt; '' Ravenswing '' &lt;/span&gt;''' ]] 06:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::and this wasn't even, &quot;I know this is not the right course, but here's my case for why she deserves it&quot; but rather &quot;I don't see what your issue is.&quot; That was the most problematic especially from someone of his tenure. Besides the WT:DYK, the discussion is also on the article talk. [[User:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#be33ff;&quot;&gt;Star&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#ff33da;&quot;&gt;Mississippi&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Quite. If he was lying about that, that's a [[WP:BADFAITH|massive downcheck]]. If he ''wasn't'', that's a massive [[WP:CIR|competency issue]]. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''&lt;span style=&quot;background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF&quot;&gt; '' Ravenswing '' &lt;/span&gt;''' ]] 00:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *(Disclaimer: I first heard about the situation involving Tony on Discord a few days ago, when it came up in a discussion among GAN reviewers, but I wasn't canvassed or asked to participate in any discussion, and my views here are purely my own.) Having reviewed the different discussions that have taken place at Tony's talk page and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup]], I think a '''permanent topic ban for TonyTheTiger from the [[WP:CUP|WikiCup]] is warranted'''. Tony has repeatedly [[WP:IDHT|refused to get the point]] that their conduct has been disruptive and a drain on other editors who are trying to participate in the WikiCup in good faith. Some of Tony's remarks that were directed towards other editors, especially Generalissima, are also pretty subpar and fall below the expectations I would have of somebody who has been editing Wikipedia for nearly 18 years. As for a topic ban from GAN or other featured content processes, I am more neutral; I think Tony could contribute to these areas constructively provided that he no longer participates in the WikiCup, but I understand why others feel that a broader topic ban or restriction might be necessary to address Tony's conduct. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 02:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Having read Tony's statement below, my opinion hasn't changed too much. I think an indefinite topic ban from the WikiCup is the bare minimum required to prevent further disruption. I am still not really in favor of an indefinite topic ban from featured content creation processes (e.g., GAN, DYK) ''at this time'', but I think the removal of any of Tony's recent GANs which have not yet been reviewed or are not currently being reviewed is acceptable. However, it is evident that there have been issues in the past with Tony and featured content processes (i.e., the issues with Featured Sounds and the DYK conflict of interest incident that have been mentioned by others). If anything comes up again in the future with Tony's conduct in featured content processes on this noticeboard, I will be far less likely to give Tony the benefit of the doubt if a topic ban or more severe sanctions are on the table. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from GAN''' and removal of current GANs. His current behavior is disruptive to the GA process, as many have stated above; a TBAN from GAN is sufficient to prevent that disruption. I very much doubt the disruption will stop until TTT recognizes why his behavior is disruptive and commits to changing it (I have seen evidence of neither). An indefinite TBAN until he's prepared to make such a commitment seems appropriate. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 02:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Given TTT's apology below, a GAN limit of 1 nomination at a time is also fine with me. If he shows he can handle that, I'm sure folks would be willing to increase that nomination limit before too long. Also just a note that I think we should clear his current unreviewed nominations -- which basically everyone seems to agree are problematic -- from the GAN queue. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 12:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''No bans''' {{ec}}I am not sure why every solution to problems must include onerous sanctions. As {{u|Starship.paint}} has said below, we are in the middle of things... and IMO there is not an immediate need to stop a disruption. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 02:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:So, just to be clear, you don't feel there's any problem with Tony's behavior here at all? &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 05:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support limitation on active GA noms, no bans''' - Limiting the amount of active GA noms Tony is allowed to have seems to take care of the immediate problem at hand. Not sure why we are ready to throw prolific content creators off a cliff when they are just going through a bad phase. He does good work overall, and long-term bans here are detrimental to our readers. To be clear, he has acted questionably in some of the diffs mentioned here, but not quite enough to be permanently put away.--''[[User:MaranoFan|&lt;b style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;N&lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:MaranoFan|&lt;b style=&quot;color:teal&quot;&gt;Ø&lt;/b&gt;]]'' 08:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:What makes you think this is just a &quot;bad phase&quot;? TTT has been engaging in this behavior since at least 2010. And by &quot;this behavior&quot; I mean relentlessly pursuing &quot;awards&quot; collection and self-promotion to the detriment of the encyclopedia. He was banned from Featured Sounds for the same reasons outlined in this RfC. Last year he tried to get an article he wrote on his sister onto the front page on her birthday, accompanied by a picture with him in it (despite a previous ban on uploading pictures of himself!). He has been [[User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 86#Blocked|blocked]] [[User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 71#Blocked 48h|multiple]] times for baselessly accusing editors who didn't support his TFA/FS requests of racism. At what point does this become a pattern? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Remember kids, you can get away with anything so long as you're a &quot;prolific content creator&quot;. They live by an entirely different set of standards. We are approaching Coldwellian levels of misconduct (and apologism for said misconduct), along with total refusal to accept any responsibility for one's actions here, and that is ''not'' something I say lightly, given my prominent involvement in that saga. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 20:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from Cup, limitation on active GA noms''' preferably to one active nomination at a time. If the disruptive behavior relocates itself to DYK, we can deal with it there, but I feel a sanction for that would be premature at this stage. [[User:Lepricavark|L&lt;small&gt;EPRICAVARK&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;]]) 15:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from WikiCup''', support '''limitation on active GA noms''' (I'd prefer something between three and five), '''oppose DYK ban'''. '''Oppose ''indefinite'' GA TBAN''', but not opposed to a three-month GA ban (with the carveout that he can continue any GA work that is currently being reviewed or that he is reviewing). The WikiCup seems to be the main driver of the disruption – if the disruption continues outside the Cup then we could revisit. Also not seeing enough for a DYK ban. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' Tony has been removed from the cup by the judges.<br /> *'''Support indefinite TBAN from WikiCup, support limitation on active GA noms (I'd prefer one), support DYK ban.''' &lt;b&gt;[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]&lt;/b&gt; 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support indefinite ban from Cup, limitation on GA noms''' The gaming has been quite breathtaking, and TTT seems unrepentant. I would suggest no more than 1 GA nom at a time. -- [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 19:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support indefinate TBAN from WikiCup, low limitation on GA noms''' (three seems reasonable), '''removal of all current GANs where a review is not yet posted, and a minimum three-month gap between a failed GA review and renominating the article''': TTT has been renominating quickfails after edits that only address a small portion of the issues raised, which is one reason why I think he needs limits on his participation at GAN. If the community insists on a TBAN there, I won't oppose that, though it's a second choice. If he persists in nominating articles that don't meet the GA criteria per the GAN instructions, then a TBAN there seems inevitable (and may be so already). [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support indefinite TBAN from Cup and GAN limits''' Most of the problems seem to stem out of WikiCup gaming, but I think TTT could still be a useful contributor at GA. (I wouldn't mind a 3 month GA TBAN though, but I have no strong thoughts one way or the other.) If abuse continues, I would be open to a harder GAN limit or Star Mississippi's proposal. [[user:HistoryTheorist|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;color:#2F7E98&quot;&gt;❤History&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:HistoryTheorist|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;color:lightpurple&quot;&gt;Theorist❤&lt;/span&gt;]] 00:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''&lt;s&gt;Support indefinite ban from GAN&lt;/s&gt;''' (EDIT: See below), second choice a nomination limit of ''one'' (but would honestly be healthier just to leave it at zero IMO). Did not want to pile on until Tony made a statement, but... that was the wrong statement. Notably there doesn't appear to be an &quot;In deference to GA norms, I'll withdraw some/most of my nominations on my own&quot; in it, and I still see the spam sitting in WP:GAN. That is table stakes in any statement given that he's been told to do this, repeatedly, bluntly, and now en masse at ANI, and the fact that he hasn't done it himself speaks poorly of him getting the point. If Tony didn't &quot;consider [it] would be a problem&quot; at first, how come he didn't trust his fellow editors when they told him that yes, it was a problem? To state what's been said many times before... GAN is not some sort of content assessment service to drop off articles you've worked on. It's more like trading peer reviews, and it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what GA nomination &amp; reviewing is to spam it so blatantly just to &quot;use the further polish of GAN attention&quot;. And ''everyone'' has waited a long time for GA reviews before, it's not unique to Tony, and shouldn't it be obvious that this kind of spam makes that problem ''worse''? Tony can be a great content creator; it's time to rekindle the love of doing it just to do it, no stars and no icons attached. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 07:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** As a side note: &quot;I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light&quot; is wishful thinking. Many of the cited GA quickfails should not have passed GA even with 2010 standards. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 07:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:I'm not sure it ''is'' wishful thinking, but unlike Tony I think that's a problem. I think if he hadn't drawn the attention of several experienced reviewers by submitting such a high volume at once, many of the articles that were QF'd would have instead been reviewed by reviewers more prone to looking at the list of GA icons he has on his user page and deciding that ''they'' (ie, the reviewers) were in the wrong, not him. &quot;He must know what he's doing... I guess I don't really understand the standards,&quot; etc. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 14:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Upgrade to full ban from all content review processes''' with narrow exception of GANs currently under review and GAR / FAR of TTT's content. I was unimpressed with Tony's original reply and not withdrawing his noms (I'm not demanding mind control, it'd have been fine to say &quot;I strenuously disagree but if the community considers such mass nominations a problem, fine, I won't do that&quot;), and his later comments appear to be from a different planet, seemingly still defending miles-off nominations like Heath Irwin and viewing himself as the victim, rather than the aggressor. GAN is to take a mostly-there article and make it better. Maybe there's some other process for articles wildly far off from GA status, like a Tony-specific &quot;this month's article to help me improve&quot;, but it ain't GAN, and this isn't hard to understand. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 20:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose sanction''' The entire point of the WikiCup is to encourage editors to do more in order to score points as a form of [[gamification]]. The participants will, of course, game this and competitive pressure will then generate this sort of excess. If this seems problematic then the rules of the competition should be adjusted. For example, if a GAN is quickfailed, the nominator might lose points as a penalty. So, fix the game, don't punish the players. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 08:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** &quot;Gamification made me do it&quot; is not an excuse, and the WikiCup rules are already very blunt that editors who worsen Wikipedia in an attempt to win will be kicked out. As indeed happened in this case. There's no need to create [[Wikipedia:Asshole John rule]]s which will be a feel-bad for good faith editors who get a nom'd quickfailed for standard and legitimate reasons. I would suggest striking your rather bold claim that Wikicup &quot;participants&quot; in general behave this badly, which is obviously false - nobody else in the WikiCup harassed valid reviewers like TTT did. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 13:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:See similar comments above such as &quot;''The WikiCup clearly encourages gaming the system because a significant number of the recent winners won that way. ... This is a valid criticism, and indeed is why I declined to participate in the cup this year. ... any Wikipedia contest such as the Cup will by its very nature be competitive and could be considered by some as gaming.''&quot;<br /> **:As TTT has been disqualified now by a WikiCup judge, that seems adequate to correct the immediate issue. My point is that the contest's checks and balances should be left to work themselves out without ANI piling in too.<br /> **:[[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 08:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''SUPPORT BAN from all content review processes''': (saw this while I was here for another thread above). TTT's abuse of content review processes for personal reward-seeking reasons is a problem more than a decade old, where the FAC page and FA process was seriously misused, mostly fed by TTT's desire to win WikiCup, with most of TTT's articles having be extensively re-worked by other editors. TTT has continuously and constantly abused content review processes (FAC, GAN) to gain rewards at WikiCup and DYk, while content produced has been initially marginal and sapped reviewer time to bring pages to standard, and Wikipedia will not lose if this problem can be removed from the pages it is draining. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support ban from all content review processes''': I've experienced Tony's combative behaviors around not-ready content at FAC, and it's clear that it's an issue at DYK and GAN too. With such an egregious track record going back years across all areas, this seems to be the minimum to save everyone else time and frustration. &quot;The Wikicup made me do it&quot; is not a valid reason to defend this. [[User:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support ban from all content-related Wikipedia contests''', but not from GAN. Tony does good work, they just need to focus on improving Wikipedia instead of getting high scores. I had to go looking a long way back to find the dispute that caused me to remember TonyTheTiger's name. Way back in 2014, TTT created a content fork on the high school career of a professional basketball player, and it was deleted at AFD. Tony challenged at DRV where it was endorsed, and then it was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination)|nominated for deletion a second time]] after Tony recreated it anyway. Tony's bludgeoning and assumptions of bad faith in that discussion included a bizarre conspiracy of Canadian editors being secret members of [[WP:HOCKEY|WikiProject Hockey]] working against coverage of basketball topics, and spawned an [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:TonyTheTiger gaming AfD, bludgeoning and personal attacks against multiple editors|ANI thread]] in which Tony was warned to back off. The article was then salted, which led Tony to start [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262|''another'' AN thread]] requesting its restoration, which was a rather transparent attempt to set up for recreating the deleted article a third time. The player's high school career was later expanded in the main article, which is what should have happened in the first place without all the drama, but Tony was after points for the WikiCup or the [[WP:FOUR|Four award]] or some other contest so we got to play this game for a few months instead. What's happening with GAN spamming isn't the same issue but it's the same root cause, and it's disappointing that the same problem persists a decade after our spat: Tony is editing to score points, and improving content only because it scores points. [[WP:CIR|As the essay says]], &quot;a mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up.&quot; Tony is a prolific and valuable editor who just needs to refocus on content and stop making messes, and a ban from participating in these contests and awards will help. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]&lt;/sub&gt;) 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{u|Ivanvector}}, just to clarify, are you also wanting Tony to be banned from claiming [[WP:Four Awards]]? &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Would you say that's not covered by &quot;all content-related Wikipedia contests&quot;? [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]&lt;/sub&gt;) 21:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Yes, that's why I wanted to clarify. I don't view 4A as a contest, as you're not competing against other people for a prize in a limited timeframe. (I know there have historically been issues with Tony and 4A, and I'm not trying to say he ''shouldn't'' necessarily be banned from 4A, just clarifying your stance). &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Fair question, then. Yes, I think he should be banned from seeking those awards, but that does raise an issue of enforcement since we can't stop other editors handing them out. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]&lt;/sub&gt;) 21:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from both GAN and WikiCup''' per Ivanvecor, PMC and Buidhe. Bling is one thing, but active disruption (and the complete wasting of people's time that has with it!) brings behavior into the community's purview. &lt;small&gt;...and PMC, particularly, oozes a degree of sarcasm that I can only dream of.&lt;/small&gt; [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from WikiCup and content review processes''' per PMC, Sandy, DWF, my previous comments on the WikiCup talk page, and Tony's recent comments below (starting with {{tq|In the back of my mind...}}) which amount to a conspiracy theory about other editors. (Disclosure: I am currently competing in the WikiCup.) [[User:Dylan620|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;Dylan&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;620&lt;/span&gt;]] (he/him • [[User talk:Dylan620|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|edits]]) 23:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Appeal for GAN TBAN exception for already actively reviewed GANs===<br /> <br /> I see that there are GANs already actively being reviewed '''before''' the start of this ANI. One is &lt;s&gt;[[Talk:3:16 game/GA1]]&lt;/s&gt; (closed now) where Tony is the reviewer. Another is [[Talk:In a World.../GA1]] where Tony's article is being reviewed. Others include [[Talk:2018–19 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1]], [[Talk:Wait a Minute (The Pussycat Dolls song)/GA3]] and [[Talk:Joanne McCarthy (basketball)/GA1]]. Perhaps there are more such GANs that I missed. In the interests of being reasonable, having courtesy and respect for Tony and the other reviewer/reviewed editors of these GANs, I suggest a carve-out to allow Tony to participate in these if he receives a GAN TBAN. This does '''not''' apply to GANs Tony nominated but no one has reviewed yet. This would also not apply to any GAN review Tony started after the ANI began. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :In the case of GANs where Tony is the reviewer, that seems fair enough. In the case of GANs where Tony is the nominator, the reviewer should be made aware of the situation here (if they aren't already) and given the option to discontinue the review. But if they're happy to continue, giving Tony a carve-out seems fair enough. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 06:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Yes, if the other reviewers wish to stop for any reason, then that is the end for that nomination. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 09:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I missed &lt;S&gt;[[Talk:Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention/GA1]]&lt;/S&gt; (closed now), [[Talk:A Christmas Story: The Musical/GA1]], [[Talk:Chris Hill (basketball)/GA1]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 12:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Junk the Wikicup===<br /> {{hat|1=Proposal SNOW closed and wrong venue. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])'''}}<br /> {{atop|Closing this per [[WP:SNOW]] and (more importantly) the wrong venue to request a project be closed. {{nac}} — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 21:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> ...because it regularly leads to this kind of trouble. It's long outlived its usefulness. [[User:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:red;&quot;&gt;E&lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:blue;&quot;&gt;Eng&lt;/b&gt;]] 16:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Really? When was the last time? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' due to being obviously incorrect. The purpose/&quot;usefulness&quot; of the cup is to encourage users to improve content, which it does. One person possibly trying to game the system isn't a valid rationale to junk the entire competition. It's silly to suggest we do so just because of one person. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose'''. Clearly not the correct outcome. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 17:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I really don't think this is the right conclusion to draw from the discussions above. The vast majority of WikiCup participants don't violate any Wikipedia guidelines or policies, and when they do, they get disqualified from the competition (as Tony was just recently). As for {{tq|It's long outlived its usefulness}}, it's inspired people to expand or create hundreds of articles over the years, the vast majority of which, again, have no issues. I'm going to say that ''any'' type of competition is liable to have issues like this come up; it's just a matter of how well the problem is handled by the judges of such contests. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Junk and never replace... Or junk until we can come up with something better? Not super open to the first but could see the second being valuable. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' I feel the fact that the community is so eager to sanction someone gaming the cup in this way is a good sign that Wikicup participants not want this sort of incident to occur again. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::People want to sanction them for gaming wikipedia, not for gaming the cup... As far as I know that would be up to the Cup's organizers and I don't think they've chosen to take any action here. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Tony's already been kicked out of the cup. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 17:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ec}} {{tq|I don't think they've chosen to take any action here.}} - I disqualified him from the cup earlier today, once I got to my computer. I had limited internet access over the weekend, so I couldn't do it earlier. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you, I didn't know that you were the only organizer who could do that. Is there a reason they're recorded as withdrawn rather than eliminated on the project page? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{u|Horse Eye's Back}}, if this is an underhanded comment directed at {{u|Cwmhiraeth}} and {{u|Frostly}}, you're still required to notify them as you're now discussing their conduct at ANI. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::It isn't, I wasn't aware who the organizers were or how many there were when I made the original comment. If that is not the case I apologize, but then I don't really understand why Epicgenius having limited internet access is relevant. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::While Cwmhiraeth and Frostly are also judges, I'm currently acting as the ''de facto'' main organizer of this competition. Hence, I made the decision to withdraw them as soon as I was able. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Noting here that I support the decision to withdraw.&lt;span id=&quot;Frostly:1711397869258:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&amp;apos;_noticeboard/Incidents&quot; class=&quot;FTTCmt&quot;&gt; —&amp;nbsp;[[User:Frostly|Frostly]] ([[User talk:Frostly|talk]]) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/span&gt;<br /> :::::::{{ec}}Cwmhiraeth is now largely retired from WP, and is there to help Epicgenius and Frostly, who are both new to the role. So far (in the 30% of a cup we've had), Epicgenius has done the work of setting up/eliminating contestants. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::It's largely a technical distinction. Contestants are marked in red if, at the end of the round, they don't have enough points to qualify for the next round. Contestants are marked in purple if they are removed or if they withdraw from the competition in the middle of the round. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose''' because despite the extra drama it really is needed to help reduce backlogs (at GA, for instance) and would have done so this time if not for TTT's gaming. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 17:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::It still does, even with TTT considered. [https://wikicup.toolforge.org/index.php?year=2024 So far this year], Cup competitors have contributed 316 GA reviews and 108 featured article/list reviews, against 141 GAs and 26 FAs/FLs promoted. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I stand corrected, thanks. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''', unsourced claim. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' – I'm really really mad I got knocked out in the first round. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{smiley}} [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' drastic proposal without even an attempt to provide evidence. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''oppose''' per Epicgenius &amp; Gog &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 20:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' - It’s been a long time since I had available time to participate in the WikiCup, but the year that I did, it encouraged me to keep putting in effort and working on the encyclopedia. I kind of like that. It’s a shame some people have to game, like robbing the bank in Monopoly, but proper enforcement by the coordinators and responding to gaming complaints seems like a small price to pay for a positive force for editing. I may want to see some reforms personally that continue to encourage contributions from those eliminated early on, but nothing wrong with the concept as a whole. [[User:Red Phoenix|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#FF0000&quot;&gt;Red Phoenix&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Red Phoenix|&lt;sup style=&quot;color: #FFA500&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 20:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose'''. It's not really my cup of tea but it prompts people to improve the encyclopaedia and they have fun while doing it so it's harmless at worst. It has been known to cause some problems with backlogs at review processes but I believe steps have been taken in recent years to mitigate that. It's unfortunate that one editor took things too far and didn't participate on the principle that it was fun, but I see no reason to think that's typical of editors participating in the cup. [[User:HJ Mitchell|&lt;b style=&quot;color: teal; font-family: Tahoma&quot;&gt;HJ&amp;nbsp;Mitchell&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman&quot; title=&quot;(Talk page)&quot;&gt;Penny for your thoughts?&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *This is daft, even by your standards, EEng. '''Oppose''', obviously. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 20:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' - no real evidence has been provided that the WikiCup {{tq|regularly leads to this kind of trouble}} or has {{tq|long outlived its usefulness}}. I don't think we need to get rid of something that most people seem to be able to constructively participate in just because a few don't. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> {{hab}}<br /> <br /> ===TonyTheTiger's statement===<br /> Today, I stumbled upon a User talk page of a user who had been blocked, with instructions on how to appeal a block [[User_talk:Ptb1997#September_2023]]. It gives the directive that <br /> <br /> To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that<br /> <br /> *the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or<br /> *the block is no longer necessary because you<br /> *#understand what you have been blocked for,<br /> *#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and<br /> *#will make useful contributions instead.<br /> <br /> I know bans are different than blocks, but the spirit of the directive is relevant here. I have tried to not say anything that I would regret for the last few days. I will be making a statement in the next 6 hours.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 00:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I joined the [[WP:CUP]] this year. I remember finishing 2nd in the 2010 CUP and had honestly forgotten about [[WP:FS]] topic ban surrounding the 2011 CUP. Knowing myself, I probably figured out a strategy that if allowed to run its course would have given me a good chance to finish at least 2nd again without recognition of the broader implications of the strategy to WP in general and to the CUP. I apologize for whatever happened then (again, if I have already done so &amp;mdash; finally, if I have not).<br /> <br /> This year, I entered the CUP on a whim. As it progressed, I regained some editorial vigor that I had had before and during the 2010 CUP. I started feeling competitive. First, I started thinking about making the finals again and before you know it I was trying to strategize a podium finish. In the CUP great [[WP:FA|Featured Articles]] producers have an advantage. I am not such an editor. I have a pretty low success rate at [[WP:FAC]] for the number of FAs that I have. I large percentage of my FAs are the results of co-nominators or co-editors who are far better copyeditors than I. However, I have a long history of success at GA and DYK. So I decided to focus my efforts on those two methods of scoring CUP points. <br /> <br /> There were two main impediments to my prospects for success in the 2024 CUP. First, the way I have been keeping the bills paid is highly seasonal. Last year, I earned over 82% of my income between May and October. The busy season is usually May through September and it can roll into October depending on certain factors. I needed a strategy that would enable me to compete even when I get busy with work. Second, I don’t tend to get reviewed very quickly on GA. Recent history will show you that I don’t get the fastest GA reviews (probably because I don’t do a lot of reviews anymore). See the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations&amp;oldid=1168120698 GAN queue before last year’s August backlog drive]. I took a look at the rules and figured a way that I could have a good chance at continuing to score a lot of GA points while I am very busy and while my review lag tends to be high. I figured, that if I could put a lot of articles in the queue in a way that they would have date priority at GAN I would be able to score enough cup points in rounds 3 and 4 to have a good chance to make the finals. Since I have had hundreds of DYK promotions since my last run at the CUP, I felt that many of them were a good way up the hill toward GA. Cramming them into GAN all at once without significant recent editorial activity was not something I considered would be a problem.<br /> <br /> GA evaluation is a very subjective process. Artilcles that might meet with good favor under the right sunlight may suffer a bad fate under a cloud of darkness. Although I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light, they were reviewed at a time when I had upset a lot of active GA reviewers with my GA strategy. Ex post, it looks like I submit a lot of crappy articles to GAN. My long history at GAN probably says otherwise. However, I am not here to debate the quality of recently reviewed articles. <br /> <br /> I do understand that a common theme among the reviews for the old DYK nominations at GAN is that they have not aged well. Some have become out of date. Others have evolved into states where maintenance tags should have been or were added to the articles. I think in the neighborhood of 2 dozen (if not more) of my GAN articles have been quickfailed at in recent days. All but one of these have been DYKs from past years. There has been little issue with my recent editorial activity. I’ll try to give you a list here for comparison with those that have been rejected. You will probably agree that my most recent work upholds the standards of GA that all interested parties are concerned about. The following are current nominations (all sports articles except for one and mostly basketball) from recent work: [[Gary Bossert]], [[Andrew Dakich]], [[Jennifer Martz]], [[Sean Jackson (basketball)]], [[Dave Jamerson]], [[Billy Garrett Jr.]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;The most recent lead hook at [[WP:DYK]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;, [[Todd Leslie]], [[Peter Patton (basketball)]] and [[Eustace Tilley]]. Additionally, the following recent works were going to be heading into the GAN queue soon: [[Kobe Bufkin]], [[Will Tschetter]], [[Drew Golz]], [[Draft:Kasey Morlock]], and [[Draft:Alia Fischer]].<br /> <br /> I realize that it would be easier on reviewers and better for the GAN system if I refrained from nominating stale, atrophied and otherwise less exemplary articles. However, I do believe that things that I have recently researched continue to be of benefit to the WP readership and could use the further polish of GAN attention. Although I continue to have faults as an editor in need of correction, none of my recent works (mostly created from scratch) should have much in common with the recent batch of quickfails.<br /> <br /> I probably should not be involved in the CUP since I have twice gotten too competitive in ways that are adverse to the general mission of WP. I don’t really think the GA ban is entirely necessary. My current work at GAN is probably not as problematic as the topics that have been distant from my attention for years. The real problems that I am having with GAN are not so much as my general lack of understanding of what is deserving of review attention, but my competitive CUP juices compelling me to nominate articles with very slight consideration and minimal recent editorial involvement.<br /> <br /> I consider it highly unlikely that you will ever see a slew of articles with prominent blemishes if my GAN privileges were allowed to continue in general. It would be fair to all to remove all nominations stemming from my historical DYK activity, but nominations related to recent editorial efforts would probably benefit WP without burdening the GAN reviewers any more than normal.<br /> <br /> My apologies to all of the hardworking GA reviewers and all participants that keep the GAN system going. I apologize to all CUP contestants and judges. In addition, I apologize for all the time that I took away from other activities by necessitating discussant activity here and elsewhere on WP. Furthermore, my competitive juices also warrant an apology to several DYK parties as well for actions not at issue here, but not so remote from them either. However, I don’t really think that a person who gets too competitive with the CUP needs much more than to be removed from the CUP to continue to be an asset to WP.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Thank you Tony. I have a few follow-up questions.<br /> :#{{tq|Since I have had hundreds of DYK promotions since my last run at the CUP, I felt that many of them were a good way up the hill toward GA}} What inspired this feeling? Did you read back over the DYK promotions and feel each one was worth a shot at GAN? Or was it a more general feeling that if you'd managed to get an article through DYK, it was probably worth giving it a shot at GAN?<br /> :#:Read back over would definitely be a wrong description. Basically, I took a quick glance at every [[User:TonyTheTiger/DYK|DYK I have had since mid 2010]] and some related articles. E.g. Some Big Ten or Ivy League seasons as well as Michigan and Princeton seasons may have been before that cutoff, but I looked at all of those similar article types with a quick glance. I eliminated all short DYKs. I think anything that was not at least 2800-3000 characters was cut. I glanced for citation needed templates, but surely missed some. If it had a top maintenance tag, it probably got cut. No real scientific process. I probably cut a list of 550 down to about 100. Then I looked at the ones I had to work on before nominating and the ones that I thought were close enough to be shaped up. I think I looked to see if I was the top 3 or 4 editors on each page as well, but confess I did not pay much attention to my percentage contribution. --[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#{{tq|Cramming them into GAN all at once without significant recent editorial activity was not something I considered would be a problem.}} That's a comment on your past mental state. Do you, as of now, consider the number of GANs you submitted at once to have been a problem?<br /> :#:The GAN process is set up to have hundreds of simultaneous nominations at once. I would not be surprised if the GAN could present 1000 at once. I have in the past had upwards of 30 simultaneous nominations at once I believe. GAN is an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor. The 70ish number is not a problem on its face. The problem is that I have never dug up articles from the past and nominated them. I have always nominated articles that I have recently honed and crafted. As I mentioned above, I stand behind all of the DYK creations from the past few months as viable GAN candidates. I should have given more serious consideration to which types of topics tend to atrophy over time. Many of the subjects that I submitted were BLPS of subjects I last paid close attention to on the order of a decade ago. They either had or should have had significant changes that I was not involved in editorially. I think I placed too much faith in added contributions with [[WP:IC]]s. I think I sort of felt if all the added stuff had ICs, it was an article that was probably up to snuff, which is not really a valid check. My process was flawed and that was a sort of a problem.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#{{tq|Although I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light, they were reviewed at a time when I had upset a lot of active GA reviewers}} To be more specific, do you believe e.g. [[Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1]] would have passed or had a significantly improved chance of passing had you not &quot;upset a lot of active GA reviewers&quot; at the time? Are there specific failed GANs you believe would not have been failed had you not &quot;upset a lot of active GA reviewers&quot;?<br /> :#:There was definitely a time when the current version of [[Heath Irwin]] would have passed as is. For an offensive lineman who has not met with [[Pro Bowl]]-level or [[Super Bowl]]-level success, his article has some heft. I have had hundreds of successful GAs and don't remember a quickfail. I may have had some though, but I doubt I have had even 1 per 100 nominations if I have had any. A huge percentage of my GAs are American football and basketball related. So, I feel that I do have an understanding of what is a GA-caliber article for these sports. If there is a new 2024 standard for GA articles, I am not familiar with it. To my recollection, [[WP:WIAGA]] seems relatively unchanged. I use to be a lot more active with football nominations. 10 or 15 years ago when I was more active with football nominations, my rep might have kept me from having a nom quickfailed in the past and helped with some promotions. I concede that the percentage of football reviewers who even know me from Adam nowadays is much smaller. Nonetheless, I can see the patience that I have had as a reviewer at [[Talk:3:16 game/GA1]] for an article that was not well formed and immediately nomed at [[WP:AFD]] when I began my review. I am also aware of the skill and patience of many reviewers. I believe that there are many reviewers who would have had the patience and skill to coax me into recrafting [[Heath Irwin]] as a GA.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:Skill in this sense is meant to be a combination of wikipedia institutional expertise and subject matter expertise.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 12:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:I mentioned above that only one of my recent DYK creations met with the quickfail hatchet. In the past, I have presented several precollegiate athletes for GAN. I believe myself to have been one of, if not, the groundbreaker on producing pre-collegiate basketball GAs. When I started producing a lot of pre-collegiate basketball (and football) GAs over a decade ago many of them may have been a bit longer than [[Olivia Olson (basketball)]]. In some regards, I still was quite surprised that Olson was quickfailed. I find it hard to believe that you could expect so much more than was presented for this subject that what was presented was so remote from that expectation that it deserved a quickfail.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 06:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::You've been informed many times that high school athletes have to meet much higher standards for notability, otherwise we would have articles on literally every DI and DII football recruit. We sometimes don't even consider NFL draftees notable despite their garnering national coverage. This article is sourced almost exclusively to local and non-independent or primary media hype, which per NSPORT do not contribute to notability at least partly because they inherently fail to demonstrate breadth and depth of coverage and are routine for the topic. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 08:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::[[User:JoelleJay]], to be more specific to this article. [[WP:LOCAL]]'s nutshell summary states: &quot;This page in a nutshell: An article about a local place or person may be created if there is enough referenced information to make it encyclopedic.&quot; Furthermore, although like all pre-collegiate athletes Olson does not meet [[WP:NHOOPS]], further up that page [[WP:SPORTBASIC]] says &quot;A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.&quot; Furthermore, in regard to the numerous discussions regarding pre-collegiate athletes and this issue of local vs. national coverage, the general agreement was that only a very few and possibly a singular national level source would suffice to meet this standard. In this case we have [chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://playeroftheyear.gatorade.com/poy/assets/writable/84707/2024_GK_OOlson.pdf Gatorade.com], [https://michigan.rivals.com/news/five-star-point-guard-olivia-olson-commits-to-michigan Rivals.com], [https://www.aol.com/news/state-top-senior-girls-basketball-145400425.html AOL.com] and [https://www.si.com/fannation/bringmethesports/mn-high-school-sports/2-minnesota-girls-basketball-stars-named-mcdonalds-all-americans Sports Illustrated albeit a locally targeted offshoot]. With that support a QF was quite surprising. I don't think I have had a pre-collegiate athlete nomination with two or more national articles fail (let alone quickfail) in the past. It would not have been unreasonable for a patient reviewer to ask me if I could beef up the international section and personal life.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 12:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::I and others have pointed you to [[Wikipedia:YOUNGATH]] several times. &lt;br&gt;Gatorade is obviously not an independent source, the AOL piece is from the Star Tribune, the Rivals source is the offshoot specific to Michigan sports, and the SI piece is as you say a local offshoot. None of these are sufficient. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 16:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::: &lt;small&gt;FWIW, not all local sources should be discounted, especially major papers like the ''Star Tribune''. The only requirement is that it needs to be &quot;[[WP:YOUNGATH|clearly beyond routine coverage]]&quot; – though I admit I haven't analyzed the sources. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :#::::::Just dropping into this subthread to add that GA reviews don't take a position on notability. If there isn't sigcov in reliable sources it may be quite hard to write a GA-review-passing article, but at no point is the reviewer asked to make a notability call. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::What? The [[WP:GAN/I#R1|instructions]] for reviewers: {{tq|Ensure all articles meet [[Wikipedia:PG|Wikipedia policies and guidelines]] as expected of any article, including [[Wikipedia:NPOV|neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:V|verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:NOR|no original research]], and [[Wikipedia:N|notability]].}} [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 21:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::It isn't one of the criteria, and you'll find it explicitly listed at [[WP:GACN#Beyond the scope]]. AfD, not GAN, is the place to decide notability. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::::It's not one of the criteria, but it is explicitly in the instructions for GAN reviewers so there should be an expectation of notability. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 22:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::::{{reply to|JoelleJay}} It was added without consensus when the same wording was added the nomination instructions. Discussions on the GA talk page have generally held that notability is not part of a GA review and should be handled at [[WP:AFD]]. [[User:Rjjiii|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps;&quot;&gt;Rjj&lt;sup&gt;iii&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 05:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::Indeed. On occasion FACs are queried re notability. In principle, there is no reason why an FA couldn't be AfDed. I don't know if this has ever happened. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::It has! I recall at least one. A baseball player, I think? Nominated by its main author, actually. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::::{{ping|Gog the Mild|Asilvering}} I believe you are thinking of [[Lewis (baseball)]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination)|AfD]], [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lewis (baseball)/archive1|FAR]]). [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::::Yes, that's it for sure. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination)]]. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 01:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#{{tq|It would be fair to all to remove all nominations stemming from my historical DYK activity, but nominations related to recent editorial efforts would probably benefit WP}} Which specific GANs do you stand by? Which specific GANs should be withdrawn?<br /> :– [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 14:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Just a quick comment based on Teratix's #4, I've removed that set of nominations from the GAN queue (i.e. nominations that you haven't edited substantively in over a year, and that hadn't been reviewed yet). If you, or anyone else, thinks I hit a false positive, you are of course welcome to revert. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 18:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Aside from those articles that I have created or 5xed in the last 6 months or so, there are not too many that I can really stand solidly behind with confidence. Given the time between my past DYKs and now, I have to develop an understanding of how GAN evaluates formerly prominent athletes who have been less interesting for quite some time. Basically, anything that I have not worked on in the last 6 months is a candidate for removal.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 06:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :If I may add one question. You seem to apologize for nominating a large slate of underprepared GA noms. Can you also talk to your behaviour towards editors, where you failed to assume good faith, and what you would do differently in the future? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::WP is a community of people with different backgrounds, interests, expertises, skills, and roles. We are all here to help present knowledge to the world. It certainly works best if we always assume good faith. As I have stated above, I get a bit competitive about the cup. If I could turn back the clock (now that I am reassessing my overlycompetitive nature), I would have taken the CUP less seriously, which in turn would have caused me to be less in your face. I think I am having something akin to a WP midlife crisis in which my worth as a WPian is tied up in making the finals of the CUP. I am no longer one of the great editors and need to stop competing with ghosts of my past. Trying to figure out how to play the game to make the finals the way that I did was not fair to other editors who were working hard to reduce the GAN backlog, to achieve their own success in the CUP, to maintain the integrity of GA, and to keep things going. What I should have done is just participated in the CUP with things I had worked on recently. In the future, all of my GANs will have at least a recent flourish of activity or a solid reaffirmation based on close inspection.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::These aren't recent, but it may be relevant that Tony has had issues at ANI about bad faith accusations [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive811#Continued policy violations from User:TonyTheTiger at WT:FOUR (close requested)|in 2013 where he was indeffed]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:TonyTheTiger gaming AfD, bludgeoning and personal attacks against multiple editors|in 2014 where he was warned]]. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 19:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{re|TonyTheTiger}} Do you have any intention of apologising directly to the editors who you cast aspersions on? Further, if a new editor behaved as you did, do you believe they would have been offered the leniency this discussion has afforded you? '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 12:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Above when I stated &quot;My apologies to all of the hardworking GA reviewers and all participants that keep the GAN system going. I apologize to all CUP contestants and judges. In addition, I apologize for all the time that I took away from other activities by necessitating discussant activity here and elsewhere on WP. Furthermore, my competitive juices also warrant an apology to several DYK parties as well for actions not at issue here, but not so remote from them either.&quot; it was certainly intended to include them. If any of them do not feel covered by that statement, I do apologize for casting aspersions on anyone who felt thusly treated and anyone in any way offended by my CUP related behavior. In regards to leniency, I believe anyone brought up at [[WP:ANI]] is allowed to make a statement. I did not mean to abuse the system or seek special treatement by making mine, if that is the perception. I believe a new editor would be allowed to make any statement that they want.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 12:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::That's a blanket apology Tony, not a direct apology which is what is owed to Generalissima, Teratix, the editors at WT:CUP and on your talk page, and probably elsewhere. This is not a matter of them &quot;feeling thusly treated&quot;, it's a matter of you having made direct and explicit allegations of bad faith on their part. Perhaps you can present your mass nomination as a misjudgement or misunderstanding, but the statements you made towards other editors cannot be so excused. Regarding my second question, let me rephrase it: had you been a new editor who flooded GAN with obviously un-passably bad articles and then proceeded to make numerous allegations of bad faith against other editors, do you believe you would have been afforded the opportunity to continue editing with an ANI discussion being the most serious consequence for your actions? '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 13:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I took a long time to make an extensive statement because I am trying to remain level headed. I meant to make an apology that was sincere to all individuals whom I behaved inappropriately with. I feel the heat getting turned up a bit here and I am not trying to do [[Twelve-step_program#Twelve_Steps|steps 8 and 9 of the 12 steps]]. This is especially so as I see the line forming below for #MeToo apologies. In my time on WP, I have offended many (surely dozens). In the past week, I have offended several. Wrongly, I took offense to extremely negative reviews. I do not have any right to positive reviews regardless of my process, role, contribution, or performance. All reviewers have a right to give any review that they feel they can justify. All reviews are largely subjective, and I can not disprove any review. So, I must accept all reviews assuming good faith by their reviewers. Thus, all derisive responses to individual reviewers and even secondary discussants beg for apologies. Derisive and possibly hurtful statements to Teratix are at the top of my list of things I mean to apologize for and I do so here directly. Generalissima is likely the leading scorer in CUP points for quickfailing my reviews, but only one of these was particularly contentious to me. I actually think many of these points were well-deserved. Regardless of my contentions (is that a word) regarding any single review, I need to remain professional. I went beyond any acceptable manner of decorum with Generalissima. In fact, my interactions with Generalissima are correctly a huge part of an intervention like this. I apologize for the lack of respect conveyed in my interactions with Generalissima.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I too had hoped for a direct apology. Tony, you may want to read the lead of [[non-apology apology]] and the section {{section link|non-apology apology#Ifpology}}. The way you apologized is quite common, but not that convincing. I'm still hoping we can end this discussion with you continuing to contribute to GAN, but me at least need to be convinced you are willing to mend trust. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I don't recall interacting with you at any other page in relation to this $#!T storm. I went back about 10 days in your contributions to double check. By my investigation our first interactaion in what is at issue was 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC). So are you asking for a direct apology to you? Or are you seconding 5225C above? -[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::: I was seconding 5225C above. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Since following the thread is already a tad confusing, moving this below, but re Tony's in-line replies to the list above:<br /> *: {{green|GAN is an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor. The 70ish number is not a problem on its face.}}<br /> * You've been told this repeatedly already, but just to say so again: Yes, it is a problem, on its face. Past a certain point, it's not on everyone else to explain why it's a problem to your personal satisfaction, you just need to accept that it is. It would have been a problem even if all your mass noms were perfect, no notes, ship it productions. It is a far worse problem when - as you yourself admitted you knew - you were seeking some &quot;polish&quot; from nomination review. Just as AFD isn't a way to demand other editors do cleanup, GAN isn't a way to demand other editors fix up an article for you. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **[[User:SnowFire]], my point was that I felt it was the quality of the submissions more than the quantity. That was of course only my opinion. It may be that the quantity was more of a problem than the quality and I was wrong. It is likely that each individual here assigns a different weight to how much of this issue is related to quantity and how much is related to quality. As I have stated, in the past I have had dozens of simultaneous nominations without issue. But as we are here there is some element of the problem related to quantity and some related to quality. Clearly you assign a higher proportion of the problem to quantity.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *** ''Both'' quantity ''and'' quality were problematic. It's just that you seem to grudgingly accept that the quality was an issue, but still don't seem to get that the quantity was an issue, too. And frankly I'm skeptical that your previous activities were truly &quot;without issue&quot; given that you've proven not particularly perceptive to the time of other editors.<br /> *** Hypothetical situation: an eccentric millionaire reveals that he's paid a team of independent researchers to create 1,000 new articles on notable topics, that are mostly about GA quality or close. This person is ''awesome''. They deserve a barnstar, a Signpost article, a shout-out, whatever. However, the contracts are up so the researchers can't really do any good peer reviews themselves. Should our millionaire - who has done a fantastic service to Wikipedia (just as you have) - submit all 1,000 of these articles to GAN, because it's &quot;an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor&quot;? The answer is ''emphatically not''. The awesome part was the GA-level articles themselves, not the green icon which readers neither recognize nor care about. GAN is useful as a mechanism of trading around peer reviews and second opinions, not about classifying the very best articles, and our millionaire can't possibly do their side of the equation for 1,000 articles. Which is fine. It just means that GA status is not in the cards. Basically, even in the scenario where the articles you nominated were in significantly better shape, this sort of mass nom is not a thing. The &quot;reward&quot; of your work is the articles having better content. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:Personally as both a GA contributor and a millionaire, I consider your hypothetical to be ridiculous.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 11:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::I'm just taking what you wrote seriously and where that would go in an extreme situation. You've completely dodged responding to the merits of the question - you ''still'' think that nominating 70 or 1,000 or whatever articles at once is no problem? I guess I should have listened to my own advice and not bothered to attempt to even convince you. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::You dig yourself a deeper hole with every reply here, Tony. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 22:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:There's an [[Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposals_to_address_the_backlog|ongoing discussion about ways of improving the GA process]] to better cope with the growing backlog of reviews. One idea is to formalise a limit of 20 nominations per person and it's surprising that this hasn't been done before. A QPQ system is obviously needed too. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 09:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::I already linked Asshole John rule above to you. If someone is abusing the process, just ban them from the process, which you opposed above. Don't create bespoke, hacky rules just for them that also impact others. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:::These are not bespoke, hacky rules; they seem quite natural and sensible. And they are used successfully elsewhere. The FA process limits nominators to one at a time. And DYK has a QPQ process which seems quite productive. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 17:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::::DYK has a QPQ system that requires them to argue over like a fourth of hooks 3 hours before they go on the main page because everyone pumps out QPQs to get it over with. It'd be even worse at GAN, where there's a significant time investment for a good review. Every person who doesn't actually want to do a review will just tick their way through a template and the end result will be even more strain on reviewers because now they have to check every else's work too. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:::::DYK has a system of triple-checking so naturally there's a further round of issues when set-builders and promoters make their additional checks. The GA process doesn't make such double-checks immediately because there's no big impact immediately. But there's a [[WP:GAR|reassessment]] process which currently has a queue of articles awaiting further review. All such processes are naturally imperfect per the [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer|disclaimers]]. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 10:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::::::Reassessment of poor reviews is not the solution. After a poor review, an opportunity has been wasted. The GA process is good when an article gets an in-depth review that makes it even better. Encouraging checkbox QPQs takes away the best thing about the process. Getting a shiny green badge is and should be secondary to the improvement to the encyclopedia that results. More shiny green badges is not itself an improvement to the encyclopedia. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *In the back of my mind, I am wondering if this all has anything to do with my decision to do a GAN review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3:16_game&amp;oldid=1214023874 this malformed article with no infobox and a prominent maintenance tag] to turn it into a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3:16_game&amp;oldid=1216053622 Good article]. Were the subsequent quickfails of my works and the nomination of the article at [[WP:AFD]] a vocalization of disapproval of my decision to commit to doing such a review. I.e., is there an effort to make it known that we don't want people to commit to that type of improvement.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:You know Tony, I really thought with your statements above that you might kind of be getting it, but this accusation of a bad faith conspiracy shows you obviously aren't. &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 18:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:??????????????????? – &lt;code style=&quot;background:#333;border:1px solid #999&quot;&gt;[[User:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#fff;text-shadow:0 0 5px #fff&quot;&gt;Hilst&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#090&quot;&gt;&amp;lbrack;talk&amp;rbrack;&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/code&gt; 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::took the words right out of my mouth. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::ditto &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't even understand what the purpose of the conspiracy would be here... to discourage high-quality GA reviewing? Why would anyone want to do that? My motivation in raising an issue with your nominations, for the record, was solely to keep morale high at the March GAN backlog drive, per my role as coordinator. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Should I assume that this discussion means that we expect people to quickfail such articles regardless of whether they have the skill and patience to guide the article toward GA?-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 18:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:We ''should'' presume that they are different skillsets, and that it is entirely possible to gauge whether or not an article is fit for GA status without necessarily being inclined to take an article to GA status. You've been around far too long to fall into the delusion that only some Consecrated Elite has what it takes to make such determinations. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''&lt;span style=&quot;background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF&quot;&gt; '' Ravenswing '' &lt;/span&gt;''' ]] 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{u|TonyTheTiger}} - by my reading of the situation, the sanctions have nothing to do with 3:16 game. It’s really other parts of your behaviour you have to improve. It’s not about other editors. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 01:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Frankly, I would be ''more'' likely to quickfail an article from an experienced nominator who possesses &quot;skill and patience&quot;. For a newbie, I'm usually happy to give them some latitude, work closely with them to improve the article, and help them go through the process to understand the GA criteria. But once someone has 100+ GAs under their belt, I expect that they will have the criteria down pat and ensure that the article basically meets them ''before'' they nominate it for GA. That applies doubly when the experienced nominator is mass-nominating old articles without re-checking them in order to score points in a competition. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 01:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == User:SheriffIsInTown chronic reverting problem ==<br /> <br /> Continously reverting and redirecting ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan_general_election_forms&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210942217], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan_general_election_forms&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211734720], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan_general_election_forms&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215365066]) on [[Election Commission of Pakistan general election forms]] and trying to impose a redirect without a consensus. Generally, this should be handled through [[WP:AFD]] and considered as a failed [[WP:PROD]], but this guy will mindlessly revert, revert, and revert. [[Special:Contributions/141.195.113.18|141.195.113.18]] ([[User talk:141.195.113.18|talk]]) 18:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#SheriffIsInTown Similar problem] was highlighted by {{ping|Saqib}} as well a few days ago, but it was archived prematurely by a bot. [[Special:Contributions/141.195.113.18|141.195.113.18]] ([[User talk:141.195.113.18|talk]]) 18:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Ping to {{ping|Wiki.0hlic}} who was also involved. [[Special:Contributions/141.195.113.18|141.195.113.18]] ([[User talk:141.195.113.18|talk]]) 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *The author of that article was blocked following the investigation detailed in [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toomanyyearskodakblack#19 February 2024]]. According to policy, contributions by blocked editors can be reverted without justification. In this instance, the forms were appropriately relocated to [[Election Commission of Pakistan#General election forms]], resulting in a redirect. There seems to be a concerted effort by these individuals to impede my editing. They file frivolous ANIs daily in hopes that if they persist, an admin will block me, thereby eliminating opposition. It appears this IP is connected to the blocked editor. This ANI warrants immediate closure, and the IP should be blocked. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;Sh&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: red;&quot;&gt;eri&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;ff&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: black;&quot;&gt;☎ 911&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; 18:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Sheriff, while an editor ''may'' revert edits of a banned editor, per [[WP:BRV]], the same also notes that 1) they are not ''required'' to be reverted, and 2) once non-banned editors (such as Wiki.h0lic) revert, [[WP:BRV]]'s 3RR exception no longer applies, as you're no longer reverting a banned editor, but an editor in good standing. If the articles should be BLAR'd, I expect consensus will bear that out. <br /> *:That said, IP, I note that you have no other edits except to the disputed page and this noticeboard. I can understand Sheriff's [[WP:ABF|assumption]] that you are connected with the blocked user. Have you done any other editing on Wikipedia? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 19:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::In the two days since this report was opened, the page in question was BLARed by consensus and protected, and the reporting IP has not edited. No further disruption seems forthcoming, so this section can be closed without prejudice. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Sorry, I was away for a professional engagement so could not reply to the ping. I don't know how chronic this problem is, but in the past couple of months I have had 2 run-ins with Sheriff. It happened on the page in question and secondly, it occurred on [[Qazi Faez Isa]], where my effort to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qazi_Faez_Isa&amp;oldid=1211007521 build consensus] was ignored and, true to their moniker, they have adopted a &quot;my way or the highway&quot; approach after persistent reversion. Apart from the disregard for consensus, what troubles me in the case of both the articles, is that I have significantly contributed to the them, and Sheriff just comes in and copy-pastes ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan&amp;oldid=1210941932] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PTI_intra-party_elections_case&amp;oldid=1195845734]) the content elsewhere in a manner ignorant of [[WP:CWW]], effecting my attribution. [[User:Wiki.0hlic|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#01A0CA;&quot;&gt;Wiki.0hlic&lt;/b&gt;]] [[User talk:Wiki.0hlic|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #01A0CA;&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(talk)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Regarding their [[WP:CWW]] concern, I am just replying for the record. Their attribution was not affected in that particular case. Firstly, there were significant contributions by me to the content at [[Qazi Faez Isa]], secondly, the article [[PTI intra-party elections case]] was completely rewritten by me, they can run it through a copyvio tool. If they had contributed to Qazi Faez Isa to a specific case section, that does not mean no one else can write a separate article about the case. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;Sh&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: red;&quot;&gt;eri&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;ff&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: black;&quot;&gt;☎ 911&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Logosx127]] must be [[WP:NOTHERE]] ==<br /> <br /> <br /> For several days, this Wikipedian has made some contributions which necessitated reaching a consensus for [[Eastern Catholic Churches]]-related articles, especially the [[Syro-Malabar Church]] article and talk page. That conversation was then brought to [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Is_the_Catholic_Church_a_single_denomination_or_a_communion_of_24?]], and it has lasted for days on end again. After the involvement of multiple parties disagreeing with their contributions and seeming rejection of notice given [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Logosx127&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214852164 User_talk:Logosx127&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214852164 here], and then the lack of consensus, they opted to continue their contributions claiming a consensus had been reached. Now, discussion is at a stalemate with Logos themselves seemingly verbatimly disregarding the arguments against their desired overhaul of edits. With their latest responses, it also appears that they might just be [[WP:NOTHERE]] to build an encyclopedia, but [[WP:ADVOCATE]]. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 13:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :When there are arbitrary corrections to articles, how is it wrong to question them in the discussion? How is questioning and taking a strong position in a talkpage pointing out a very clear and obvious contradiction be considered wrong? That too, especially when other editors are agreeing with me and clearly recognising the issues as in [[Talk:Oriental Orthodox Churches#SCOOCH source|here]]. About the issue with the claim of consensus, it was actually another editor who initiated the claim of consensus as seen here [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Antony%27s_Syro-Malabar_Church,_Ollur&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215440856][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mar_Thoma_Sleeha_Syro-Malabar_Church,_Thulappally&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215441146][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Mary%27s_Syro-Malabar_Cathedral_Basilica,_Ernakulam&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215442132][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marth_Mariam_Cathedral&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215442430] and many more. Since they were the original user involved in the dispute with me, I agreed with them. I too tried to implement it, even though it was against my position, believing that the consensus was created against my position. How'd that be considered advocacy? When you make such accusations like nothere about me despite all my recent edits being there at various talkpages, please also explain the rationale. Because the only rationale I find behind is an urge for harassment. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 14:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Well, forgive my ignorance on that part of their consensus claim. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 14:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::For more details, you may please have a look at [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism&amp;diff=1215502400&amp;oldid=1215488573&amp;title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Catholicism&amp;diffonly=1 this response] that I gave to Lion there. I have answered more of their allegations there. I think copying all of it here will be boring for the adminstrators as well as me. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 15:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :To offer my two cents: With {{noping|TheLionHasSeen}}, I participated in the discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism]], trying to offer several possible solutions to the ambiguities/confusions that {{noping|Logosx127}} (and seemingly only Logosx127) believes are present in Wikipedia's coverage of particular pages. The solutions I presented didn't seem to satisfy the concerned editor. I'm not sure about [[WP:NOTHERE]], but I am concerned that the whole thing ballooned into a very long, timesinking discussion when this is, in my view, all possibly resolved by any editor taking the time and making the effort to add one or two sourced sentences. As the only editor who seems to believe that the pages affected currently present ambiguity/confusion, the rather obvious question is why Logosx127 didn't do this themselves. I was also concerned that Logosx127's discussion seemed to have two prongs which are impossible to reconcile: on one prong, we need to clarify ambiguities/confusions; on the other prong, the only correct interpretation of the ambiguity is their own with no possibility of nuance. My instinct is it might just be a good-faith but counterproductive zeal against any possible ambiguities/confusions that does not square nicely with nuances and reasonable interpretations, rather than [[WP:NOTHERE]]. But this is only based off our discussion. [[User:IgnatiusofLondon|IgnatiusofLondon]] (&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:85%;&quot;&gt;he/him&lt;/span&gt; • [[User talk:IgnatiusofLondon#top|☎️]]) 16:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I also participated in the aforementioned discussion, and I concur entirely with {{noping|IgnatiusofLondon}}'s interpretation. I think {{noping|Logosx127}} sees a problem and is trying to fix it; whether there actually is a problem to fix is being debated. There are issues here, but NOTHERE and ADVOCATE are not the ones. [[User:Smdjcl|Smdjcl]] ([[User talk:Smdjcl|talk]]) 18:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I agree. Logosx127 is a stubborn editor who occasionally intentionally pushes the edit warring limit and sometimes is unwilling to concede to consensus, but they seem to be genuinely here to build an encyclopedia and lobbied hard to have their editing privileges restored. Especially considering that I rose the matter with admins who looked into Logosx127's editing history and found no serious misconduct, I'm inclined against any sanctions at this time. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 18:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Well, after reading these observations, I have to admit that I would like to not be inclined against any sanctions either at this time. From seeing others' input here, I see that it is merely zeal, even though it seems to be coming off also as hardcore zealotry. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::@[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] what might be an alternative if they continue to push the edit warring limit however and is unwilling to concede to consensus? - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 23:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Your comments are contradictory. Initially you said there is no consensus, now you are claiming that there is. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 00:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::If there is a consensus, it's that no one here agrees with you, and I will '''not''' engage in another edit war with you on [[Oriental Orthodox Churches]]. This is becoming enough, and I am beginning to wonder again if you are here to contribute in peace or war with others? - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::If there is also a consensus, it is that on the lists of Christian denominations by category and membership, no one desires to remove the Eastern Catholic Churches completely by your measured understanding. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::@[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]], @[[User:IgnatiusofLondon|IgnatiusofLondon]], and @[[User:Smdjcl|Smdjcl]], I am growing tired of this continually being dragged. It came to the point of me putting a warning notice on their talk page, but I reverted and recanted publishing it because it would have done no good. Now, they have come on my talk page copying what I did. I reverse my request of no sanctions, and request a hammer. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::You have been continuously disregarding the article talk page and the reliable sources at [[Oriental Orthodox churches]]. Now you are disregarding your own words and is edit warring by removing sourced content. At this point I must certainly respond to this mocking {{tq|wonder again if you are here to contribute in peace or war with others?}}: Well I am not here to war, my policy is [[WP:NPOV]]. Some editors tend to attack me when they believe I am a threat to their POV. In the specific case of Eastern Catholic Churches, it is their catholic pov. I find it very ridiculous considering the fact I am myself a Catholic too. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 16:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::Given the edit warring going on right now, I'd say you both need blocked from editing the article for a while, and need to hash it out on the Talk page. [[WP:DRR|Follow the Dispute Resolution]] process.<br /> :::::::::::That said, Logosx, templating in retaliation is not a good idea per [[WP:POINT]]. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::I am withholding myself from any contribution regarding this, because while they might not care, I do care that I am not blocked and would like to exemplify the character of one who doesn't desire a blocking, @[[User:HandThatFeeds|HandThatFeeds]]. I do however choose to ignore their retaliatory report, when they could have easily been reported for edit warring before, but again, I digress as I refuse to have that permanent record on my account. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::Also, in my own defense, I withheld responding on the talk page because it seemed that you, @[[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]], did not understand that the source was not removed whatsoever, as you have disregarded it seems before with other discussions which became prolonged. The information was restored back to its form before any of these issues ensued. The information in the versions has been sourced prior to your contribution, and then properly sourced thereafter. I am now more confused than ever. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::Well, must be inevitable anyway since they opted to report me at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] after all of this. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::Wait a minute? Isn't there a discrepancy with that edit warring report? I reverted them 3 times on that article today, once on yesterday (the 27th), and then twice on the 24th? I did not go beyond the 3RR warning. Oh well, as I said, I'm not trying to take any bait and be blocked by responding to retaliation and as others stated, zealotry (not me, though later affirming). - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::::Edit warring does not specifically require violating [[WP:3RR]]. And frankly, Logosx reporting that while there's an ongoing discussion here smacks of [[WP:FORUMSHOP]]. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 20:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::::Fair enough. Thanks for enlightening me lol. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 20:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::::There is no forum shopping here. It is related to a different issue altogether. Here we are discussing about the dispute at the Eastern Catholic Churches and related articles and there is no edit warring in this case. I have purposefully distanced myself from editting articles in this case. I have been mostly editting only in the talk pages for a while. But there, at Oriental Orthodox churches, it is a totally different scenario. Lion is disregarding the talk page and opinion of other users and is actively edit warring. In my report, there is a reference to this report too. Meanwhile I have temporarily stopped editting in that particular article too as I am fed up of this. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 23:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::::::It's the same issue, you and LionHasSeen in an editing dispute. Hence forum shopping. It should've been handled here, rather than splitting up the admin actions. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}Logosx127, your behavior across multiple articles and discussions has been an issue. Not to a degree that merits a block or any formal sanction, but just that you should probably avoid pushing the edit warring limit, avoid forum shopping (this is the second time recently), and be ''far'' more willing to concede to consensuses you don't like. You're making good contributions in other contexts, though, and your new article on the Indian Christian schism deserves high praise. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 03:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :If I were to edit war, I wouldn't have any time left to do anything constructive. But I've been distancing myself from disputed articles. It's not because of any change of mind but I really don't have much time to waste in reverting back and forth and I find it ridiculous to do so. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 07:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Possible content ownership at [[List of X-Men members]] page ==<br /> I joined Wikipedia in mid-March 2024 and started editing [[X-Men]] related pages yesterday and participating in recent discussion some of those pages and noticed so many ongoing discussions (also not archived) in [[Talk:List of X-Men members|List of X-Men members talk page]]. I read last two talk pages of it, which made me suspicious of [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content|ownership of content]] of the [[List of X-Men members]] page by @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]]. Then I read last 500 edits of said page and made this report. I took me 1 day to make this report. I am new here and it is not my intention to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|Personal attack]] by mentioning so many users including @Hotwiki, just so you all don't feel that way. So below are 7 points of my report.<br /> * '''1:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:RS]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] sometimes asks for references but sometimes he himself don't provide a reference. Also one time he called a reliable secondary source moot while doing this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213677279] on the basis of ''&quot;This was already discussed before in the talk page, so that reference is moot. As for Fall of X, there's not a reference given to that issue.&quot;'' but you can search that that not any reference is declared moot in any discussion in [[Talk:List of X-Men members]]. He reverted the edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1167384151] done by @[[User:Tomahawk1221|Tomahawk1221]] on the basis of ''&quot;Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source''&quot;. He reverted the edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1168505738][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1168631372] having the same information (some more addition) done by @[[User:Ringardiumleviossa|Ringardiumleviossa]] and @[[User:Lipshiz|Lipshiz]] on the basis of ''&quot;Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source&quot;''. But when some of the information were removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210006942] by @[[User:Sewnbegun|Sewnbegun]] on the basis of ''&quot;Removing unreferenced content&quot;'', he reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210009006] them on the basis of ''&quot;Restored, I've read those issues before, and they do infact became trainees in those issues since they were working aside the X-Men in a field mission.&quot;'' I don't get why many editors need reference as per [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] for adding same information but one editor don't. That resulted to @Hotwiki making disruptive edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210042724] on the basis of ''&quot;these are unreferenced as well, we aren't going to cherry pick which unreferenced material to stay here here right?&quot;'' '''Also''', when several secondary sources were added on the basis [[WP:RS]] - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211422889&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1] on the basis of ''No there's NO need to add Multiple references in a single info, if there's already a VALID/reliable reference posted''.<br /> ** '''1.2:''' Reliable sources were finally provided regarding the above mentioned information in these edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169349294] by @[[User:Sookenon|Sookenon]].<br /> * '''2:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[MOS:GRAMMAR]]) Another of the authoritative attitude is seen during simple changes like fixing basic grammar/grammatical errors or expanding sentences. He reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1192149858] an edit done by @[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] to the previous version. Another similar edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211375774] (on the basis of ''&quot;Full stop is unnecessary because they are just words and not full sentence.&quot;'') was reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211376225] by @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] on the basis of ''&quot;its fine to add a period in table descriptions, especially the other descriptions have a period in them. We aren't to edit war with these simple changes, are we?&quot;''. Lastly, he kept reverting[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212819056][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212819769][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212819910][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212820201] changes regarding some sentences in [[List of X-Men members#Substitute X-Men teams|Subtitute X-Men teams section]] and only stopped until these edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212822711][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212823378] were made on the basis of ''&quot;Fixing basic grammatical errors, double check before making any edits to it&quot;'' and ''&quot;Adding extra and suitable information won't hurt (Like the big ones added in the X-Force and X-Club)&quot;'' respectively.<br /> * '''3:''' ([[WP:OWN]]) One of the most interesting edit was done here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1205235066] by @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] on the basis of ''&quot;No need to state the obvious&quot;''. He later himself made an edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212753131] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of ''&quot;fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as &quot;Muir Island X-Men&quot; thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute&quot;''.<br /> * '''4:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:CON]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] made this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208905355] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of ''&quot;Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well&quot;'' but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding [[Talk:List of X-Men members#Current members of the X-Men|current members of X-Men]] at that time.<br /> * '''5:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:OVERCITE]]) An IP user added[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211171452] months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] reverted the edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211174817] on the basis of ''&quot;Not all of those months are referenced.&quot;'' I thought [[List of X-Men members]] is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211369903] of numerous primary sources in [[List of X-Men members|that page]], which verge of [[Wikipedia:Citation overkill|citation overkill]].<br /> * '''6:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:RS]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] agreed to one thing from above point that List of X-Men members page is not the list of names of members of X-Men when @[[User:Sewnbegun|Sewnbegun]] added[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212720670][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212720997][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212721825] references to full names. You can clearly see that many of the names just had references added but some had changes made to them on the basis of those sources. Eventually those changes were also reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212752207] whole by him on the basis of ''&quot;Again, you don't really need to add a reference to every single name, especially those who have a Wikipedia article. This is a list of X-Men members. Not list of names of X-Men characters&quot;''. The question also arises why reverting those name which are clearly well sourced? because in fact these &quot;sourced reverted names&quot; were the only names not picked by from [[Talk:List of X-Men members#Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members.|Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members.]] which was in consensus - You can confirm it by checking these edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216709][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216790][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216976][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217413][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217684][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217918][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206218163][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219033][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219249][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220100][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220556][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220778][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220968][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221082][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221187] if you have time.<br /> * '''7:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:CON]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] also reverted the same edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215149738][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215230551] regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of ''&quot;Revert unnecessary changing of order&quot;'' and ''&quot;Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes.&quot;'' This edit war between him and @[[User:Sewnbegun|Sewnbegun]] resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, [[Talk:List of X-Men members#Drastically changing the order of the members|Drastically changing the order of the members]]. In the same discussion I had my opinion of ''This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic.'' While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#List formats|Manual of Style/Comics]] and [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Regarding some orders|answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun]]. The change was made[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215514179] but it was again reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215515294] on the basis of ''&quot;Still no talkpage consensus&quot;'' but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against).<br /> ** '''7.2:''' I wasn't going to mention above point since I think editors should wait for few days before making changes &quot;as per talk page&quot;, but I did it to show you the more of the authoritative attitudes of [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] as the same situation as above happened in this discussion [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer]]. 2 were in favour (@[[User:Storm1221|Storm1221]] and @Hotwiki) and 1 against ([[User:ToshiroIto7|ToshiroIto7]]). &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Teedbunny|contribs]]) 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;<br /> <br /> :You ''must'' notify users you are reporting on. Says so at the top of the page. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I already did. Thank you! [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Gone in 60 seconds, eh? ;) &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::See it again please. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Uh, I already did. Therefore [[Gone in 60 Seconds (2000 film)|the reference]]. ;) &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I still don't understand the reference but should I notify all the users mentioned or the only user reported on? [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Editors whose conduct is being discussed here should be notified of such. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 15:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Let me mention that There were TWO editors who were making drastic changes in the article. [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]] and [[User:Sewnbegun]]. Both are now blocked due to sockpuppetry and apparently they are connected. There's recently unusual activity from IP users who are making a ton of changes. These are already discussed in the talkpage of the article. I'm surprised that Teedbunny is bringing this up now? I'm not the one who reverted your most recent edit in the article. And Sewnbegun who I reported for sockpuppetry yesterday, is finally blocked today. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 15:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Also please read [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ringardiumleviossa]] and this is how [[User:Sewnbegun]] was blocked. How am I taking ownership of the article, when clearly [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]], [[User:Sewnbegun]] and a bunch of IP users making their 1st edit on Wikipedia, in the same article - was/were trying to manipulate the outcome of the article by jumping through different Ips/accounts. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::Also can Teedbunny simplify what am I being accused here. Yes I reverted edits that were unreferenced. But what unreferenced material in the article did I include in the article?From February to March 2024, there were a lot of drastic changes coming from two editors (who are both apparently involved in a sockpuppetry). There were making so many drastic changes and I've tried my best to discuss everything in the talk page. When I added &quot;names&quot; in the article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216709][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216790][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216976][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217413][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217684][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217918][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206218163][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219033][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219249][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220100][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220556][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220778][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220968][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221082][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221187]) it was from the article proposal of [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]] in the talk page or it was already in the article, I simply repeated names for consistency as several characters are mentioned more than twice. I don't recall anyone from the article, calling me out for unreferenced edits? [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::As for #5 (''An IP user added months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @Hotwiki reverted the edit on the basis of &quot;Not all of those months are referenced.&quot; I thought List of X-Men members is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition of numerous primary sources in that page, which verge of citation overkill''). I asked for references for the months, simply because there were too many months being added, and I was unsure, if those months were accurate anyway. At that time, the article was tagged at the top of the article, for needing more sources. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::As for #7. ''( @Hotwiki also reverted the same edits regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of &quot;Revert unnecessary changing of order&quot; and &quot;Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes.&quot; This edit war between him and @Sewnbegun resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, Drastically changing the order of the members. In the same discussion I had my opinion of This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic. While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in Manual of Style/Comics and answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun. The change was made[290] but it was again reverted[291] on the basis of &quot;Still no talkpage consensus&quot; but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against)''. How is there already a consensus? beside me and Sewnbegun. The only editor that made another comment in the talkpage was Teedbunny. The IP user who originally made the changed - is a suspected sockpuppetry that is connected to Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun. I was waiting for more editors to make a comment, (not just one editor). Sewnbegun reverted it again right after Teedbunny posted a comment, like as if Teedbunny made a consensus for the article. And I just didn't see it as a consensus yet.[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::As for #4 (''4: @Hotwiki made this edit[264] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of &quot;Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well&quot; but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding current members of X-Men at that time.''). What is the problem with that? Plenty of different editors in the past, have been bolding name of characters indicating that they are current members of the X-Men- without leaving a reference/citation for verification. I even addressed about this in the talkpage in its own section.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=1207714300&amp;oldid=1207710556] [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::As for 3 (''One of the most interesting edit was done here[263] by @Hotwiki on the basis of &quot;No need to state the obvious&quot;. He later himself made an edit[264] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of &quot;fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as &quot;Muir Island X-Men&quot; thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute&quot;.'') I don't see the issue of me adding the X-Men in section titles, and it was a non-issue if I remember correctly. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::Also, one more thing. [[List of X-Men members]] is now protected from persistent sockpuppetry until April 26, 2024. For those who are just seeing this, I hope you are aware of the sockpuppetry going on in that article in the last two months. I've done my best to cooperate with [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]] and [[User:Sewnbegun]] via talkpage of that article, even if both of them turned out to be the same person, that was also jumping through several IPs, in order to manipulate the outcome of that article. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 17:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::::{{Ping|Teedbunny}} how am I being called out here in ANI, yet you didn't mention the sockpuppetry suspicions towards {{ping|Sewnbegun}} especially if you read the talkpage of that article. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::As for 7, I stated it I think editors should wait for some more to get more editors to respond. You said &quot;'' I just didn't see it as a consensus yet&quot;'' because only two voted for it and one, who were you didn't. I must also point out why you didn't any see any consensus over [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer]] here when clearly there were two in favour (including you) and 1 against? Reverts[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;diffonly=1&amp;oldid=1173010598][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1173148124&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1201825159&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1] were kept being done as per [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|this discussion]]. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::Not all your reverts were unreferenced. There were many names which were perfectly sourced that were removed. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::I hope you don't ignore the fact that in the last two months I was dealing with 2 registered editors (Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun) and several IP users involved with sockpuppetry, in that 1 article. If you have read the entire talk page, you would know I have tried my best to keep my cool and worked with those editors as much as I could, especially with Sewnbegun despite my suspicions of them being the same person which turned out to be right. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 18:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::Also may I add, Sewnbegun was adding &quot;references&quot; to content that wasn't being challenged/questioned in the first place. No one was asking in that article for the name of Professor X, to be added by reference as his name was already in the article for more than ten years. As I explained in that article, a reference for the date/issue of membership was already enough. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::I am talking about the changes based on sources like for example see Magneto's name. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::Yes, I also noticed that and prepared another report on him, but beat me ahead by doing sockpuppet investigation yesterday. I also noticed the above points I mentioned in this report regarding you too. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::Also, you could have easily adressed this in the talkpage of that article or in my talkpage first, rather directly going to ANI. I haven't encountered you directly in the past, so this ANI report is comingoff as a surprise. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Is it just me, or is [[List of X-Men members|that article]] a prime example of why [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]] are rules? Looking through the talk page, I see a great deal of debating what constitutes a [[No true Scotsman|real]] X-men member. If reliable secondary sources verify, then the debate could be settled by citing them. If no such sources exist, I question how such a list fits in with the rest of Wikipedia. <br /> ::In any case, while I agree that Hotwiki can come off as having slight [[WP:OWN]] leanings, it doesn't seem to rise to the level of sanction, and I also note that I cannot find a discussion from Teedbunny attempting to address this on Hotwiki's talk page. Also, this [[WP:WALLOFTEXT|very long]] report doesn't make it easy to see at-a-glance what policies or guidelines Hotwiki is alleged to have broken, other than [[WP:OWN]], which seems to me to be a weak claim. Rather, everyone seems to be operating in [[WP:AGF|good faith]], and so this situation seems like a good candidate for [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], not administrative intervention. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]], please just read the last point (7 and 7.2) carefully. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Having reread both 7 and 7.2, I continue to see no wrongdoing. There doesn't seem to be a consensus; there's Hotwiki who discussed at length their opinion, a sockpuppeteer whose opinion is rightly discounted, and you with a single comment. Attempting to make the change once with ''per talk page'' is well within [[WP:BRD]]. Hotwiki reverting is likewise part of BRD. Frankly, even if there was a 2-on-1 split of opinions, [[WP:NOTVOTE|consensus is not a vote count]]. If there's still disagreement, perhaps posting a neutrally worded request to a related wikiproject would get a broader base of opinions. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 18:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I know this report is long which was the Main reason why I reported this to administrators.<br /> :::::* Along with [[WP:OWN]] @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] has also possibly broken these:<br /> :::::** [[WP:RS]] for point '''1'''.<br /> :::::*** Also, when several secondary sources were added on the basis [[WP:RS]] - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211422889&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1].<br /> :::::** [[MOS:GRAMMAR]] for point '''2'''.<br /> :::::** [[WP:CON]] for points '''4''' (no consensus at that time at all but still edits were made) and '''7'''.<br /> :::::*** While for point 7 why reverts[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;diffonly=1&amp;oldid=1173010598][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1173148124&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1201825159&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1] were made on the basis of [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|this discussion]] even if there was a 2-on-1 split of opinions?<br /> :::::** [[WP:OWN]] leading indirect [[WP:OVERCITE]] for point '''5''' which too only primary sources (detailed reason is given above).<br /> :::::[[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 19:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I'm wondering why you're expending so much effort on digging up months-old edits when you could try talking it out with Hotwiki. In any case, responding to your points... <br /> ::::::* Point 1: While I agree this shows Hotwiki leaning towards OWN behavior, I disagree that this represents a serious breach of [[WP:RS]]. Sometimes people fail to include a source. It happens. I've done it. Tag it and move on. The example you gave directly above likewise seems to be ''avoiding'' the [[WP:OVERCITE]] you mention later on. Maybe it'd be better with two references, maybe not, but that's a content dispute, not a behavioral one. <br /> ::::::* Point 2: MOS:GRAMMAR: Hotwiki's edits there seem to me to ''support'' the MOS, and were therefore justified. <br /> ::::::* Point 4: That's not violating consensus. I read that as Hotwiki pointing to the talk page for their reasoning. Again, part of [[WP:BRD]].<br /> ::::::* Point 5: I see no consensus on the talk page for the inclusion of all those sources. And again, I'm curious what you're looking for: In Point 1, you criticize Hotwiki for removing unnecessary material, but here you object to them leading to more references. I'd be okay with either, but you can't have it both ways. <br /> ::::::* Point 7: Not being Hotiwki, I won't speculate as to ''why'' the reverts were made. I will say that, glancing over that discussion, there were indeed 3 editors in good standing, with 2 opposed, 1 in favor of inclusion. Furthermore, Hotwiki alluded to [[WP:NODEADLINE]], which is a policy-based argument of &quot;Let's wait and see before we add it.&quot; I may be misunderstanding (this isn't my field) but even if that ''was'' against consensus, one violation ''seven months'' ago does not demonstrate ongoing disruption. <br /> ::::::Teedbunny, I'll be frank. In my view, there is no demonstration of any ongoing disruption. I strongly recommend you try ''talking'' to Hotwiki if their behavior is suboptimal, or otherwise following [[WP:DR]]. I also submit that it will be far easier than continuing this thread. Your reliance on tenuous or dated evidence makes this seem more like a grudge, which could lead to a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] if it continues. You seem passionate about this topic, so I hope you'll direct your energies to improving the encyclopedia; spending them at ANI would not seem to be be a productive use of your time. I've said enough in this thread, and will bow out and await other editors' input. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thanks, I will take in consideration in the future. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : I'd have to second {{np|EducatedRedneck}} that this doesn't seem to be an urgent issue immediately requiring administrator intervention. [[User:OverlordQ|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#171788;font-weight:bold&quot;&gt;Q&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:OverlordQ|T]] [[Special:Contributions/OverlordQ|C]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Issues should be discussed on the talk page before they're brought to ANI. This page isn't for disagreements on sourcing or reverts you don't like. The exception is that it ''is'' disruptive to revert if your only reason is that the previous version is &quot;[[WP:STABLE|stable]]&quot; or that someone [[WP:DRNC|didn't ask for consensus in advance]]. Removing unreferenced content is allowed, and best practice is not to add anything unless it's accompanied by a secondary source. Sock edits can always be reverted without question after the editor is conclusively determined to be a sock, although they're no longer subject to indiscriminate reverting if another editor restores the edit. Finally, the entries should ''not'' be based on comic book references per [[WP:PRIMARY]] policy #5: {{tq|Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.}} Editing to preserve a policy violation can be disruptive, but it should be discussed before we call it disruptive. I second everything that EducatedRedneck said in their initial response above. This should probably be closed so the issue can be discussed on the talk page, and this doesn't need to be an ANI complaint unless discussion fails and disruptive behaviors continue afterward. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]], do the [[List of X-Men members|list of X-Men members]] need more reliable secondary sources? [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Sca]]'s jokes on [[WP:FPC]] ==<br /> {{atop<br /> | status = <br /> | result = 36 hours in, and no consensus for anything, really, has emerged. Except, perhaps, that {{u|FatCat96}} could be a mite less hasty with the ANI button and that {{u|Cremastra}}'s dark day has not yet dawned. {{nac}} [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I suggest that [[User:Sca|Sca]] be topic banned from [[WP:Featured picture candidates]]. Sca has been making jokes on FPC instead of using it as a place to usefully collaborate with others. This is not a new practice, he has been doing it for several years, and despite being banned from [[WP:ITN/C]] twice for the same reason, he persists. Some examples include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/African_buffalo_with_oxpecker_(2)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215670769 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/African_buffalo_with_oxpecker&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=942747418 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/John_Cage&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214531087 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Happy_Chandler&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1184458215 here]. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :OK, I've deleted '''two''' &lt;small&gt;small&lt;/small&gt; humorous comments on nominations (''not'' those of ''FatCat69'') currently listed at [[WP:FPC]], leaving '''11''' serious and constructive comments of mine. I suppose user ''FatCat69'' might feel ill-disposed toward me because of (serious) critical comments I've posted about a few of his nominations, and I suggest that he and I agree not to engage in any continuing disputation, but seek to cooperate from now on. (Further, I would agree to a &quot;no contact&quot; direction covering the two of us.) -- [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 20:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I agree. I really don’t mind the criticism. After all, ''instructive'' criticism is how things get done. That said, it’s the jokes that bother me, I don’t think that FPC (and other areas) is the right place for joking, as it can sometimes come off as a bit disrespectful. I usually don’t mind humor, as long as it’s kept respectful and in the right place and time. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Personally I think the jokes are funny. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 21:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support''' no contact as this report seems unnecessary and is likely indicative of larger beef. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 20:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : '''Comment''' A German with a sense of humor, and an American without. The world has gone mad, I tell you, MAD! &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 20:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :OP, did you make any attempt to discuss your concerns with Sca? It appears that you skipped that step and jumped directly to proposing a tban. [[User:Lepricavark|L&lt;small&gt;EPRICAVARK&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;]]) 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I don't know if a FPC topic ban is needed yet, but it is disappointing that Sca appears to be repeating at another Main Page venue the same kind of behavior that got them partially blocked from [[WP:ITN/C]]. It certainly would not help any future appeal of that sanction. They previously promised to regard ITN as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive349#Appeal_of_partial_block_on_Sca &quot;serious business, not a venue for jokes or personal comments&quot;]; perhaps they should take the same attitude towards FPC as well. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 00:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I’ve got to be honest, but it’s because of Sca’s persistent nasty behavior that I have pondered on the concept of no longer contributing to FPC. It’s not just my nominations that he posts snarky comments on, it’s everyone. Very seldomly does he post actually useful comments. Unless he can get his act together, I feel that FPC would be a much better and more welcoming place without him. I also feel that the other users in this conversation are wholly ignoring the fact that Sca was blocked from ITN ''twice'' for this type of behavior. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 10:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I get that they are not treating the nominations with the seriousness you'd like to see, but it seems extreme to describe that as {{tq|persistent nasty behavior}}, as it seems pretty mild. Like others, I'm wondering why you didn't raise this with them at their talkpage instead of going straight to ANI. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 15:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::FatCat96 did raise the issue with them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASca&amp;diff=1196671107&amp;oldid=1195156259 here on January 18] but was immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sca&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1196671107 reverted by Sca]. A less confrontational tone from FatCat may have had more success, perhaps. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 15:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Yeah, that wasn't an attempt to discuss so much as it was a belligerent ultimatum. OP should have tried a more collegial approach. [[User:Lepricavark|L&lt;small&gt;EPRICAVARK&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;]]) 17:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Thanks, I chuckled at a few of these. If users get blocked ''for making harmless jokes'', it's dark day for Wikipedia. [[User:Cremastra|🌺 Cremastra ]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 20:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I think you should read [[WP:Humor]]. It states:<br /> ::* {{tq|Humor is sometimes misinterpreted}}<br /> ::* {{tq|Irresponsible humor damages Wikipedia's credibility}}<br /> ::* {{tq|Not everyone is looking for humor}}<br /> ::* {{tq|What one may find hilarious, another may find offensive}}<br /> ::I believe that Sca's jokes fall into several of these categories. These may not be true for everyone, but one should certainly remain mindful of these (which I think it's pretty obvious Sca does not) when commenting these &quot;humorous&quot; comments. One could easily misinterpret Sca's &quot;humorous&quot; comments as hateful, rude, or offensive. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 05:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[[WP:HUMOUR]] is an essay, and an absurdly stringent one at that. [[User:Cremastra|🌺 Cremastra ]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 12:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I don’t know… I think it makes some pretty valid points. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 12:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == [[User:Mann Mann]]'s vandalism on [[Central Asia]] ==<br /> <br /> I gave Mann Mann his first warning in edit history, second warning in my own user chat history, third warning on his own page. I noticed an entry that said Central Asia were predominantly Iranian before the 10th century. In the reference, this was a claim made by Ferdowsi in Shahnameh and only valid south of Amu Darya(disputed if it is even in Central Asia.) So I fixed that. That's the reference keeps trying to revert back to, it is from Ferdowsi in the reference and only refers to south of Amu Darya, not ALL of Central Asia. I added my own contributions towards Botai Culture and Tiele people. Mann Mann just keeps vandalizing ALL of my well-referenced edits by reverting. He should be at least banned from [[Central Asia]] and other related pages.<br /> [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This appears to be a content dispute, see the discussion on the Help Desk. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Mann_Mann_keeps_vandalizing_my_edits_in_Central_Asia._What_to_do?] TheLastUbykh has already been asked to read [[WP:VANDAL]], and to '''discuss the matter on the article talk page''', apparently to no effect. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I already started a talk in regarding that source by Ferdowsi. That should resolve that part. <br /> ::This is also about Mann Mann's vandalism of my other edits in that page. He down righted deleted my contributions in regarding Botai Culture and Tiele. <br /> ::&quot;The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. &quot; [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], you started a discussion (not a good faith discussion, but at least you started one) at [[Talk:Central Asia]], then immediately restored the disputed content, posted at Help Desk, posted a warning at [[User talk:Mann Mann]], then opened this thread, as well as repeating it at [[WP:AIV]] and [[User talk: Michael D. Turnbull]]. Mann Mann hasn't even edited since you started the discussion on the article talk page; you need to wait and give other editors time to respond before escalating matters so rapidly. (By the way, &quot;warnings&quot; in edit summaries are meaningless.) [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Look, I just did what he did. He didn't start a talk in regarding my edits either.<br /> ::And unlike him, I am new to this and went to help desk to proceed. I don't see how that's not in good faith. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], wait for Mann Mann to respond at the article talk page and work out the content dispute there. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], you also failed to notify Mann Mann of this discussion. Please go to the top of this page, read the large banner, and follow its instructions. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I did leave a message to his username talk page. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], '''read the red banner at the top of the page. Follow those instructions.''' [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::And I did that after reading your first post. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::When you said you'd left a message on Mann Mann's talk page, you had, but not the proper ANI notification. You posted that to their talk page at the same time that I repeated the statement about the instructions at the top of the page. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{nacc}} The OP had discussed this topic earlier at [[Wikipedia:Help desk#Mann Mann keeps vandalizing my edits in Central Asia. What to do?|the help desk]], and I haven't been impressed with how they've been navigating the problem. What started off as a content dispute over the reliability of some sources soon devolved into an accusation of [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] against Mann Mann, but looking at some of the target's relevant edits, such as [[Special:Diff/1215606808|this one]] as well as [[Special:Diff/1215695930|this one]], they were concerned about possible [[WP:OR|original research]] and other policy contraventions, something that is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia. —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::there is no original research, shahnameh by ferdowsi is the original historical document for the claim. keep going back to references between arabic and western researchers after 10th century, it keeps going back to this 'historical' document. the references they use, goes back to those same arabic and western researchers with this claim of Central Asia being Iranian majority. What we discuss is that Iranian languages eventually replaced Chinese as the franca lingua due to trade. And that they were Iranian-speaking, not Iranian majority besides lands south of Amu Darya, which I included in my edit that would include Sogdians.<br /> ::this was an easy discussion on a classroom setting but I don't have my phd(or a phd) to easily recognize to all these sources. so the time strain keeps getting bigger than the scope I initially thought it would be so I am questioning my commitment level at this point. I might add those to the talk page and wash my own hands off until someone nerdier comes along. <br /> ::anyways, there is no reason still for the removal of my Botai and Tiele contributions. that I considered a vandalism. he didn't just dispute those parts but removed my contributions unrelated to Ferdowsi. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 10:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Wikipedia is based on [[WP:RS]], not our own conclusions. You added info under citations that did not support it. This is still [[WP:OR]] / [[WP:SYNTH]]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 12:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::there is no personal conclusions, only a question of use of primary or secondary sources. secondary resources in academia, especially when those secondary resources use references that were secondary resources themselves from a time with less academic integrity. <br /> ::::again, this claim goes back to shahnameh, through following the references and going back to other articles and books published in 19th and 20th century that use shahnameh as a reference to try to push this claim. <br /> ::::[[shahnameh]] is the primary source. the main historical document of this long-standing and wrong claim, that has no prior basis before 10th century and contradicts earlier Chinese historical records that are also primary sources. period. this is what we study in our eastern asian studies departments. it is &quot;paris is the capital of France&quot; in the current mainstream Academic consensus. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 12:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You're proving my point. Please read [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 13:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> '''Comment''' Besides personal attacks, TheLastUbykh is also misusing sources per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Central_Asia#Mann_Mann_is_vandalizing_my_edits_in_regarding_Botai_Culture_and_Tiele_in_this_page.]. You don't need to know the Wiki rules to know that misusing sources is bad. [[WP:OUCH]]? --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> My reverts on [[Central Asia]] were justified. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215606808 the first revert], I restored the most clean/acceptable revision before the mess (including your edits). I did not restore my revision and I even restored the correct contribution that I reverted.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215263441][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215607017] In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215695930 the second revert], my mistake was not writing a better edit summary to convince you taking your concerns to [[Talk:Central Asia]], but the revert itself was the right decision. On the other hand, you started edit warring[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215714757] and launched a crusade/quest by calling me vandal.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215707854][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215714192][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215723939] You even used log-in/log-out method (editing as IP) to push your edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215492100] and targeting me.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215706954] Was I harsh? Maybe. But your [[Special:Contributions/TheLastUbykh|contributions]] show some kind of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. Also, your report and your comments are just [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. Yeah, I was a vandal since August 2012[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&amp;page=User%3AMann+Mann] that you discovered me. --[[User:Mann Mann|Mann Mann]] ([[User talk:Mann Mann|talk]]) 16:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Anyway, I don't edit/patrol Central Asia for a while because I'm not interested in working with [[Talk:Central Asia#Mann Mann is vandalizing my edits in regarding Botai Culture and Tiele in this page.|someone who doesn't even know how to open a discussion without harassment and personal attack]]. I let other editors reach a consensus. --[[User:Mann Mann|Mann Mann]] ([[User talk:Mann Mann|talk]]) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm very concerned that TheLastUbykh is trying to justify their edits, which means they will likely do it again, and thus get reported to ANI again. In these type of topics, we commonly have new users who make some sort of disruption and get blocked. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 15:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == NewImpartial - BLP discussion touching GENSEX ==<br /> <br /> I wanted to ask whether [[User:Newimpartial]] exceeded their [[WP:RESTRICT|editing restriction]] by participating in a BLPN discussion about Tim Hunt's alleged sexism or sexist comments about women in science and making more than two comments per day.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215544653][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215660109][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215672946][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215683633] This particular controversy would seem to fall under GENSEX as raised earlier at ANI by another user.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215377951] [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Addendum: I'm missing a diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215740145] [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 03:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Your last diff comes more than 24 hours after your first diff, though. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 03:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yes, but within 24 hours of the others. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 03:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{tq|they may however reply to questions provided the answer is reasonably short and they may add very brief clarifications of their own comments}}<br /> :Your links appear to be specifically two comments left in that discussion. And then two short replies to responses from others to those original comments. That appears to be perfectly within the wording of their editing restriction. [[User:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: dimgrey;&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;seren&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::What about the GENSEX topic ban, a separate restriction in itself? [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 02:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Wasn't that GENSEX ban regarding LGBT topics, particularly transgender topics and gender? Was it really meant to cover anything involving women and sexism in addition? Would that also include literally anything involving women's or men's rights? Feminism? Ect? I don't believe it was meant to be that broad, unless I'm misreading the prior discussion. [[User:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: dimgrey;&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;seren&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::That's why I asked. [[WP:GENSEX]] expressly references [[Gamergate (harassment campaign)]], which was about sexism in gaming. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 02:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::So it's...complicated. After doing some digging through the [[WP:ARCA]] archives, I came across a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 82#Clarification_request: GamerGate (March 2015)|GamerGate clarification request from March 2015]] about whether the topic of [[campus rape]] would fall under the then GamerGate discretionary sanctions. After reading the arbiter views from that request, and the two article revisions linked [[Special:PermaLink/1215781924#Tim Hunt|BLPN discussion]] I could see this content dispute plausibly being considered within the GENSEX content area, as it is dealing with remarks that were described as sexist, which would be considered a gender-related dispute.<br /> :::::However, despite the text of GENSEX stating that {{tq|Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people}} are the scope of the sanction, it's not immediately obvious from the four listed clarifications in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case (February_2021)|motion to transfer GamerGate to the GENSEX shell case]], nor my own personal experience editing within the content area that this would be in scope. Two of the clarifications (1 and 3) deal with transgender related disputes, and the other two (2 and 4) deal with disputes relating systemic bias and the [[WT:GGTF|Gender Gap Task Force]], and it's not immediately obvious from skimming the text just how broadly we interpret the term {{tq|gender-related dispute or controversy}}. By and large most of the disruption we see in GENSEX is restricted to content relating to trans and non-binary people and topics, with some spill-over to GamerGate and related articles. The last non-trans, non-GamerGate GENSEX sanction I can quickly spot in [[WP:AELOG]] was the semi-protection of [[Manosphere]] and [[Men Going Their Own Way]] in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#GamerGate_(superseded_by_Gender_and_sexuality)|June and July 2020]] respectively. If other editors agree with my reading of the 2015 clarification request, I'd say that this TBAN violation is a plausibly an accidental one. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 03:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I don't have an opinion on whether this violates any specific editing restriction, but I think it would be odd to say that content related to debates about systemic sexism '''don't''' fall under {{tq|gender-related disputes or controversies}}. Restricting the scope to the four clarifications would seem to open up a pretty big loophole in the topic, even if it's in a subsection that doesn't see a lot of admin action. [[User:CarringtonMist|CarringtonMist]] ([[User talk:CarringtonMist|talk]]) 12:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::&lt;p&gt;I have to agree with CarringtonMist, I didn't participate in any arbcom case and as a non-admin I don't have to be that familiar with the details. But I've always understood that it was decided in the GamerGate arbcom case that because it was primarily about harassment arising due to commentary sexism and portrayal of cis-women in games with criticism over feminism etc; with a less focus on other issues like LGB, race etc and other so called social justice issues, arbcom wanted to ensure that if similar issues cropped up in other areas they would be covered. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I mention cis-women and LGB, because AFAIK at the time there was only very little focus on transgender and non binary characters. So I'm fairly sure the concern was about issues like misogyny, sexism and the portrayal of women etc with the gender related wording and little to do with transgender issues. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Eventually the GamerGate decision was merged with the Sexology one which had dealt with transgender issues since it was decided it would be simpler to deal with them with one DS area. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It does seem to be true there has been little dispute outside of transgender related issues recently, but that applies even when we consider GamerGate until the recent blowup with Sweet Baby. Note there was a recent case which dealt with the restriction on MGTOW [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&amp;diff=1195025878&amp;oldid=1195025792#GalantFan] but outside of that from what I saw in 2023 until this year, the only non transgender related example was 3-5 stuff all to do with Brianna Wu. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also I had a quick look at the comments here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision&amp;oldid=645127421] seem to agree with my view about fears this sort of stuff would spread to other areas. I think the current extreme focus on transgender issues is sort of reflective of the modern world especially US-UK but Sweet Baby shows it's not the only possible area where stuff can happen. While Sweet Baby might be fairly tied to GamerGate, I don't think it's actually that easy to separate these sort of sexism issues even if the particular case of Tim Hunt is maybe somewhat disconnected. However it's the sort of thing where I suspect there could easily be a similar blow up especially if things had been different e.g. more recent, in the US and the person who made the comments had doubled down on them. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 17:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/p&gt;<br /> :::For the record, I looked again at the text of [[WP:GENSEX]] before posting, and didn't see anything relevant to the [[Tim Hunt]] discussion at [[WP:BLPN]]. <br /> :::(Also, I don't know whether {{u|GoodDay}} intended an oblique reference to me by raising his question at ANI, but if he did, that seems to me to be worth discussing.) [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::The question was for myself. As I was debating on whether or not to get involved in the content being discussed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :If this is considered covered by GENSEX, I propose that rather than sanction NewImpartial we narrow their topic ban to &quot;transgender issues, broadly defined&quot;. To the best of my knowledge, the issues that resulted in the topic ban did not extend beyond that, and I see no reason why they can’t participate in this debate and others like it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support'''. &quot;Transgender issues, broadly defined&quot; is broad enough. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 09:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support''' as well. The edits are plausibly in violation of the &quot;GamerGate part&quot; of GENSEX, but that's also clearly not what NewImpartial's topic ban was actually about. [[User:Endwise|Endwise]] ([[User talk:Endwise|talk]]) 09:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support''' an explicit narrowing of the topic ban as described above. The conduct that warranted the ban was in a specific area, and it doesn't make sense to impose a rule more broad than that. Edit-warring and bludgeoning behavior on articles about trans or anti-trans activists should not disqualify an editor from, e.g., wiki-gnoming edits to biographies of long-dead cis women mathematicians. [[User:XOR&amp;#39;easter|XOR&amp;#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&amp;#39;easter|talk]]) 16:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support''' narrowing the topic-ban. None of the discussion when the topic-ban was placed touched on any part of the topic area except transgender issues, so a ban that goes beyond that seems punitive. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 05:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose any action''' - I'm not certain if the page-in-question falls under the GenSex area. PS - My question was based on whether or not I wanted to get involved with the topic being discussed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose''', because the whole Tim Hunt discussion on Wikipedia has been a shambles dominated by forum-hopping, unpleasantness, bludgeoning, inability to listen, and attempts to get the other side banned. And to be clear I'm talking about behaviour on both sides of the argument. It has been so unpleasant that I dropped out, for fear of landing up here myself. Regardless of the good or bad motivation of the current ANI, it is vital that ANI is not permitted to become a weapon in a content dispute. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 13:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose''' per Elemimele, I shouldn't have peeked, I am on a break mainly because of this toxic environment. Though I did wonder myself whether perhaps a warning was warranted that this was a violation of the topic ban, albeit inadvertent. As I note above, ANI is being abused as a weapon to remove opposition. Intervention is badly needed to fix this toxic editing before it results in an arbcom case. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 13:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|ANI is being abused as a weapon to remove opposition}} [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_removal_of_NPOV_tag_by_JayBeeEll|Astonishing]]. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : '''Oppose''' action except for '''Support narrowing of topic ban'''. I voted against imposing this topic ban in the first place but if it's going to exist it should at least be targeted a little more narrowly than ''this''. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose action''' except for '''Support narrowing of topic ban'''. There's enough ambiguity here that if there is a TBAN violation, it's an entirely unintentional one. I also would support narrowing Newimpartial's topic ban to just &quot;transgender issues, broadly construed&quot; as that is more representative of the specific issues raised in the discussion that lead to it being placed. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :It seems pretty clear that participating in a discussion about Tim Hunt's sexism allegations fall squarely within {{tq|Gender-related disputes or controversies}}. That's been the scope of the topic area as far back as the Gamergate arbcom case, which included {{tq|any gender-related dispute or controversy}} as a separate item from Gamergate itself, along with people associated with either of them. There's also a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 122#Clarification request: Gender and sexuality|2022 ARCA]] initiated by {{u|Sideswipe9th}} that confirms the scope includes non-trans/nonbinary people, and those four numbered points are only there to preserve previous clarifications rather than being the whole scope. That said, I agree it seems plausible that this was a misunderstanding by Newimpartial. Absent any evidence of further violations, or that the edits themselves were disruptive, I don't think any sanction stronger than a reminder/warning is needed. As a side note, if {{u|Newimpartial}} would like to appeal part or all of their sanction, they should make a specific request in it's own discussion thread. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 21:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : I agree with others that this discussion is inside the locus of the CTOP, but also I think Newimpartial's behavior in the discussion has been exemplary and I think that the natural response to this pair of facts is the narrowing of the topic-ban. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support reminder/warning''' at most. '''Oppose narrowing of the topic ban'''. Broadly per the rationale provided by {{noping|The Wordsmith}}, above. Clearly within scope of the topic ban; and reasonably expected to be understood to be so. Unconvinced that skirting the fringes (from the inside) should result in reducing the scope. Behaviour in the linked diffs is verging towards that which resulted in the ban. Not particularly enamoured of the tone nor personal focus of this [[Special:Diff/1215740145|diff]]. But do not believe that the evidence presented warrants sanctions beyond a reminder/warning. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 01:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Hello, Rotary Engine. I have pasted the entirety of the diff you cite into the collapsed section here:<br /> {{Cot|content of diff Rotary Engine linked juat above}}<br /> Thomas B., you haven't produced any support for your opinion that &quot;Hunt is not sexist&quot; beyond your own interpretation of primary source opinions quoted by Fox. That simply isn't a reason to insert any such statment in the article, which appears to be your goal here.<br /> I know you believe that Hunt is not sexist, but that opinion simply is not relevant to article content which must be based on independent, secondary sources to the greatest extent possible. What is more, you insert into your latest comment the [[Gävle goat|straw goat]] question whether Hunt has &quot;hindered any female scientist in her career&quot; - which isn't really relevant to this article or even the controversy, as far as I can tell.<br /> Inserting editors' opinions into article text is a violation of [[WP:NPOV]] and also [[WP:BLP]]. Contrary to the impression some editors seem to hold, BLP policies do not encourage a treatment of living people that says the nicest thing possible about them, but rather they must be treated according to the [[WP:BALANCE]] of [[WP:HQRS]], and the current article appears to so so.<br /> {{cob}}<br /> ::I would appreciate, as a neurodivergent editor, if someone could explain to me what about the {{tq|tone}} or {{tq|personal focus}} of the diff seems problematic. Is it the use of the second person in the first two paragraph, for example? Or my word choice at {{tq|There simply isn't a reason}}? I am here to learn and to do better. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Your tone was proportionate, I think I would tone it similarly if I were you. People should be confronted over disruptive editing if softer means fail to carry the point across, which certainly has been the case here. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 12:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This seems like a stretch to put Tin Hunt's topic under a topic ban on GENSEX that was born from trans related topics. It seems that most here feel that the edits in question were not a violation of the tban and I suspect it's because most editors, like I do, see a big gap between the topics that resulted in the tban and the Tim Hunt topic. My proposed solution would be to say the GENSEX topic doesn't cover the Tim Hunt discussion. Alternatively perhaps the GENSEX topic should be split up a bit. Denying an accusation of sexism is quite a bit different than arguing if someone/thing is transphobic. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I agree that GENSEX should be split up just in general. Disruption about feminism, feminist issues, and sexism is not the same thing as disruption about LGBT issues. Editors with a history of disruption in one area can certainly contribute productively to the other. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:Springee|Springee]] I don't think the whole of [[:Tim Hunt]] falls under GENSEX; just the bits that relate to a {{tq|gender-related dispute or controversy}}. And, for mine, arguing if someone is sexist is ''very'' similar to arguing if someone is transphobic.<br /> ::@[[User:LokiTheLiar|LokiTheLiar]] A well phrased request at ARCA might result in such a split; though I would consider that on more than a few occasions, editors disruptive w.r.t. the feminism aspects are also disruptive w.r.t. the sexuality aspects. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Warning''' I've always considered based on the wording that contentious topic restriction is intended to apply to stuff like this, and so would think any topic ban from the whole area is the same. I have no comment on whether it's need, and if someone wants to ask arbcom to clarify/limit it to only the Gamergate style stuff I have no problem with that. Likewise I agree it might have made sense to limit NewImpartial's topic ban to only gender-identity and sexuality related issues, but that wasn't what we did. So until any of this happens, NewImpartial needs to stay away from the dispute. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Inappropriate comments ==<br /> <br /> Could an admin review these two comments here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn#March_2024] -[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 03:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> As well as this comment here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADreameditsbrooklyn&amp;diff=1206421399&amp;oldid=1201187430] (Context: [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/deez-nuts]) -[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 04:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brigham_Young&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215782221 this one]. The only reason I'm not blocking immediately is the tenure of the user. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''&lt;span style=&quot;color:#8b00ff;&quot;&gt;Eve&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#6528c2;&quot;&gt;rgr&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3f5184;&quot;&gt;een&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#197947;&quot;&gt;Fir&lt;/span&gt;''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 04:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Note this is one of the two comments I referred to above. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 04:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Perhaps [[Special:Diff/1215175271|&lt;this&gt;]] might have something to do with it, admittedly not the same days. &amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8093:5F01:AD1F:D79E:FFC5:945B|2804:F1...C5:945B]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:8093:5F01:AD1F:D79E:FFC5:945B|talk]]) 04:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I recommend ignoring this unless there is evidence of an ongoing problem. {{user|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} wrote &quot;this guy liked to fuck, huh?&quot; on an article talk page. That very inappropriate comment was quickly reverted. It relates to [[Brigham Young]] (1847–1877) who had at least 56 wives and 57 children. I would not write the comments seen at [[User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn#Stubs]] but they are ok. If there is some problem regarding edits at stubs, that problem should be spelled out. The glowing signature comment is again ok: it's an understandable reaction to an inappropriate signature. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The comment on the user talk page is concerning to me as I interpret it as disrespectful and it pertains to personal religious beliefs. Also the fact that the user the comment was directed towards is going through a difficult time right now — in a situation involving their religious affiliations — is a compounding factor for me, although it's unclear if Dreameditsbrooklyn was aware of this. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 05:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Maybe I'm being too dramatic; the user seems simply immature and not malicious after all. But still, comments like these have to stop. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 05:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The &quot;deez&quot; remark is an obvious reference to &quot;deez nuts&quot; memes which derive from the lyrics of a 30 year old [[Dr. Dre]] gangsta rap song that discusses a woman's facial contact with testicles while performing fellatio. It is an inappropriate allusion to use while interacting with another editor. The question to a self-identified LDS church member about what it feels like to be Mormon is creepy, intrusive and inappropriate. The comment about Brigham Young's enthusiasm for intercourse is unnecessarily profane, unproductive and provocative. None of these remarks was intended to help improve the encyclopedia, and instead serve to unnecessarily irritate people. I was inclined to block Dreameditsbrooklyn, but decided to ask for input from other editors, and a statement from Dreameditsbrooklyn. I would expect a commitment to refrain from such provocative comments in the future, since they do not help to improve the encyclopedia in any discernable way. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I sincerely apologize for these remarks. It will not happen again. I am sorry for causing other editors to waste their time addressing the matter. [[User:Dreameditsbrooklyn|Dreameditsbrooklyn]] ([[User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn|talk]]) 11:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Don't sweat it, I don't think you had bad intentions. But don't let it happen again though and hopefully we can all walk away from this having learned something; Dreameditsbrooklyn learning to be more professional, especially when it comes to sensitive personal matters like a user's religious beliefs, and myself having learned the history — in great detail — of the deez nuts meme. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 12:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Selo007 are using talk pages to attack BLPs ==<br /> {{user|Selo007}}<br /> <br /> * {{pagelinks|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability}}<br /> * [[Special:Diff/1215793401|Comment]]<br /> This does not contribute to the project--[[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 05:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Indef''' This person seems a key example of [[WP:NOTHERE]] - Wikipedia is not a place to obsess over microscopic details of photographs of BLPs. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I used Verifiability (V) and Neutral point of view (NPOV)<br /> *:unlike the editors<br /> *:Im currently requestion a second opinion based on bias [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 00:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::We used verifiability and NPOV. You used [[WP:BLP|BLP]] violations. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:default;color:#246BCE;&quot;&gt;Liliana&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;&quot;&gt;UwU&lt;/span&gt;]]''''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])&lt;/sup&gt; 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Still not blocked--[[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 22:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Clearly and unambiguously [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Seems to have mistaken Wikipedia for Reddit. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 00:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Indeffed for competency, IDHT, RGW, using WIkipedia as a forum, and imagining that Wikipedia evaluates sources based on close examination of someone's tattoos. This is a regular admin action, not an arbitration enforcement action. '''&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Arial;&quot;&gt;[[User:Acroterion|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black;&quot;&gt;Acroterion&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;[[User talk:Acroterion|&lt;span style=&quot;color: gray;&quot;&gt;(talk)&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 12:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Editor Rhain, Aquillion and Dumuzid missuing power to shut down peoples opinions. ===<br /> <br /> <br /> Missuse of [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view|NPOV]] and [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability|V]]<br /> On [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Baby_Inc.]] &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Selo007|contribs]]) 01:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;<br /> <br /> Ignoring fact given by other non elevated editors.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Using non verifiable information. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Using hearsay. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Taking one side. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Refuse to listen to other side. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Dont add factual information. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Locks talkpage so people cant dispute editors (not just me) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Would like a third opinion to check without relying on opinions from a newsarticle that is written by a arguably biased person.<br /> &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Selo007|contribs]]) 00:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;<br /> <br /> :{{ec}} @[[User:Selo007|Selo007]], you are '''required''' to notify editors when you take them to ANI. I have done so for you. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;'''—asparagusus'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#682&quot;&gt;(interaction)&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Asparagusus/Sprouts|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;''sprouts!''&lt;/sup&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Also, do you have any [[WP:DIFF|diffs]] that prove these editors have violated policies? Making a new section will not help with you potentially being blocked. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;'''—asparagusus'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#682&quot;&gt;(interaction)&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Asparagusus/Sprouts|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;''sprouts!''&lt;/sup&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Its all covered by people in talkpage<br /> :::Its very long to list all of them<br /> :::Some things include adding that harrassment started with attacks from SBI against an individual called Kabrutus, with evidence.<br /> :::And that the harrassmentclaims againt Kotaku can not be verified and instead added as facts. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 01:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Instead they insist on using quotes from a journalist that has a questionable racist agenda (evidence) and that tries to harass and doxx people for writing hitpieces. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 01:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::thank you [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 01:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I guess I have so much power that I can't keep track of it all, because I don't recall being able to lock talk pages! I am pretty powerful when it comes to hearsay, though, if I do say so myself. The gravamen of the complaint here seems to be that I like to stick to Wikipedia's policies of preferring reliable secondary sources, and to that accusation, I admit my guilt. Cheers, all. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I take the blame. I forgot to mention that to him [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 02:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::&lt;small&gt;[[User:Trade|Trade]], that's okay! They should've read the guidelines and huge banner anyways. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;'''—asparagusus'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#682&quot;&gt;(interaction)&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Asparagusus/Sprouts|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;''sprouts!''&lt;/sup&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (reposting because I accidentally made half of ANI smalltext haha)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :For the record, I am not an administrator and (obviously) was not the one who ECPed the talk page; although I queryed ArbCom to make sure it could happen, it occurred independently of that. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> There's nothing actionable here, and this report by Selo007 appears to be an abuse of process that frankly merits [[WP:BOOMERANG]] sanctioning. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :At it's core there is an fundamental misunderstanding on how Wikipedia articles are supposed to work and how RS works on Wikipedia [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 02:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * As far as I can tell, I've never interacted with Selo007 before directly, but I'd agree a boomerang of some sort (at least a topic-ban from this topic area) is called for based on their repeated BLP violations, eg. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215797429&amp;oldid=1215793401&amp;title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Reliability][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215781814&amp;oldid=1213261466&amp;title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Reliability][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215413986&amp;oldid=1215409250&amp;title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.]; they seem to be basing this on YouTube videos (the second-to-last diff) and Twitter posts (the last diff). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215799757&amp;oldid=1215732825&amp;title=User_talk:Blaze_Wolf This] isn't great either. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Feel free to block me, im not that active anyways. &lt;br&gt;<br /> :All i want is for third opinion to take a second look at that wikipedia page since its riddled with reliable sources (Kotaku is case to case and the one writing the article should be taken under consideration when the person its doxxing, harrassing, asking people for fights and is using questionable racist slurs)<br /> :* Using hearsay such as &quot;Sweet Baby's employees faced harassment and attempted doxing in response to the backlash,&quot; when there is no evidence of such its a breach of NPOV and V.<br /> :* &quot;Others who faced harassment included Kotaku's reporter who first highlighted the backlash&quot; also hearsay and breach of NPOV and V.<br /> :* &quot;Ash Parrish felt the Discord members were not attempting to &quot;create meaningful change for their cause&quot; but were &quot;simply there for the vibes, rancid though they are&quot; again, should be questioned if its a reliable source when Parrish ha admitted she writes articles based on the own agenda even if its not true, even going against her editors But i guess you will just use BPL to shut that down.<br /> :* &quot;Bryant Francis urged Steam and Discord to clarify their policies to avoid similar incidents and further harassment.&quot; again, no evidence of harrassment.<br /> :* There’s no mention it started with Sweet Baby inc employee Chris Kindred starting an actual online harassment campaign to cancel the Steam Sweet Baby Inc. Detected group to get them shut down and attacking an individual to harm them.<br /> :* There is no mention of Chris Kindreds twitter account getting blocked by Twitter for said harrassment.<br /> :[[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 06:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I can assure you, this noticeboard [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Eyes needed at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.|is]] [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive479#User:TE(æ)A,ea. reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Page protected)|well]] [[WP:ANI#Discriminatory behavior from Mechabot5 at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.|aware]] of the article. The examples you're referring to are not &quot;hearsay&quot;, and they ''do'' have &quot;evidence&quot;: the references. Wikipedia is not a courtroom. We don't need to see [[WP:PRIMARY|examples of harassment]] to determine if someone was actually harassed (that would be [[WP:OR|original research]]); if [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] say they were, then we say they were. The same goes for Kindred's activities: if they are detailed in reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]] sources, then they will likely be detailed on Wikipedia as well; until then, there is no place for that information here.{{pb}}If you feel the article is unbalanced or incorrect, that's fine, but unless you can point to actionable changes based on policy and guidelines—and especially supported by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]—then there's nothing to be done. Wikipedia is not the place to [[WP:RGW|right great wrongs]]; it is just here to report information as the sources do. If those sources are wrong, it's not our job to correct them. Nor is it our place to [[Special:Diff/1215799757|make]] [[Special:Diff/1215967983|claims]] about [[WP:BLPREMOVE|other people]], no many how strongly [[WT:FACT#Alyssa Mercante|you disagree]] with their tattoos or personal tweets. &lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;– [[User:Rhain|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #008;&quot;&gt;'''''Rhain'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Rhain|☔]] &lt;small&gt;([[he/him]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 07:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Your own page [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] states &quot;editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, '''and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering'''<br /> :::The writer of the Kotaku article is very biased.<br /> :::Questionable sources also says &quot;Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for '''checking the facts''' or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and '''publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist''', that are promotional in nature, or '''that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions'''. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.<br /> :::Any reliable sources that people try to add are shut down by the same editors of the page that is beeing critisized.<br /> :::When one is added, they want another, moving the goalposts. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 09:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::And where exactly, beyond some forum for drool-covered semi-literate conspiracy theorists, would we find evidence that Kotaku content is &quot;widely acknowledged as extremist&quot;? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Isnt Kotaku supposed be &quot;case by case&quot; and not Kotaku as a whole.<br /> :::::The writer of the article is known for having extremist views.<br /> :::::WOuld like to be clear im not for extremism be it right or left. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 09:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Please either provide actual verifiable evidence, '''citing published reliable sources''', that either Kotaku, or one of its contributors, is &quot;widely acknowledged as extremist&quot; or withdraw the allegation immediately. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::I would say saying &quot;you cant be racist against white people&quot; is quite an extreme opinion. [[Special:Contributions/2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F|2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F]] ([[User talk:2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F|talk]]) 00:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Your opinion is not a &quot;published reliable source&quot;. &lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;– [[User:Rhain|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #008;&quot;&gt;'''''Rhain'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Rhain|☔]] &lt;small&gt;([[he/him]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::As Rhain, says, of course, but substantively, this is actually a known opinion, and often provokes outrage without full understanding. The basic concept is that while people can be racially prejudiced against white people, the lack of a systemic power structure means it is not 'racism.' No one has to agree with that, but I would not describe it as an extreme opinion. A fuller discussion can be found here:[https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism]. Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *What power? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 07:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:With apologies to David Bowie, the power of voodoo! [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 14:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm a necromancer myself. And you? '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:default;color:#246BCE;&quot;&gt;Liliana&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;&quot;&gt;UwU&lt;/span&gt;]]''''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])&lt;/sup&gt; 21:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Blocked user spamming their own talk page ==<br /> <br /> <br /> *{{userlinks|YuseraRCL}}<br /> Recently blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —[[User:Bruce1ee|Bruce1ee]][[User talk:Bruce1ee|&lt;sup&gt;''talk''&lt;/sup&gt;]] 09:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :YuseraRCL added advertising spam to their talk page three times after their advertising block. I've removed their Talk page access. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: tahoma;&quot;&gt; — [[User:CactusWriter|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#008000&quot;&gt;Cactus&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CC5500&quot;&gt;Writer &lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:CactusWriter|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 16:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == MateuszCOMPANY - edit warring, copyvios ==<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|MateuszCOMPANY}}<br /> <br /> This user has taken ownership of [[FSO Polonez]]. While their English is limited that is easily fixed. However, they also insist on uploading a loooong list of how many cars were exported to each country, which I consider [[WP:CRUFT]]. More problematic, they've also uploaded dozens of copyvio images to the Commons and insist on placing them in the article. I started a [[:Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_MateuszCOMPANY|deletion request at Commons]], but it moves slowly and the user also has problems with [[WP:CIVIL]] in my estimation.<br /> <br /> Requests to heed [[WP:BRD]] are ignored, their only response so far was {{tq|Please find something else to do. I spend my time and knowledge to do something good for Wikipedia and people which want draw knowledge. If you have problem with that, report it to administration}} and continuing to restore their edits. So here we are. &lt;span style=&quot;background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;&quot;&gt;[[User:Mr.choppers|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#FDEE00;&quot;&gt;'''&amp;nbsp;Mr.choppers&amp;nbsp;&amp;#124;&amp;nbsp;'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Mr.choppers|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#FDEE00;&quot;&gt;✎&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 12:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::User continues to edit-war and is immune to reason. [[User:Ybsone|YBSOne]] ([[User talk:Ybsone|talk]]) 21:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::And still edit warring past final warning. Warned by 4 users. [[User:Ybsone|YBSOne]] ([[User talk:Ybsone|talk]]) 21:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 194.66.191.22 vandalising over 20 years, requesting perma-block ==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[User:194.66.191.22|194.66.191.22]] (HOPEFULLY I DON'T MESS UP AND POST ALL OF HIS USER TALK PAGE MESSAGES AGAIN) has been vandalising [[User talk:194.66.191.22|over a 20 year period]], and it even shows the old block notices! I'd like this IP to be perma-blocked. [[User:Waylon111|Waylon]] ([[User talk:Waylon111|was]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Waylon111|here]]) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :We don't permanently block IPs. That IP is registered to a college in the UK, as noted on their talk page. We tend to get intermittent disruptive edits from schools (as well as public libraries, Dunkin Donuts wifi, etc.) and it's not uncommon for elementary and high school IPs to be blocked for long periods of time because of this, but I would be hesitant about placing a lengthy block on a post-secondary institution over occasional vandal edits, as there's a chance that the students might be able to contribute something of value someday. [[User:Spicy|Spicy]] ([[User talk:Spicy|talk]]) 16:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Last edits were from February 1, so there's nothing actionable here at all, and they had already been warned for those edits, so your re-warning was pointless. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:SergeWoodzing]] repeated incivility at [[Talk:Where is Kate?]] ==<br /> <br /> I've stopped editing this topic area, but I can't help notice {{u|SergeWoodzing}}'s comments at [[Talk:Where is Kate?]] are breaching [[WP:CIVIL|civility policy]] and have been downright rude and unconstructive. SergeWoodzing has not edited the article once, but has posted several talkpage comments including:<br /> # {{tq|'''Shame on all of you''' who have tried to exert your own prissy importance over the Princess of Wales...'''The article must be deleted''' if you all have a single bone of decency and propriety in your bodies. With this article, English Wikedia descended to the level of the tackiest, sleaziest, most deplorable and digusting tabloid press. '''Shame on you who did that!'''}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhere_is_Kate%3F&amp;diff=1215105957&amp;oldid=1215103490 source], a comment later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2024_March_21&amp;diff=1215170208&amp;oldid=1215161835 repeated] in the DRV discussion)<br /> # {{tq|'''Oppose''' all of this. '''Delete this article!''' One brief paragraph in the article on the princess will suffice, rather than all this shameful disrespectful gossip fanaticism.}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhere_is_Kate%3F&amp;diff=1215354727&amp;oldid=1215346312 source], in reply to a requested move)<br /> # {{tq|<br /> '''The existence of this article is a horrifying embarrassment to Wikipedia!''' The question has been answered. The article title is obsolete and reads like some sort of nasty BLP harrassment, a persecution of the ill woman covered. '''WAKE UP PEOPLE''' and change this '''NOW!'''}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhere_is_Kate%3F&amp;diff=1215849769&amp;oldid=1215838763 source])<br /> The emphases are in the original. Were it not for the third comment having been posted today, suggesting continued disruption, I would not have felt compelled to file this ANI.<br /> <br /> I respect that SergeWoodzing is a highly experienced editor. Their concerns with the article are not only valid, but have been expressed several times in different venues by a broad cross-section of editors. The article is currently pending deletion review, after which it will most likely return to AfD. Nonetheless, these repeated comments feel unnecessarily uncivil and disruptive to editors working on the article in good faith.<br /> <br /> Insofar as this topic area is concerned, SergeWoodzing is [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Consider, for example, the second comment above: saying 'delete' in an RM discussion is just unhelpful, and also doesn't square with their third comment on the article's title. SergeWoodzing is experienced enough to know that these comments are best expressed at AfD, and general shaming isn't constructive, let alone when it is repeated multiple times. To that effect, I'd like to suggest a topic ban on [[Where is Kate?]] and the article talk page, while encouraging the editor to contribute, in a civil manner, to any future AfD or related process concerning the article. [[User:IgnatiusofLondon|IgnatiusofLondon]] (&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:85%;&quot;&gt;he/him&lt;/span&gt; • [[User talk:IgnatiusofLondon#top|☎️]]) 16:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Kind of hesitant to get on someone for being too vocal about raising valid BLP concerns, but SergeWoodzing's outbursts are becoming unhelpful [[WP:OWN]]ership. That said, I'm not sure a topic ban is super necessary while the deletion discussions are ongoing. Others may disagree with my take here, but I don't get the feeling that the impact of his actions is actually disrupting the process in any significant way other than perhaps being annoying to read. {{yo|SergeWoodzing}} -- you've made your position sufficiently clear. Please tone it down and maintain civility. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 19:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you! I never could have dreamed of experiencing anything so embarrassing and disagreeable and shameful, after all these years of being a proud contributor, as the way English Wikipedia has adopted the same methods and tone as the sleaziest tabloids in dealing - with the utmost disrespect - with the Princess of Wales and continuing intentionally to do so after she disclosed that she is seriously ill. To my knowledge I have never attacked any user by name, having given my opinion about shame to be taken at will by whomever chooses to to feel targeted and ignored by anyone who feels faultless. I believe that any article like [[Where is Kate?]] about a living person, no matter whom, is clearly denigrating and must be deleted without further delay. Aware of stretching text guidelines with capital letters and bold type, in my desparation to get all the many good users to react and act, I am willing to apologize sincerely for that part of it. I feel no need to comment again on those articles beyond these words. Whatever more I might have to say can never have a more constructive effect that what I already have tried to do. If it can be considered disruptive to object as vehemently as possible (i.e. without personal attacks or foul language) to very serious BLP problems, that is beyond my comprehension of one of the Wikimedia Foundation's most important rules. Sincerely, --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 20:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::PS the fact that I have not otherwise participated on these articles or talk pages, not even read most it all, has only been due to my abject fear, if seeing more than I already had, that I would be driven even more crazy than this. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 20:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Just so that I don't come across as sneaky or underhanded, I wish to put on the record that I thanked [[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] for edit number 3 above. I am no royalist (my genuine first reaction on seeing this article was to ask, &quot;Kate who?&quot;), but I too am embarrassed to be associated with an encyclopedia that has such an article. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Question''' Is this a pattern or an isolated incident? &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 04:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *[[Talk:Where is Kate?]] has a total of six comments by SergeWoodzing. None of them violate [[WP:CIVIL]] or anything else. I understand that it might be upsetting to know that someone on the internet disagrees with you, but six comments is pretty reasonable by comparison with many cases reported here. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Given that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the 'Where is Kate?' article is both a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy and an unmitigated crock of shite, it would be grossly improper to sanction anyone who points this out. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 10:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;small&gt;Perhaps they should get a Royal barnstar? [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 10:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *And I really don't get this obsession with British royalty by Americans, which is the only thing I can think of that both led to this article being created and to it being kept at AfD. Surely you/they got rid of kings about 250 years ago, and we Brits should be the only ones bothered about them? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC) {{small|P. S. I remember visiting America when the dispute between Charles and Diana came to light and those few people who believed me when I said that I didn't know either of them personally thought that I must have an opinion about the issue.}}<br /> *:Yes it's certainly the Americans' fault when your favorite family acts suspiciously and your tabloid culture subsequently makes a spectacle of it. They should really know better than to pay attention to you. The untold death wreaked in the name of that family really was all so long ago, it's just terrible they're now being gossiped about on the internet. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865|2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865]] ([[User talk:2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865|talk]]) 01:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Gossip about them all you like on the Internet, but that doesn't make what you are gossiping about a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. And, as I said above, they are far from my favourite family. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *SergeWoodzing is being vocal but is not being disruptive and no action is needed.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *The remarks complained about all seem to be fair comment to me. The proper place for an article such as this is in a tabloid newspaper, not an encyclopaedia. All that is displayed by SergeWoodzing is a bit of passion for maintaining some sort of quality standards in Wikipedia{{snd}}which is surely a desirable quality in any editor. [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] ([[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|talk]]) 22:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Sock/meat-puppetry and COI concerns regarding [[User:Guswen]] ==<br /> <br /> [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guswen|This SPI]] has been open for a couple weeks, and while I'd normally be inclined to let the specialists in such investigations get to it when they get to it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FGuswen&amp;diff=1215887284&amp;oldid=1215690899 there is a new COI concern] that, I believe, makes the situation more pressing and also suitable for having attention called to it here. [[User:XOR&amp;#39;easter|XOR&amp;#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&amp;#39;easter|talk]]) 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :In addition to sock-puppetry and COI issues, there's also recent edit-warring going on at [[Assembly theory]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assembly_theory&amp;action=history history]). I second the request for administrator attention! --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:LeeWeathers1986AV]] reported by [[User:Mvcg66b3r]] ==<br /> <br /> Disruptive editing; edit warring; uploading logos with no source or licensing info. Initially reported at [[WP:AIV]] but rebuffed.<br /> <br /> Logo examples:<br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Univision_Washington_DC_2019.png]<br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMDO-CD_(2021).png]<br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMDO-CD_(2021)29.png]<br /> <br /> Reversions of my removal of said logos: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WFDC-DT&amp;diff=1215888242&amp;oldid=1215887604] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WFDC-DT&amp;diff=1215890345&amp;oldid=1215889095] [[User:Mvcg66b3r|Mvcg66b3r]] ([[User talk:Mvcg66b3r|talk]]) 19:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :More sourceless logos: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyla_in_the_loop_logo.webp] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KFRE_2024.webp] And they're refusing to respond to my warnings on their talk page. I think this user's [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:Mvcg66b3r|Mvcg66b3r]] ([[User talk:Mvcg66b3r|talk]]) 03:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :: Most of those logos can be tagged {{tl|PD-textlogo}}. He is overusing the thank function, which is causing friction, so I left him a note about this. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 19:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Thomas B forum-shopping, circumventing page ban, refusing to drop the stick ==<br /> <br /> About a month ago, as an outcome of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207014593 ANI thread], [[User:Thomas B]] was page-blocked with strong consensus from pages [[Tim Hunt]], [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], [[Online shaming]], [[Talk:Online shaming]] for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]], [[WP:STONEWALL|stonewalling]], [[WP:BLUDGEONING|bludgeoning]], [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]], and [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING|forum shopping]] over the topic of Tim Hunt's 2015 controversy.<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, after the blocking and a monthly hiatus, the first edit Thomas B made to Wikipedia was the creation of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt yet another thread] about Tim Hunt, for the second time on [[WP:BLPN]] already. The thread resulted in another editor getting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#NewImpartial_-_BLP_discussion_touching_GENSEX reported to ANI].<br /> <br /> Comments made by Thomas B indicate an intention to continue participation and failure to understand why own behavior is disruptive. Here's two examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomas_B&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214802498] &quot;{{tq|I won't be participating '''too actively''' in any further discussion.}}&quot; and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214880952] &quot;{{tq|I looked it up before doing it. Because I'm blocked (not topic banned), this is actually '''perfectly fine'''.}}&quot; (boldings mine). &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NicolausPrime|contribs]]) 20:04 27 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :He wasn't ''banned'', he was [[WP:PB|blocked]] from 4 pages. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :[[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Article_ban_or_page_ban]] uses the term &quot;page ban&quot;, but I may be missing something so I changed this as you suggested. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You may have missed [[WP:BP|the blocking policy]]. Note that the [[User Talk:Thomas B#February 2024|notice]] on his talk page says &quot;blocked&quot;, not &quot;banned&quot;. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to get around his block. As such, both the quotes supplied seem reasonable to me. How is his participating in the discussion at BLPN disruptive? Has he reverted anyone (or was accusing him of {{tq|edit warring}} a mistake)? Could you elaborate on the forum shopping accusation? <br /> ::I can see an argument for bludgeoning, however; Thomas B had 20 replies out of 60 comments at the time of this post. More to the point, in his opening statement to the BLPN thread, he writes, {{tq|For (somewhat doggedly) insisting on this [change], I have been indefinitely blocked from editing the page myself. I bring it here in the hope that others will take a look.}}. That sounds to me like it's very close to [[WP:PROXYING]]. Combined with their [[WP:IDHT|refusal to listen]] to other editors telling them that what they're doing is bad, I think an argument could be made for their editing being disruptive. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 21:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'm not sure it's quite that simple. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207014593#Proposal_for_page_ban The original proposal] was for a &lt;s&gt;topic&lt;/s&gt; ''page'' ban, explicitly, with at my count 9 !votes in support and 3 in opposition. When the discussion was closed, however, it was closed as a &quot;block&quot;, despite the proposal having been for a ban and seemingly gained limited consensus for doing so. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Maybe I'm missing something. The section you linked was for a page ban. {{tq|To avoid spending even more time on this, I propose for Thomas Basboll to be '''page-banned''' from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages per above evidence.}} (Bolding mine.) Which, granted, means confusing a block and a ban is more understandable, but 1) the only talk of topic bans I see in that discussion is ''opposing'', and 2) even if the close was improper, I hardly think we can sanction an editor for violating a restriction that was never formally imposed, could we? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::That's my mistake -- I said topic, but meant page (edited to fix). Regardless, I agree with your point.[[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thomas B is forum-shopping because: first, after an edit war, there was an [[WP:NPOVN]] discussion started by [[User:LokiTheLiar]]. After this discussion and [[Talk:Tim Hunt]] reached a consensus Thomas B didn't agree with, Thomas B started a new thread on [[WP:BLPN]]. In the meanwhile Thomas B was reported to [[WP:ANI]], which prompted an RfC about the contentious section's content and later also the page ban (or however this should be called, I'm lost). The RfC later concluded. However Thomas B, instead of accepting the now-RfC-backed consensus, created a second [[WP:BLPN]] thread. As far as my knowledge goes, this should constitute forum shopping. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you for elaborating; I appreciate you making things clearer for me. I can see where you're coming from re: Forum Shopping. I still feel like, unless it's been done many times, the better first step is to tell the editor, &quot;Hey, this is Forum Shopping, don't do it.&quot; The solution that allows productive editing with the minimum of administrative intervention is often the best one, after all. If he continues to forum shop, then there's a solid case (with a warning!) to point to. That said, in the context of the other issues in that BLPN thread, it does make a compelling reason for a topic ban. Thanks again for elaborating! [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Thomas B was warned about own behavior multiple times, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214873854 after the page ban], and the previous ANI thread should have sent a strong signal that raising the same issue over and over again in multiple threads across multiple pages is sanctionable. The page ban vote was without consensus at first, until it changed because the disruption continued. It was all gradual, there definitely were many occassions for Thomas B to change course. I can try to be more eager to post warnings to user talk pages next time something like this happens, but this comes with its own set of problems. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Statement by Thomas B ===<br /> <br /> I thought that S Marshall's close of the RfC was sensible. I interpreted it as '''requiring''' (&quot;In practice '''the only way''' that I can see to do this...&quot;) a proportionate expansion of the rest of the article. Since I had by then already been blocked, I could not myself contribute to this work, but watched on the sidelines.<br /> <br /> After about a week, it seemed clear that the editors working on the article were ignoring Marshall's advice and had settled on a version in which the event would occupy over 20% of the article. I then checked whether a page block implies a topic ban, found it did not, and therefore raised the issue on BLPN. Since then, I have posted only in response to other editors, in many cases because they asked questions or wanted sources.<br /> <br /> While I'm happy to grant that this could have happened in any case, the immediate effect of my intervention appears to be to have brought the controversy section down to under 15% of the total word count, at least for the time being, with some editors adding material outside the section and others trimming it a little. It has certainly not led to any disruption of the article or its talk page (i.e., it has not attracted disruptive editors nor stoked up controversy there). While I still think the content decisions are unwise and contrary to BLP policy, work there seems to be proceeding in a calm and orderly manner.<br /> <br /> Editors who simply want to improve the article are entirely free to ignore me. I do not contact them on their talk pages and I have not appealed my block. The only nuisance I'm causing seems to be mediated by actions like this proposal for a topic-ban and (remarkably) a site-ban. Obviously, I would appeal any such action, leading to more time wasted by administrators, perhaps even arbitration. As in the case of the original block, this all seems very over-the-top to me.<br /> <br /> Finally, I want to say that part of the problem is that I've been away from protracted controversies here for a long time, and there appears to have been a change in the way content disputes are resolved now. In particular, I was suprised to be blocked not by '''policy''' but by '''consensus'''.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScottishFinnishRadish&amp;diff=1207382381&amp;oldid=1207380789] Most of the people who contributed to that consensus were also involved in the content dispute. It does really seem like a group of editors showed up on an article to which I have made substantial contributions[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Tim_Hunt] over many years[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Thomas+B&amp;page=Tim_Hunt&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max=], took it over and forced me out, because there was '''one thing''' they wanted to make sure the article said. I don't remember it working that way in the past.<br /> <br /> Anyway, thanks for hearing my side. I hope it is clear that my aim here is, not to be annoying, but to ensure the intergrity of Wikipedia's BLP article on Tim Hunt and, of course, in line with our policy, to prevent its subject any unnecessary pain. Best,--[[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 06:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Proposal: topic ban ===<br /> <br /> I propose for Thomas B to be topic-banned from the subjects of Tim Hunt and Online shaming, broadly construed, replacing the previously mentioned page bans. The purpose of this ban is to prevent any further skirting around the page ban.<br /> <br /> * '''Support''' as proposer. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' per my above comment. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' as my interpretation of the original block was that there was consensus for a &lt;s&gt;topic&lt;/s&gt;page ban before, and there's no indication that anything's changed. Extending that to a topic ban across a narrow set of topics isn't an unreasonable next step [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Support: the interaction [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&amp;diff=1215873249&amp;oldid=1215863476 here] is illustrative of the fact that Thomas B simply does not exhibit the capacity to comprehend that anyone could hold views different from his own on this matter; this is incompatible with constructive discussion and consensus-forming. Moreover, it is clear that Thomas B lacks the self-control necessary to stop bludgeoning discussions on this issue. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' I think Thomas B's concerns regarding the Tim Hunt page are legitimate. That doesn't mean they are the consensus view but I can see how they can make their case in good faith. I would suggest they back away and let others reply and if others don't then they need to accept that they don't have consensus. I think this sanction is counter productive as it tells someone who is concerned about a BLP issue that they should just shut up and not have brought things up. I get that sometimes editors feel like someone is objecting too much. However, editors are also free to not reply. No one is going to think a 3:1 (or what ever it actually is) consensus against Thomas B's proposed changes will magically be closed as &quot;consensus for&quot; if Thomas B is allowed to have the last word. So long as the discussion doesn't leave BLPN (a legitimate place for the concern) and the discussion is civil I don't see why this needs admin action. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:We had extensive discussions on [[WP:NPOVN]], [[WP:BLPN]], [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], [[WP:ANI]], the RfC, and now yet another one on [[WP:BLPN]]. The previous BLPN thread was started by Thomas B after NPOVN reached a consesus against Thomas B's position. The current BLPN thread was created by Thomas B after the RfC concluded also against this user's position. Which is [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. In every case the discussion concerned the same thing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hunt#2015_controversy a single subsubsection] in Tim Hunt's biography, and each time consensus emerged against Thomas B. Which is [[WP:STICK]]. In every discussion Thomas B's made an excessively large amount of posts as compared to others, often reiterating the same arguments. Which is [[WP:BLUDGEONING]].<br /> *:This has been going on for over a month and has been draining a considerable amount of attention from me and other editors. Isn't this disruptive and draining our community resources? Are you sure that this doesn't need admin action, and this typical topic-ban sanction would be as far as ''counter productive''? [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Speaking of Bludgeoning [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&amp;target=NicolausPrime&amp;namespace=all&amp;tagfilter=&amp;start=2024-03-23&amp;end=2024-03-28&amp;limit=50] Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked. Its almost a single-minded obsession. As regards [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]], this is repeatedly raising the same topic at multiple forums. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&amp;end=&amp;namespace=4&amp;start=&amp;tagfilter=&amp;target=Thomas+B&amp;offset=20240206075305] Reviewing Thomas B's contribution history demonstrates that he raised the issue at [[WP:BLPN]] ''once'' before the ANI thread started that led to his block and that was the sole time he had raised it in any forum outside of trying to discuss the topic on the article talk page. He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at [[WP:BLPN]]. There was in fact no discussion at [[WP:BLPN]] See [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt]]. Your allegation of [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] is demonstrably false. Rather we constantly have the same [[WP:TAG]] team of editors lobbying loudly to have editors blocked but offering no real evidence and what little evidence is offered, when you look closer doesn't support the allegation of misconduct. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 15:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&quot;{{tq|Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked.}}&quot;<br /> ::::This is false, as directly contradicted by the following edits, unrelated to Thomas B, that I made between March 23 and today: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215654047] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NicolausPrime/sandbox&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215762490] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compact_Disc_subcode&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215768058] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215654745] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etymological_fallacy&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215747100].<br /> ::::&quot;{{tq|He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at WP:BLPN. There was in fact no discussion at WP:BLPN See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt. Your allegation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is demonstrably false.}}&quot;<br /> ::::The very discussion that you link, [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim_Hunt]], immediately reaches the conclusion that the filing constituted forum-shopping. We can disagree, maybe, whether the second BLPN thread created one month later constituted forum-shopping or was just beating a dead horse, but it evidently was at least one of that as it had been shortly preceded by extensive discussions that I noted above. And no, the issue is not distinct, it's a yet another, ad nauseam reiteration the same arguments about the article being unfair to Tim Hunt, to address which the RfC was created and have thus resolved.<br /> ::::&quot;{{tq|we constantly have the same WP:TAG team of editors lobbying loudly}}&quot;<br /> ::::This is the third or fourth time I see you making this accusation. I can't say for others, but I'm definitely not a member of any tag team. Except for commenting once in an earlier RfC started by LokiTheLiar, I don't think I've ever interacted with any of the editors involved in the Tim Hunt discussion and its offshoots before the NPOVN thread, where my involvement began. I started the original page-ban vote because I wanted the disruption to end, and I've started this thread because I felt responsible for failing to prevent further disruption due to my choice of a page ban instead of a topic ban. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> *'''Support''' This is clearly what the original consensus intended and Thomas B's behavior since then is a clear example of [[WP:GAMING]]. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 01:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. Seems the only way to prevent this (part of the) disruption continuing. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 09:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose''' Thomas B has raised legitimate concerns about [[WP:BLP]] policy, in the close of the RFC it was noted his concerns were legitimate and could not be ignored. Per Springee he is entitled to raise those concerns at [[WP:BLPN]]. I see someone has suggested he is bludgeoning the discussion and I acknowledge he has made a number of contributions. However, most are replies in a discussion with {{U|Newimpartial}} e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&amp;diff=1215687478&amp;oldid=1215683633]. There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it. It is Kafkaesque to suggest an editor is sanctioned as the result of an [[WP:ANI]] thread raised against another editor who has an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor's excessive posts. {{ping|EducatedRedneck}} I presume your support vote reflects your satisfaction that [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] is an issue, may I draw your attention that the NicolausPrime considers that I have raised an issue in a forum once as forumshopping. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Tq|There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often}} - in the ANI section above, the only evidence presented in support of this assertion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215783375] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215788924] includes (succinct) responses to direct questions as though they could be violations, although such are explicitly excluded by the terms of my restrictions (as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215784194 was noted by SilverSeren] above). <br /> *:No other editor in &quot;my&quot; section, aside from the OP, has suggested any possible violation of my anti-bludgeon restriction, and many editors have participated above. I would therefore appreciate if you would strike your assertion here that I am {{tq|breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it}} - there is no suggestion that I have broken my anti-bludgeon restriction nor is there a suggestion that I be sanctioned, so I'd rather not see that inaccurate statement left in this other section (where I randomly happened to see it).<br /> *:You also imply (when you refer to {{tq|an WP:ANI thread raised by an editor already under an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor}} (1) that I raised a thread at ANI (since no other editor here is under a restriction for number of posts per topic) and (2) that Thomas B. is facing sanctions here for responding to my comments. So far as I can tell, neither of these assertions is accurate, since I didn't bring anything to ANI and sanctions proposed here are about forum shopping and have nothing to do with any interaction between Thomas B. and myself. Perhaps you were confusing me with NicolausPrime, an editor I had never been aware of until the last day or so on this page.<br /> *: Anyway, I'd appreciate you striking the second reference to my editing as well; I'd rather not see spurious statements be made about my conduct even incidentally (and possibly based on mistaken identity). Thanks. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I didn't mistake your identity, I mistakenly pasted the wrong name but that's fixed now. I do believe you have broken your anti-bludgeon restriction but you've obviously missed that I opposed any sanction. I am not the only editor to think that way, so I will respectfully decline that request. I had also noticed it myself but chose not to report it - I usually try to avoid the drama boards until after I try and discuss with editors first. I will revise my wording to make my meaning clearer; Nicholas started this thread as a result of the thread raised about you and that is what I meant. I was also responding to the bludgeoning accusation against Thomas, which is largely responding to posts you made requesting a reply from him. Which is not to accuse anyone of misconduct and I have not sought any action against anyone including you. I trust that clarifies the matter? &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::Your !vote above doesn't refer in any way to my anti-bludgeon restriction, nor do those of any other editors apart from the OP and Silver seren, who corrected the OP's misinterpretation of the restriction (Silver seren quoted the actual text of the restriction, above).<br /> ::::If you still {{tq|do believe [I] have broken [my] anti-bludgeon restriction}}, I'd appreciate you documenting that in the relevant section above, preferably with the evidence you consider relevant, so the question can be addressed by other editors - at the moment, that view seems to have been rejected by all editors contributing to the discussion besides the OP. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I have already declined to report your violation of your anti-bludgeon restriction, I do so again. If I had felt it needed action I would have already discussed it with you. Now having had to give the same reply effectively twice, may I draw attention to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1141126946&amp;oldid=1141118949&amp;title=User_talk:Newimpartial this]. Please take the hint. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::If you're not going to report it, then ''stop bringing it up''. This is staring to look like [[WP:HOUND]]ing. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::WCM, I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I don't think you're suggesting that someone making a spurious accusation against you therefore determines the legitimacy (one way or the other) of an accusation against Thomas B. Are you saying NicolausPrime fabricated the claims of the five involved fora (talk page consensus, NPOVN, BLPN, RfC, 2nd BLPN)? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose'''; {{u|Springee}} put it perfectly. I appreciate the ban is supposed to reflect bludgeoning and failing to drop the stick, but it also looks uncomfortably close to a ban for having the &quot;wrong&quot; opinion, an attempt by one side to undermine the other. The harm done by such a ban - the chilling effect on future debate - greatly exceeds the mild inconvenience of an editor writing a bit too much about their viewpoint, in too many fora. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 11:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' - Per Springee, Thomas B should back away, but I would suggest the same for the editors interacting with Thomas B. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 13:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' Run-of-the-mill response to an example of the kind of forum-shopping and stick-grabbing that the project has seen time and time again as the years have rolled by. Any &quot;chilling effect&quot; on editors expressing opinions vaguely aligned with Thomas B's is purely speculative. If we stopped doing topic bans because of such speculation, we'd have to find a whole new way of dealing with a very real problem. [[User:XOR&amp;#39;easter|XOR&amp;#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&amp;#39;easter|talk]]) 14:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' Though i agree with {{U|Springee}} and others about the concerns, i believe that Thomas B has shown/is showing a startling lack of ability to read the room and work within a community. If the several editors above who also agree with his point (though not his methods) are representative of a portion of the community then that point will be discussed and taken into consideration ''without'' Thomas B's disruptive behaviour. Happy days, ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''&lt;sup&gt;'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' Whilst I understand what the opposers are saying, this isn't a proposed ban for having the &quot;wrong&quot; opinion, it's a ban for being ''utterly and completely unable'' to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] even after a previous block. It would have been simple to walk away and edit one of the other 7 million Wikipedia articles, but ... no. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' formal topic ban. This user apparently cannot comprehend the idea that [[First law of holes|he should stop digging]] after the initial page block, and is carrying on the arguments in other locations. A topic ban is the only way we can move forward without Thomas dragging this out across the wiki. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Is the problem my inability to drop the stick or a number of editors inability to ignore a quite tame posting to BLPN? Other than this very strange ANI, what disruption has my post caused? What effect has my post had on the editing of the Tim Hunt article? [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|a quite tame posting}} You have made approximately 20 comments in the discussion at BLPN; all other editors combined have made about 40. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 21:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You understand that I have mainly answered their questions, right? I should have &quot;dropped the stick&quot; and ignored their direct questions? [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::You're still digging... — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::You understand that your response is evasive, that your original comment is dishonest, and that you are demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to exhibit the self-control necessary to participate in an acceptable way, right? --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 23:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::I think the accusation of dishonesty is unfair and uncivil, so I'm not responding to this comment. [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 08:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' This is a transparent refusal to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] combined with [[WP:IDHT]]. I am sure that the concerns are genuine, but they have already been discussed and addressed. At this point Thomas needs to leave this to other editors and [[WP:AGF]] (saying things like {{tq|they want to paint Hunt as a sexist}} when someone disagrees about anything is not what I would consider good-faith). In terms of dropping the stick, we can all see the responses at BLPN and they have not been {{tq|mainly answer[ing] their questions}}. See for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215520494] (repeating the same argument from when this all started) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214835462] (continuing to double down) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214823751] (no one asked any question here either) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214976196] (example of [[WP:IDHT]], editors have repeatedly explained that no one is suggesting the article call him sexist, but Thomas is still arguing as if they are) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214981527] (accusing other editors of bad faith unprompted). This whole situation is getting ridiculous. The RFC is closed. The article is being edited productively. Let's all just move on. &lt;small&gt;(also this is my first comment at ANI so please let me know if I messed up formatting somewhere or need to change anything)&lt;/small&gt; [[User:CambrianCrab|CambrianCrab]] ([[User talk:CambrianCrab|talk]]) 22:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' – no harm is being caused to the encyclopedia by raising legitimate and genuine BLP concerns. If you don't want to interact with him, then don't. I believe there are legitimate BLP concerns as well about the Hunt article, but after seeing the way Thomas B has been treated in this whole shameful debacle, I'm afraid to say anything for fear of proposals like this being thrown my way.[[User:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue&quot;&gt; ''Isaidnoway'' &lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:black&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/b&gt;]] 00:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&quot;I don't think he should be blocked because I agree with him, and his behavioral issues are actually the fault of other people&quot; ok then. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Less sarcastically: Wikipedia operates on a consensus-based discussion model. Consensus models only work if (1) people are generally willing to accept when consensus is against them, and (2) people who refuse to acknowledge this can be prevented from disrupting discussions. The problem with Thomas B is not his views, it's that he's failing (1) and consequently forcing others to rely on (2). &lt;br&gt; Here is a very simple question you could ask yourself: suppose that there were a 60-comment discussion involving 10 or 12 participants; how many comments would you expect each person to be making under normal circumstances, if no one is bludgeoning or arguing just for the sake of arguing or exhibiting [[WP:IDHT]]? Personally, I think any time you see someone making 12 or 15 comments in those circumstances, it's a very bad sign. [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt|Thomas B has made 20.]] --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I would expect the person who started the discussion to make significantly more comments than anyone else in the discussion. It would not surprise me if they replied at least once to each of the others, sometimes merely to grant a point, clarify a statement, or answer a question. So, in a discussion with 10-12 participants, that 12-15 number seems conservative to me. Your reasoning, however, certainly explains the hostility against me if it has become the general view at WP. Like I say in my statement, things do seem to have changed since I was last involved in a big controversy. I mean, people have taken even my participation in this ANI proposing to ban me as a sign that I can't drop the stick (or shovel, per Hand). It's just peculiar, frankly. [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 08:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{tq|if it has become the general view at WP}}<br /> *::::This has been the general view for a long, long time, hence [[WP:BLUDGEON]], which has existed since 2008. Responding to every single comment is the very heart of BLUDGEON. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' By the time the post was made to BLPN {{u|Hemiauchenia}} had already been working on the issue of implementing the RfC result. {{u|Firefangledfeathers}} trimmed the controversy section, tho i'm not sure if this was in response to the posting. {{u|S Marshall}} was providing some valuable comments. {{u|Morbidthoughts}} and {{u|Hemiauchenia}} started a good discussion which probably could have been very useful. Could have been better if more editors would have kept their eyes on the ball, but not the worst WP noticeboard discussion ever. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' It's become clear that Thomas B really can't drop this issue. Even if the BLPN thread has resulted in some constructive changes, his responses in the BLPN discussion make it obvious that he just cannot accept that the majority of people don't agree with him on what the section should look like, and that he's just going to keep causing disruption regarding this issue unless he is topic banned. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It's entirely correct that in my opinion the majority is wrong and that I think the article is currently misleading. I've added an update to this effect at the BLPN post.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard#Tim_Hunt] But expressing this opinion is not in itself a disruption. I've been puzzled at the amount of annoyance (and administration) I've caused simply by posting things that could easily just be ignored, especially since I'm working within the contraints of a block that I have not appealed. [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 11:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Thomas B, you may wish to reread [[WP:IDHT]]. I feel encompasses why this {{tq|amount of annoyance}} is being had from your conduct. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 17:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. Consensus at this point on the article is clear (and has been for a long time); Thomas B's continued refusal to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], his [[WP:IDHT]] response to months of discussion and attempts to [[WP:FORUMSHOP]] the dispute are long past the point of being disruptive. Simply believing that the majority is wrong doesn't allow someone to endlessly raise the same issue in every possible venue available to them forever - we don't write articles or reach consensus via filibuster. The fact that his responses, above, show that he ''still'' doesn't get it even after an article-level block and after numerous people here have explained to him shows that nothing but a topic ban is going to work here. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 05:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Proposal: additional two-month ban from English Wikipedia ===<br /> {{atop<br /> | status = <br /> | result = This is unnecessary, against policy and clearly will not achieve consensus. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I propose for Thomas B to be banned from the English Wikipedia for two months, independently and additionally to the above topic ban. The purpose of this ban is to act as a deterrent from any further [[WP:GAMING|gaming]] of the sanctions.<br /> <br /> * '''Support''' as proposer. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' as unnecessary and punitive. With a topic ban in place, escalating blocks may be imposed as necessary. Let's extend more [[WP:ROPE]] so they can contribute helpfully to other areas. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' premature. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' I haven't seen any indication of disruption outside of this topic area. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' Clearly unnecessary. It also would be easy for editors to presume the motive in suggesting this block was to be punitive. As I said above, if Thomas B's arguments aren't shifting consensus then why worry? If they are shifting consensus then this sort of block looks more like gaming than protective. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose'''. The issue seems to be contained to the topics proposed to be banned for the accused, and this proposal goes beyond reasonable prevention. If the topic ban above becomes enforced, a block can be imposed if it gets contravened. —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 05:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose'''. Not necessary or warranted. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 09:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' Seems punitive. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> === Comment ===<br /> <br /> I note there are now 3 threads related to issues surrounding the [[Tim Hunt]] article, making 4 in less than a month. I like {{ping|Elemimele}} and {{ping|Fiveby}} are concerned about the toxic nature of the discussion surrounding that article. I am no longer editing there like those two editors and don't intend to return. I suggest {{ping|Thomas B}} stops as well, not because he is wrong but for his own well being and mental health. Rather than being guided by sources, looking at what the prevailing views are in the literature, the discussions have descended into editors looking for sources to validate their own opinions. ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents in the discussion rather than addressing urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Notably, accusations of disruptive behaviour are unsupported by evidence, scratch the surface of what little is offered as evidence and it crumples. I haven't called for any sanctions, I opposed a proposal yesterday and still urge that as {{U|S Marshall}} suggested that an intervention by an uninvolved SySop may be required to stave off an arbcom case. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 10:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :{{tq|ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents}} You have moaned about this in two or three places now, but oddly you have not noted that ''you'' started one of the threads, nor have you apologized to me for doing so; odd, that. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Do you intend to do anything about these accusations that {{tq|ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents}}, or are you going to keep posting this in some vague [[WP:FORUM]] manner? — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Note that I am not involved in the Tim Hunt article, BLPN discussion, or this issue anywhere that I can tell. I don't think it's productive at this time to cast this as an &quot;us vs them&quot; situation. Rather, this should be looked at on its own merits. To me, the question is: Does Thomas B's conduct help or hurt the encyclopedia? In my mind, it hurts it by draining the other editors' time and energy over an issue that seems to have already reached a consensus. I believe he's acting in good faith (honestly trying so solve what he views as a BLP issue), but we all need to accept that consensus is sometimes against us and move on. You may disagree that the harm outweighs the good, and that's also completely valid; answering that question is a judgement call, not a matter of fact.<br /> :I'd also posit that those editors not engaging on BLPN does not remove the problem; if nobody dissents to Thomas B there, it seems to me that a new consensus could be formed there which is not truly representative of the community's opinions. Maybe it wouldn't happen, but the fear of having to go back and sort out the two opposing consenses makes doing nothing less palatable. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 23:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 158.223.0.0/16 and 2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64 ==<br /> <br /> <br /> *{{userlinks|158.223.0.0/16}}<br /> *{{userlinks|2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64}}<br /> <br /> I previously raised concerns on [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#158.223.0.0/16_and_2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64|18 March 2024]], and the [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]] editing is continuing. <br /> <br /> The very latest example is yet another modification of a direct quotation ([[Special:Diff/1215894901]].) I tried pointing that out the last time it happened (see [[User_talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct#HGV20]]) but whether the editor just ignored it or just flat out doesn't understand is difficult to say. Their English comprehension seems limited; a number of haphazard edits (like [[Special:Diff/1213373005]], [[Special:Diff/1215867316]], [[Special:Diff/1215727741]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shi_%28rank%29&amp;diff=1215693311&amp;oldid=1215637799]) make it look like that they don't understand what was written before or the effects of their own changes.<br /> <br /> Combined with their talk page interactions (including on [[User_talk:158.223.122.211]]) my impression is that they tend to miss the point a whole lot and are quite oblivious to it. - [[User:RovingPersonalityConstruct|RovingPersonalityConstruct]] ([[User talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/RovingPersonalityConstruct|contribs]]) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == user:Zack097 adding unsupported categories ==<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|Zack097}}<br /> <br /> Noticed a few additions of categories which were not supported by article contents. User has a history of adding poorly or unsourced content, with numerous level 4 warnings. Some examples include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spies_in_Disguise&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215901686], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_2&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215901539], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eternals_(film)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215901826].--[[User:Loriendrew|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #005000;&quot;&gt;☾Loriendrew☽&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Loriendrew|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #000080;&quot;&gt;☏''(ring-ring)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 22:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This user has done almost nothing constructive in the many years since they created the account. Indefinitely blocked.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == IP Repeatedly Disrupting Table Formatting ==<br /> <br /> *{{vandal|2804:14C:128:270D:0:0:0:475}} &amp;ndash; On {{No redirect|:Kingsman (franchise)}} ({{diff|Kingsman (franchise)|1215922664|1214567618|diff}}): vandalism after final warning. Repeated disruptive changes to content and removal of formatting across a variety of articles. Majority of edits have been reverted. The IP has also repeatedly performed such disruptive behaviors on the [[Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One]] and [[Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Two]] articles, among many other franchise-related tables. This is getting quite annoying to revert each time they return and they ignore any warnings given, and have edited as such through different IPs. The reach of their edits is problematic, though individual page protection for every article may be too extreme. I previously took this issue to AIV though they recommend I bring it here instead. [[User:Trailblazer101|Trailblazer101]] ([[User talk:Trailblazer101|talk]]) 01:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Improper close ==<br /> {{atop|Reported editor blocked indefinitely by {{noping|Dennis Brown}} per [[WP:NOTHERE]]. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) {{nac}}}}<br /> * {{Userlinks|Candied Taters}}<br /> I reverted this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1215965720 close]. Can someone review the account which made the close. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 06:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I also notice that Candied Tater's userpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Candied_Taters&amp;redirect=no redirects to an admin's user page] (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACandied_Taters&amp;diff=1215965100&amp;oldid=1215959997 here] is the diff where they created that redirect). Seems like the user picked out the longest thread, or saw it [[Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Administrative_discussions|at WP:CR]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests&amp;oldid=1215947052#Administrative_discussions permanent link]). Whatever the user was trying to do, it seems disruptive. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 06:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I blocked him under [[WP:NOTHERE]]. The user page (now deleted) sealed the fate, redirecting to an admin's page ([[User:Red-tailed hawk]]) after that admin changed it so they don't redirect their user page to a Guideline. Troll like behavior, obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. [[User:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;Dennis Brown&lt;/b&gt;]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;2&amp;cent;&lt;/b&gt;]] 06:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I went ahead and deleted their 2 !votes on this page. If someone objects feel free to restore. But seems like [[WP:DENY]] is the best approach here. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 06:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == [[User:99.209.199.62]] Keep vandelzing Wikipedia ==<br /> <br /> Hi I just saw a ip keep vandelzing the page [[Final Fantasy XVI]] can you please block the ip since he continued after the final warning [[User:Fixer332|Fixer332]] ([[User talk:Fixer332|talk]]) 16:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Fixer332|Fixer332]] The IP has now been blocked for a week. Next time, a better place to report this would be [[WP:AIV|AIV]]. [[User:Kline|Kline]] • [[User talk:Kline|talk to me!]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kline|contribs]] 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:8diq]] and disruptive editing ==<br /> <br /> {{User2|8diq}} has <br /> * repeatedly inserted a large amount of inline images (which is basically the only type of edits they did) despite [[MOS:IRELEV]] and other editors' warnings on their talk page<br /> ** first warned on December 2023, around ~25 edits afterwards<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delhi_Republic_Day_parade&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1189195027 posted copyrighted materials] on articles and cross-wiki-[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/8diq uploaded] copyrighted images to Commons tagged as &quot;own work&quot;<br /> * not even one edit that is not reverted<br /> [[User:Northern Moonlight|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,Inter,-apple-system,Twitter Color Emoji,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap&quot;&gt;Northern Moonlight&lt;/span&gt;]] 00:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Barr Theo]] and bot-like mass creation of articles ==<br /> <br /> [[User:Barr Theo]]'s only contributions have been to create many new articles in batches, often several in less than one minute, and always at timestamps ending in :59 or :00. This pattern of mass-creation, as well as the total unresponsiveness on their talk page regarding their behavior, makes me believe they might be running an unauthorized bot creating these articles for them. [[User:Chaotic Enby|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#8a7500&quot;&gt;Chaotıċ &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1&quot;&gt;Enby&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 01:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :*'''Blocked''' until he explains this bot-like activity. [[Manuel María Smith]], [[Manuel Rodríguez Arzuaga]], [[Manuel de la Sota]], [[Manuel del Castillo]] and [[Manuel Gallego]] were all created within the exact same minute. There's no way those were done manually (or is it [[WP:ASSPERSIANS|Manuelly]]?) &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 02:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:{{tq|(or is it [[WP:ASSPERSIANS|Manuelly]]?)}} Boooooo. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:default;color:#246BCE;&quot;&gt;Liliana&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;&quot;&gt;UwU&lt;/span&gt;]]''''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])&lt;/sup&gt; 04:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::Bot-like? Or butt-like? [[User:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:red;&quot;&gt;E&lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:blue;&quot;&gt;Eng&lt;/b&gt;]] 06:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:Hi, I am [[User:Barr Theo|Barr Theo]]. I am currently unlogged because I do not want to break my &quot;insane streak of creations for March&quot;, which is also the reason why I did not answer [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]]. (The last time I used an IP address was in 2022 by the way, and this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat).<br /> :*:Regarding these wild accusations of bot usage, I must say that I am very disappointed with your conclusions... No, I do not use &quot;unauthorized bots&quot;, I simply create the articles that I have scheduled for the day and then wait for :59 to click on publish, usually at 23:59. Why do I do it? Because I am obsessed with details (grouping individuals by name, such as Luises and Manuels) and with symmetry (I always edit in pairs, and very often two or four pages per day), and also because I am a perhaps slightly stupid and crazy. But one thing that I am not is a criminal and I have never used &quot;unauthorized bots&quot;; in fact, I do not even know how to do that and I am not even sure if there is any kind of bot that can do what I have been doing. <br /> :*:Perhaps my insane levels of consistency and tiredness lead some of you to believe that I am being aided by machines, or that I am machine myself, but I ain't. I am just a human being, a very relentless and determined one. Sorry, Chaotic Enby, but there are no shortcuts for greatness.<br /> :*:Now that this miserdustanding has been clarified and now that I have explained by &quot;bot-like activity&quot;, I need to be unblocked as soon as possible because my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today (two of which are already done since 21 March, but that I will only publish at :59 of today).<br /> :*:Kind regards (waiting for 14:59 to upload this). [[Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D]] ([[User talk:2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|talk]]) 14:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Block evasion, isn't going to help, in fact that makes the situation worse. {{tq|my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today}} what schedule? [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|The Wordsmith}}, self admitted block evasion above. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I see it, thanks. I've responded at [[User talk:Barr Theo]] and blocked the /64. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barr_Theo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216190435 {{tq|I really didn't wanna break my streak nor use IP addresses due to my previous problems with multi-accounts}}] doesn't fill me with enthusiasm. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I'd guess they are referring to their previous unblock conditions: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABarr_Theo&amp;diff=1160765567&amp;oldid=1160703744]. &amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8093:5F01:91C5:7125:1875:DAC1|2804:F1...75:DAC1]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:8093:5F01:91C5:7125:1875:DAC1|talk]]) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *As much as {{u|Barr Theo}}'s explanation here and on their talk might be unusual, I don't see reason not to believe it. Unless there are any substantive issues with the pages that would warrant administrative intervention (and nobody has raised any), I don't think we should be keeping them blocked, and I don't think we should be weighing their evasion against them, since all they've been doing is appealing, albeit in the wrong place. {{u|The Wordsmith}}, are you okay with an unblock? --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I mean, they admit they're just creating/posting these articles rapid fire to meet some sort of self-imposed schedule. And then failing to respond to inquiries on their Talk page when people asked what they were doing. If nothing else, they need to acknowledge that this is a collaborative editing environment and just ignoring concerns is a bad idea.<br /> *:More concerning, this isn't the first time they've resorted to sockpuppetry. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|I mean, they admit they're just creating/posting these articles rapid fire to meet some sort of self-imposed schedule.}}<br /> *::I don't think people's &quot;internal schedules&quot; are something we should be concerned with (or concerned by), provided that their scheduling doesn't lead to problematic ''behaviour''. The problematic behaviour raised here so far is them not responding to [[User talk:Barr Theo#Mass creation of articles|a single query]]. I agree that's something they need to change in the future, but it's not a what I'd consider a major offence, and neither is their logging out to respond here. If they had done (or were to do) anything other than trying to engage with community concerns while logged out, it'd be a very different story, but they haven't. This is what I'd essentially consider a &quot;good faith&quot; SOCK violation, as opposed to &quot;proper&quot; socking. <br /> *::All that said, I'm a bit concerned by the &quot;line-pulling&quot; referred to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barr_Theo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216209252 in response to The Wordsmith's query], and concur that this should probably be cleared up before proceeding. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 23:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't really care about the block evasion, since it clearly wasn't intended to actually be ''evasive''. I see we've had an explanation about what this project is for, and I find it unusual but plausible. I'm satisfied that there's no unauthorized botting happening. I've asked one more question, about whether the text for these articles is original or translated/copied from somewhere (which might require attribution or checking for copyvio). If that's answered, and {{u|Barr Theo}} agrees to be reasonably responsive to the questions/concerns of other editors in the future, I'm fine with any admin unblocking if I don't get to it first. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Personal attack by {{u|ජපස}} ==<br /> <br /> I believe that I should be able to discuss the reliability of sources without being called an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216111388 ideologically-driven antiwokist]. Please do something about it. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 03:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :That seems to be the upshot of your argument. I look at impact of your rhetoric and cannot judge the intent. I have no way to judge what your mindset is. Shall I add something to that effect? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 03:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I shall! [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216113708]. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 03:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::That's scarcely any better. Frankly, any accusation related to &quot;[[woke]]ness&quot; (supposedly for or against) is inappropriate and poisons a topic. On any culture war-adjacent topic where it might be invoked, it could be hurled against any participant (again, supposedly for or against). As [[WP:NPA#WHATIS]] says, {{tq|Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden.}} &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Palatino&quot;&gt;[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : So jps decided to double down on his attack. Jps argues against the reliability of an academic journal mostly based on his own opinion of what he thinks is the ideology of the journal. This includes sweeping assertions about 60 academics: &quot;the members of this editorial board really are proponents of fringe theories&quot;, BLP be damned. My argument is that the reliability of a journal doesn't depend on whether jps or myself like what it publishes. I should be able to take that position without being accused of being a supporter of the ideology that jps abhors. I would take the same position if the ideology of the journal was the opposite. The fact is that jps doesn't have a clue what my ideological position is and I shouldn't have to take his ignorant insults. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 04:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@jps: There are times to go hard and pour buckets on opponents, but this is not one of them. The entire [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Journal of Controversial Ideas]] discussion is a waste of space because there is no actionable proposal. Is someone saying that journal can ''never'' be used as a source? Surely people know that explicit examples must be discussed before assessing whether something is reliable. Zero0000 is not playing a [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] game—it's actually you who are missing what Zero0000 has written. I am sympathetic to the view that some philosophers struggle to find interesting topics to discuss and they offer opinions on topics outside their expertise. We could chat about that but again it would be a waste of space. Please stop arguing there and wait until something actionable arises (should a particular claim in a particular article be sourced to the ''[[Journal of Controversial Ideas]]''?). And stop insulting valid comments. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I've blocked {{u|ජපස}} 1 week (as an Arbitration Enforcement action) for violating [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]]. There's a long history of warnings, sanctions and blocks for incivility in pseudoscience-related matters, dating back to at least 2006 with an Arbcom &quot;Caution&quot; at [[WP:ARBPSCI#ScienceApologist is uncivil]] up through a 2023 Arbitration Enforcement report [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive319#ජපස|where he was reminded]] to report pro-fringe disruption to administrators rather than being uncivil to them. Most recently, he was [[User talk:ජපස#Uncivil behavior|asked]] just a week ago to tone down the language and informed about [[WP:BRIE]]. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 05:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Although I consider myself a wikifriend of jps, and I tend to agree with his views on content matters, The Wordsmith accurately points to my warning about BRIE as part of that recent discussion at jps' talk page, and I endorse what The Wordsmith did. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::'''Good block'''. I encountered JPS here at ANI and through the Ammonihah page linked below. I'll add that JPS's behavior extends beyond the above thread. In this past month, he has [[WP:CIVIL|repeatedly chosen to express himself uncivilly]] on multiple pages (diffs provided below). As The Wordsmith points out, editors [[User talk:ජපස#Uncivil behavior|encouraged JPS to be more civil at his talk page]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;oldid=1216122139#Uncivil_behavior permanent link]) preceding the behavior at [[WP:FTN]]. JPS's acknowledgment that the thread had presented [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214739500 {{tq|a fair critique}}] apparently wasn't an indicator he would change his behavior.{{pb}}On user talk pages:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AViriditas&amp;diff=1214128433&amp;oldid=1213922579 {{tq|are you being petty? I don't see any substantive argument, just sour grapes}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214523384 {{Tq|profoundly weird sources you are demanding}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}In tags for Second Nephi<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214148955 {{tq|What in the actual fuck does THAT mean?}}; {{tq|You kidding me? Who wrote this? They need to be stopped.}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}At Talk:Massacre of the Innocents:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214212860&amp;oldid=1214211214# {{tq|that's just nonsense.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214213832&amp;oldid=1214213492 {{tq|::rolleyes:: This isn't serious}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214214550&amp;oldid=1214213931 {{tq|His bullshit needs to go too.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214214814&amp;oldid=1214214638 {{tq|Lol.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214217933&amp;oldid=1214216833 {{tq|Grow a thicker skin,}} and {{tq|If that offends a believer, then they need to leave this project.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1215521407&amp;oldid=1215520011 {{tq|Are you kidding?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214220315&amp;oldid=1214220053 {{tq|a charlatan. A hack. A biblical literalist who wants to play with the real scholars but can't because his faith requires him to believe absolute absurdities.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1216096055&amp;oldid=1216031705 {{tq|It looks like you are WP:POVPUSHing for your religious beliefs at this point.}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}In edit summaries for Massacre of the Innocents:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214194312&amp;oldid=1213785701 {{tq|This is not Sunday School. Take your biblical literalist whining elsewhere.}}] (Supposing editors are either not aware this is Wikipedia and not Sunday School (seems to be an implication of stupidity) or that they're acting in bad faith)<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214195168&amp;oldid=1214194881 {{tq|bullshit}}]<br /> ::* Stating that other editors are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214196547&amp;oldid=1214196395 {{tq|promoting lies in the encyclopedia}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1215406387&amp;oldid=1214982462 {{tq|ideology that is quite bizarre}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}At Talk:Ammonihah<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213721999 {{tq|why the hell did Joseph Smith bother to make up this silly story? Y'know?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213810626 {{tq|these &lt;s&gt;three&lt;/s&gt;two-and-a-half Mormons}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213906438 {{tq|They seem to say that, yes. That makes them Mormon apologists. Yep!}}] (said of [https://rap.wustl.edu/people/laurie-f-maffly-kipp/ Laurie Maffly-Kipp] and [[Penguin Books]])<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213909094 {{tq|LOL, WP:NOR isn't a suicide pact.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213912920 {{tq|This is Wikipedia. We don't play stupid games like this.}}]<br /> ::* When I asked if he meant to say that {{tq|Scholarship published in academic venues constitutes &quot;stupid games}}, referring in large part to [https://muse.jhu.edu/article/522405 an article from a secular academic journal published by the University of Pennsylvania Press that I was linking on the talk page], JPS answered, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213913325 {{tq|In most cases, absolutely}}].<br /> ::* When I asked if JPS meant to imply {{tq|&quot;Lunatic charlatans&quot; like professors of literature? Is that the implication?}} (literature professors like [https://www.uvm.edu/cas/english/profiles/elizabeth_fenton Elizabeth Fenton], whose research was cited for explanatory purposes on the talk page, a living person), JPS answered, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213917026 {{tq|Well, we had about a big long discussion about blacklisting those words, but it came up &quot;no consensus&quot;. Whachagonnado?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213940114 {{tq|Does it hurt your feelings or something?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214007074 {{tq|A bit sloppy there, old Joey S.}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}In edit summaries, body text, and tags for Ammonihah:<br /> ::* Inserted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213941828 {{tq|???}}] into the body text<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214001273 {{tq|This isn't Sunday School}}] (Supposing editors are either not aware this is Wikipedia and not Sunday School (seems to be an implication of stupidity) or that they're acting in bad faith)<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214003860 {{tq|Removing this section. It's a flight of fancy}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214003935 {{tq|some nonsensical readings}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214004257 {{tq|Removing this paragraph. I really hate it.}}] (a human editor wrote that paragraph; we can criticize with less hostile language)<br /> ::{{pb}}Here at ANI:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213600134&amp;oldid=1213599753# {{tq|This is an editor who can't follow a hypothetical}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213696119&amp;oldid=1213696098# {{tq|a complete clusterfuck.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213871517&amp;oldid=1213871371 {{tq|I think people like you are to blame}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214030158&amp;oldid=1214029645 {{tq|cult-like behaviors.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214095402&amp;oldid=1214093441 {{tq|absolutely atrocious edits}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214340841&amp;oldid=1214340684 {{tq|Forget it. At this point, you're running interference.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215421882&amp;oldid=1215418186 {{tq|I will not apologize for being a disruptive force in those places}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}I understand there's been a lot of ferment about articles in Mormon studies topic areas. I can accept if how I or others have contributed isn't what the community wants; I can accept articles like Ammonihah being revised, even drastically. But I'm unconvinced that JPS's behavior is necessary to accomplish that (to use the Ammonihah page as an example, other editors have been able to talk about revising the article without similar behavior; Ghosts of Europa, Steve Quinn). As Zero0000 said, editors shouldn't have to take JPS's insults. And this behavior is not limited to Mormon studies (as FTN and Massacre of the Innocents demonstrate). Maybe a one-week block will be enough to remind JPS of the ArbCom caution. But when this has apparently been going on for so long, and when JPS seems to react to concerns about his behavior with relative indifference (even when he invites discussion on his talk page about his behavior, he says, {{tq|You can even request that I reword things, if you like. I'm not saying I necessarily will agree to reword things}}), I'm left wondering whether this will stick and if some other sanction will be necessary to prevent more uncivil behavior in the future. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 08:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::: For record, I actually agree with much of jps's effort in keeping bible literalism out of the encyclopedia. He could do it with a lot less incivility though, as some but not all of these examples illustrate. Also, these examples don't sufficiently distinguish between robust discussion of sources (which is allowed and necessary within BLP limits) and insults and insinuations against editors which are not allowed. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 11:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yes, discussion of sources is allowed within BLP limits. The diffs pertaining to source discussion that I chose to include affect discussion and other editors in a way that I think is well characterized by this quote from the talk thread page that The Wordsmith linked above ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=1214739500&amp;oldid=1214681976 diff]): {{tq|I'm}} [Tryptofish] {{tq|not worried that you}} [JPS] {{tq|hurt the sources' feelings. But when you say these things about sources in a way that causes bad feelings among other editors, it's not necessarily those other editors' fault that they feel bad. If you think it's a source of pride to hurt other editors' feelings, well, that's both bullshit and baloney.}} [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 11:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :*I think this is a good example of &quot;it's not what you say, it's how you say it&quot;. I don't like to see jps blocked as I feel he's a tremendous resource when it comes to astronomy, astrophysics, and matters related to skepticism and paranormal nonsense. But when it comes to some topics, particularly religious topics, jps can get into a kind of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation, and his demeanor rapidly changes and he can get nasty. I can completely understand his approach because I have myself been there (as my block log can attest), particularly when it comes to political topics. I think what helped me loosen up and calm down a little bit was to remember two things: try to remember the human on the other side, and to acknowledge the ''coincidentia oppositorum''—that we can't have the black without the white, the light without the dark, and the religious without the non-religious. My goal is to try and remain civil within that tension of the opposites. I hope jps can do the same in the future as he's a valuable contributor. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*: If JPS's pattern of incivility crops up in certain topic areas, would focusing JPS's editorial efforts on other topic areas be a reasonable preventative measure to take going forward, in light of the long duration of this recurring behavior? Focusing on astrophysics and astronomy, for example, and avoiding religious studies. (Or, so as to also encompass the topic area of the thread at FTN—apparently about a philosophy periodical—avoiding the humanities?) [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 01:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::I was merely providing an example, but my guess is that the intersection between fringe theories, scientific skepticism, and other topics is quite large, so it can’t really be reduced to a single topic area. The best thing jps can do is to limit their replies (avoid bludgeoning) and allow their opponents to have the last word. This is something I’ve tried to bring to the table with my own contributions, and while I haven’t always been successful, it has personally helped me become more civil in my approach. In the relevant example, jps already had his say and didn’t need to keep replying to Zero. I think we have to try to avoid protracted discussions that have a tendency to become personal. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::That's good advice for all of us and could be a good thing for JPS to do. I do wonder, with this behavior having such a long history (nearly 18 years), wide breadth (multiple topic areas), and vitriolic depth (visible in multiple examples), whether as a community we should consider applying further formal measures designed to help JPS to do so and to avoid incivility and personal attacks. As much as [[WP:AGF|his goal is to help the project]], JPS has received warnings, cautions, advice, and blocks about this for more than a decade and a half, and he has evidently nevertheless kept resuming this pattern of behavior. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 07:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::::@[[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] you write {{tq|&quot;I do wonder ... whether as a community we should consider applying further formal measures&quot;}} and you write above {{tq|&quot;I'm left wondering whether this will stick and if some other sanction will be necessary&quot;}}. The read of the room here, for me, is that the current block is warranted but that further sanctions are not. Are you going to propose &quot;further formal measures&quot; or are you content to be left wondering? I am slightly concerned about what might amount to a desire to ''take an opponent off the board'', so to speak. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 09:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{admin note}} ජපස has asked that the his statement be copied over here, so I've done that below &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 13:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC):<br /> :Please copy my statement to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. I do apologize for personal attack offense. I tried to redact and am always amenable to discussion. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස#top|talk]]) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස#top|talk]]) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Emrahthehistorist17]] ==<br /> <br /> This emerges from [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Emrahthehistorist17 mass edits to infoboxes]]. While the discussion was active on AN, the mass edits to infoboxes stopped albeit with no response of any sort from Emrah. Mere days after it was archived, the mass edits described there promptly started up again. The exact same issues I noted previously which deal with [[MOS:INFOBOXFLAG]] and use of the {{parameter|result}} in {{t|infobox military conflict}} immediately recurred.<br /> <br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhus%27_invasion_of_the_Peloponnese&amp;oldid=1128963126&amp;diff=cur (inserting anachronistic infobox flags)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Sparta&amp;diff=1215622745&amp;oldid=1092629126 (inserting fictional and anachronistic infobox flags)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215737268&amp;oldid=1208663331&amp;title=Byzantine%E2%80%93Norman_wars (misunderstanding the article; inserting more flags)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&amp;diff=1216054692&amp;oldid=1213019550 (restoring partially [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&amp;diff=1211101487&amp;oldid=1193607582 previously reverted] edits that misunderstand the article – noting that Asiagenes and '''not''' Africanus was the main Roman commander – are inconsistent with use of {{parameter|result}})<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ecbatana&amp;oldid=1199556869&amp;diff=cur (misusing {{parameter|result}})<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_campaigns_in_Germania_(12_BC_%E2%80%93_AD_16)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215919875 (misusing {{parameter|result}})<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_Actium&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216062151 (misusing {{parameter|result}} along with unsourced additions)<br /> <br /> There have been multiple attempts to discuss this. I noted five previous attempts in my AN report:<br /> <br /> {{tq2|This behaviour has been consistent, with a long series of warnings from January 2024 to that effect on the user's talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#January_2024 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#February_2024 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Mass_edits_to_infoboxes 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#March_2024 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Warning 5]. I see no indication that the Emrahthehistorist17 has learnt anything from these discussions when replies therefrom can be generously characterised as emerging from a prosecutorial complex: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Mass_edits_to_infoboxes {{!tq|As long as you delete my edits like this, your website will never improve. It's done.}}], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mithridatic_Wars#Revert,_March_2024 {{!tq|I don't even have an idea about what are you talking about. But you seem like someone with authority on Wikipedia, and restricting me just because of your authority is a sign of injustice}}].}}<br /> <br /> There was absolutely no response to the notification of AN discussion. The only response I am aware of to anything since then was on [[User talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Roman–Seleucid war|Emrah's talk page]] yesterday where he simply responded with a curt {{!tq|Okay, I changed Hannibal and Ligustinus, but don't delete my other additions}} when factual errors were found. These edits to infoboxes are highly disruptive, especially when Emrah does not seem to understand that infoboxes are supplementary summaries of articles that reflect the contents therein and then misunderstands what is being summarised (as at [[Roman–Seleucid war]]). This has been made clear multiple times; to pause these edits while the behaviour was under discussion at AN, be entirely silent contra [[WP:COMMUNICATE]], and then restart them immediately after that discussion at AN was archived, feels akin to a sort of bad-faith gaming and at minimum a [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]]. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|talk]]) 05:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Its the same behavior of refusing to read what [[WP:MOS]] says and trying to push his views at whatever cost. When some points out that he has introduced an error its either [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]] or making minor modifications that do not solve the underlying problem and then saying: &quot;I changed it, it fine now.&quot;.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Nonsensical edit summaries ==<br /> {{atop|Dealt with. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> {{User4|Polavarapu Mokshith Sai}}: over 200+ nonsensical edit summaries like &quot;cv bnbv hftzgrzdcrfdcgert drfycjg h&quot; and &quot;yjtttttttt&quot;. They were warned 2 days ago and proceeded with 30+ more edit summaries with keyboard smashes. Bonus: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narayana_Group_of_Educational_Institutions&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215692360 promotional] edits. [[User:Northern Moonlight|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,Inter,-apple-system,Twitter Color Emoji,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap&quot;&gt;Northern Moonlight&lt;/span&gt;]] 07:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have indefinitely blocked Polavarapu Mokshith Sai as not here to build an encyclopedia for overtly non-neutral promotional editing, and hundreds of instances of gibberish in edit summaries. A toxic combination. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 08:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == Legal threats at Talk:Richard Huckle ==<br /> {{la|Richard Huckle}}&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> 2600:1700:3EC7:4150:CDF5:ECBA:20AF:BA6F making legal threats against the site. [[User:Gene Stanley1|Gene Stanley1]] ([[User talk:Gene Stanley1|talk]]) 08:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Yes. And I can't say I'm particularly surprised, when you see that someone had vandalised the article repeatedly to change the name of the article subject (a convicted serial child abuser) to the name of another individual - quite possibly the IPs. It is entirely unreasonable to expect anyone in that situation to engage in deep research into Wikipedia policy on what is or isn't permitted on article talk pages before responding. See [[Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats]]. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 09:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: Following this, is there any real benefit to letting IP users edit this article? [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Not particularly, though one could say the same about the many other biographical articles that see similar vandalism. The problem needs fixing properly: i.e. pending changes for all BLPs at minimum. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 10:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The benefit to letting IP users edit this article was demonstrated here. An IP user removed the serious [[WP:BLP]] violation. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I don't think that there's much more that we can reasonably do about this specific threat, given what [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] says and that this is an unregistered user. I get the impression that the editor simply wanted to correct an egregious fault on Wikipedia. I have left them a note explaining [[WP:NLT]] in case they come back. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Blocked two weeks.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Why? We have absolutely no reason not to assume that the contributor had a legitimate complaint about the content. Do you really expect individuals in such a situation to read through the entire corpus of Wikipedia guidelines and policies before responding? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Yes, that does seem a little thoughtless and heavy-handed. Surely some information about legal threats would have been better than a block in the circumstances. The originator of the threat, who seemed to be acting in good faith and for the good of Wikipedia, did not have a chance to retract it.[[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *The legal threat has been retracted. I hope that this editor is unblocked now. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I've just unblocked them a few minutes ago. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> The block was a good block -- it does not matter whether the issuer of a legal threat is [[WP:BRIE|in the right or not]]. The threat itself is [[WP:NLT|against policy]]; it creates a chilling effect on editors; and prevents the assumption of good faith. That's not an opinion -- that's [[Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Rationale|explicitly what our policy states]]. And the policy describes exactly how to handle this situation -- block them for the duration of the legal threat, and [[Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Conclusion_of_legal_threat|unblock them without prejudice or ill-will once they rescind it]]. We should also, if it hasn't been done, sanction the editor who made the offending statement in the first place. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Personal attacks at [[User talk:Anant-morgan]] ==<br /> [[User:Anant-morgan]] continues making personal attacks following a block [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anant-morgan&amp;curid=76144123&amp;diff=1216149802&amp;oldid=1216058086]. Please remove talk page access. [[User:JimRenge|JimRenge]] ([[User talk:JimRenge|talk]]) 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I heavily agree. They literally flipped Doug off after he blocked them. I honestly feel pretty bad for him. [[User:NoobThreePointOh|NoobThreePointOh]] ([[User talk:NoobThreePointOh|talk]]) 13:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Well, Ingenuity resolved our problems. [[User:NoobThreePointOh|NoobThreePointOh]] ([[User talk:NoobThreePointOh|talk]]) 15:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I have a strong suspicion that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anant-morgan&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214217589 {{tq|Are you restarted or something?}}] isn't what A-m meant. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == MisteOsoTruth and Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. ==<br /> <br /> <br /> * {{userlinks|MisteOsoTruth}}<br /> <br /> MisteOsoTruth is a single purpose account dedicated to the recent controversy surrounding Sweet Baby Inc, an area covered under contentions topics restrictions. They [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMisteOsoTruth&amp;diff=1215603055&amp;oldid=1215602860 have received notices about this]. They have been filling the talk page there with personal attacks on other editors and BLP violations (by accusing named individuals of committing harassment). Personal attacks: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Codename_Noreste&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213691434][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215673592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216160102] and BLP violations: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215674592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215675312][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215676001][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215850309][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215602536]. Here's a personal attack (against someone else) repeated on my user talk in response to a warning I placed about personal attacks: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215677916]. And here is the response to my efforts to warn them about this on their user talk page, repeating the accusations: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MisteOsoTruth&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216162074].<br /> <br /> This has gone on long enough, I would suggest a block as this user is clearly not going to stop and is clearly [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build an encyclopedia.]] - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 13:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :They have been given more than sufficient rope. I concur [[WP:NOTHERE]] applies. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support''' a NOTHERE block, the repeated BLP violations make it clear they're not going to adhere to our rules. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :They have contacted me though email to also discuss the same points they argue for in the talk page. I have emailed them back advising them to focus on getting RSs instead of tweets, youtube videos and screenshots while trying to explain why those are disallowed. I hoped that as someone who hadn't been very involved in the talk page (having only made one comment) I could advice them without any feelings of hostility. Seeing them continue their old ways without taking my advise saddens me but does reinforce my feeling that they simply refuse to learn the policies of wikipedia, instead of simply being ignorant of it.<br /> :[[User:Speederzzz|Speeder''zzz'']] ([[User_talk:Speederzzz|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Speederzzz|Stalk me]]) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Based on this user being an SPA, creating a significant amount of heat and not much light around a contentious topic page that's been immensely disrupted over the past several weeks, and the demonstrated lack of [[WP:CIR|competency]] and [[WP:NOTHERE]] concerns, I'm going to partial block MisteOsoTruth from the SBI article and talk page for 2 months. Because of the way the CTOPS appeals process works, and the fact that I'm editing on a laptop from out-of-town, I'm proactively giving my approval in advance for any uninvolved admin to modify or remove that block without needing to consult with me first. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Although I'm a bit late with this, I would also point out that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1213691434&amp;oldid=1213542170&amp;title=User_talk:Codename_Noreste this] edit (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215677916&amp;oldid=1215652642&amp;title=User_talk:MrOllie this] one from above) targets [[User:Ryulong]], who was blocked almost a decade ago as part of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate]]. It is simply implausible that a new editor could randomly decide to bear a grudge against someone who was indefinitely blocked nearly a decade ago. Their focus on him strongly suggests that this editor is either a sockpuppet or arrived here via one of the gamergate blogs or forums that still (to this day) regard Ryulong as something of a [[Bête noire]]; the nature of that focus suggests possible [[WP:MEAT]] / [[WP:CANVASS]] issues. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 05:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Molarinoye09 ==<br /> <br /> <br /> {{userlinks|Molarinoye09}}<br /> <br /> Since September 2023, Molarinoye09 has been disrupting [[Take That]] related articles by introducing unsourced material, or creating articles and using sources from Instagram, which aren't enough to go about on. When the article gets redirected due to [[WP:NSONG]], or if a link is removed due to said article being redirected like these articles [[You and Me (Take That song)|here]], and [[New Day (Take That song)|here]], they revert back and sometimes respond with &quot;{{tq|Don't do something bad.}}&quot; or &quot;{{tq|leave this article alone!}}&quot; and has even got to even posting those on the article talk pages of those redirects, as well as stating &quot;{{tq|This is an article, not a redirect.}}&quot; which also suggests [[WP:OWN]] issues. They have been previously warned multiple times, but they have [[WP:LISTEN|continued to ignore them]] as if the policies of Wikipedia do not apply to them, though they did state that they &quot;{{tq|would not be blocked}}&quot; when they were warned about missing copyright and/or source information for images they upload. [[User:HorrorLover555|HorrorLover555]] ([[User talk:HorrorLover555|talk]]) 14:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Their behavior to date unsuitable on multiple grounds--uploading fair use images without appropriate justifications, poor quality articles, bad sourcing. [[Special:Diff/1216135204|This]], created today, is obviously unsuited for mainspace. If this continues they're getting blocked, but I'd like to hear from them first. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 14:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::...aaand within 35 minutes of {{-r|You and Me (Take That single)}} being redirected to the band (09:26), they're back again with [[Draft:You and Me (Take That song)]] (09:59). [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 15:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Definitely no response to the ANI notice either. I think they are refusing to communicate. [[User:HorrorLover555|HorrorLover555]] ([[User talk:HorrorLover555|talk]]) 16:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Double check me on this, but based on the timestamps I don't believe they've edited since this discussion opened. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 16:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I created the page for the band's new album back in September, and I've been chasing after them and trying to fix their, to be frank, pretty poor edits. They are constantly trying to make new pages for singles which might not need them, and even when they're in draft form, add links to them on the actual wiki. You can see this on some of the edits they did to the page for ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wonderland_(Take_That_album)&amp;oldid=1192829324 Wonderland]''. I've helped out a little with these pages to make them a little more justifiable to exist, but even then they are purely stubs which are just on the cusp of notability.<br /> :Another thing I've had to deal with them (which I find particularly annoying) is they stole the description on my profile page, changed &quot;The Beatles&quot; to &quot;One Direction&quot;, replaced my name with their own and did nothing else. It does make it funny therefore that their profile page claims they are interested in 90/00s electronic music, and have been writing for a wiki about aviation accidents since 2020, when they certainly haven't. But still, it's annoying.<br /> :As to whether or not I think they should be banned, I think so, but only for a week at most. This person clearly doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and just telling them doesn't seem to be fixing it, as you mentioned. I think banning them temporarily will show them that they need to listen to us. [[User:Tedster41|Tedster41]] ([[User talk:Tedster41|talk]]) 17:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Based on their edits, I would say it would be a longer temporary block than just a week. I don't think a week is going to get them to hear us out, as they'll likely jump back to doing the same edits as before once it expires. [[User:HorrorLover555|HorrorLover555]] ([[User talk:HorrorLover555|talk]]) 17:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Block request ==<br /> {{atop|Dealt with. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> Can somebody please block this IP? [[Special:Contributions/170.231.85.132]] Petty vandalism adding fake death dates to BLPs. Thanks [[User:Jkaharper|Jkaharper]] ([[User talk:Jkaharper|talk]]) 14:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :There's someone in Brazil who does this frequently, using various IPs. Just revert/warn, revert/warn, report to [[WP:AIV]]. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 14:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::And they're blocked. Thanks, {{ping|Jauerback}}! [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == S201050066 once more ==<br /> {{previous discussion|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive357#S201050066 again}}<br /> <br /> Could we get a block on IP 64.229.35.200 ([[Special:Contributions/64.229.35.200|contributions]]) and {{U|S201050066 number 43.3}}, who posted [[Special:Diff/1216199096|some angry rant on my talk page]]? It looks like this user is being disruptive in COVID-19 articles again. —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Tenryuu all the rest of the Timeline Of The COVID-19 pandemics articles on our list to [[User:S201050066 number 43.3|S201050066 number 43.3]] ([[User talk:S201050066 number 43.3|talk]]) 18:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Indeffed by Spicy. [[User:Lynch44|Lynch44]] ([[User talk:Lynch44|talk]]) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{Non-admin comment}} And the IP's been blocked for 7 days by Nthep. [[User talk:Relativity|&lt;b style=&quot;border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#e82c52;color:white;&quot;&gt;‍ Relativity &lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I give thanks to all the admins involved. I don't suppose this is enough to merit semi-protection on COVID-19 timeline articles that S201050066 has edited? —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 00:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Sak7340 ==<br /> <br /> {{User|User:Sak7340}} has been edit-warring on [[Mohammed Zubair (journalist)]] and is on their 8th revert so far. There is a [[WP:EWN]] report but it hasn't been reviewed yet. They've now created a couple of retaliatory and incomplete reports there on DaxServer [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216202193] and myself [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216202864]. There is a discussion on the article talk page, but it's going nowhere fast. I'm hoping this will get some faster attention as they've continued the disruptive editing after all of the warnings and the original EWN report. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|&lt;span style=&quot;color: darkred;&quot;&gt;Ravensfire&lt;/span&gt;]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :The edits are a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Sak7340 has been blocked by ToBeFree for two weeks and the article ECP'd for a while. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|&lt;span style=&quot;color: darkred;&quot;&gt;Ravensfire&lt;/span&gt;]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 18:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Needs extending to indefinite, and talk page access removing, in my opinion: see this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sak7340&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216231118] [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 21:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I've increased to indefinite. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Vauban Books]] ==<br /> <br /> From [[WP:BLPN]]. {{uls|Vauban Books}}: {{tq|This page, and particularly its first paragraph, is gross libel [...] Failing to properly edit may well invite legal action.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216229796]. Does this post violate or come close enough to violating [[WP:NLT]]? Does the OP's username violate our [[WP:CORPNAME]], [[WP:COI]] or other policies? I'll note, this is apparently a publisher of the subject, [[Renaud Camus]]. See [https://www.vaubanbooks.com here] for the identically named publisher promoting the subject for commercial purposes. Cheers! [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 22:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :No, [[WP:NLT]] is not appropriate here. It's just someone wanting to correct what they regard as inappropriate wording in [[Renaud Camus]] and, as is typical for someone new to Wikipedia, they have no idea about how to phrase their thoughts. They need guidance. The user name is a problem but please let's not get hung up about that either. Their thoughts should be considered at [[Talk:Renaud Camus]] if they respond there. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> == [[User:Graywalls]] reported by [[User:72.83.72.31]]==<br /> <br /> '''Pages:''' See below &lt;br /&gt;<br /> '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Graywalls}}<br /> <br /> A few days ago, [[User:Graywalls]] started on a personal mission to attack a number of scouting related articles:<br /> <br /> *{{la|White Stag Leadership Development Program}} - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Stag Leadership Development Program]]<br /> *{{la|Béla H. Bánáthy}} - unilaterally removing large swaths of content<br /> *{{la|Boy Scouts of America}} - removing content repeatedly, and after being challenged ignoring the discussion started on the talk page<br /> *{{la|COPE (Boy Scouts of America)}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion<br /> *{{la|Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America)}} - unilaterally removing large swaths of content with no discussion<br /> *{{la|National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion<br /> *{{la|Philmont Training Center}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion<br /> *{{la|Scouting}} - unhelpful editing<br /> <br /> Graywalls ignored the discussion started on this page, [[Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America#Meeting_of_the_minds]], and moved the discussion to: [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Quotes_based_on_primary_sources_on_Boy_Scouts_of_America]]. <br /> <br /> It seems that whenever the discuss is not going their way they escalate the disagreement to another fourm. In the last day, this has happened:<br /> <br /> *[[American Heritage Girls]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[COPE (Boy Scouts of America)]] - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COPE (Boy Scouts of America)|Nominated for deletion]]<br /> *[[Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America)]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[Philmont Training Center]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[Philmont Scout Ranch]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> <br /> It's somewhat bewildering. On top of all that is Graywalls personal attacks against btphelps. You can find it here:[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Big Sur, California area touristy contents]], here [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User: btphelps with regard to Bél H. Bánáthy]], and then there is this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leadership_training_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215215397 personal attack in the edit summary]. I submitted the last item to the administrators to be removed.<br /> <br /> '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215082335]<br /> <br /> '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graywalls&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215438291]<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;'''Comments:'''&lt;/u&gt; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The following users may be able to help:{{ping|evrik|Jergen|btphelps|North8000|erp}}<br /> See: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive480#User:Graywalls%20reported%20by%20User:Evrik%20(Result:%20Declined)]]<br /> Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/72.83.72.31|72.83.72.31]] ([[User talk:72.83.72.31|talk]]) 02:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Long story short IMO definitely an &quot;axe to grind&quot; situation. Painful for several people and many articles. I wish this situation could get made better or fixed somehow. Maybe just a warning or something. Sincerely, &lt;b style=&quot;color: #0000cc;&quot;&gt;''North8000''&lt;/b&gt; ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 02:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == New attack account harassing GuardianH ==<br /> {{atop|Account blocked with promise of required SPI paperwork being completed shortly. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> [[:Special:Contributions/Iamguardiansguardian]] is a new attack account harassing {{ping|GuardianH}}. They have made 4 posts so far.&lt;sup&gt;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGuardianH&amp;diff=1216279273&amp;oldid=1215257056 diff]&lt;/sup&gt; [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#Single-purpose account devoted to attacking GuardianH]] identified similar accounts as socks of [[:Special:Contributions/Korensho|Korensho]].&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000&quot;&gt;--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]&lt;/span&gt; 06:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == [[Altay S.K.]] and [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] battleground behaviour ==<br /> <br /> <br /> Can I get a second (or more) set of eyes on the above.<br /> <br /> We've got an ongoing dispute between {{userlinks|Delbatros}} and various IP user(s). The crux of the matter appears to be of all things a logo/jersey design.<br /> Neither the IP(s) nor the registered editor is behaving particularly well and has resorted to edit warring and personal attacks towards each other, to add to the mix theres (potential) copyright concerns which dont appear valid false accusations of vandalism and definite ownership problems.<br /> <br /> Delbatros was blocked for edit-warring already and the Karşıyaka S.K. page semi-protected to try to resolve the dispute, the issue now appears to have migrated to Altay S.K. with similar behaviours from all involved, to prevent more damage at this point i've partially blocked Delbatros from the page and semi-protected it to prevent either user from further disruption.<br /> <br /> We do need a long term solution to this though and given the amount of action I've already done I'd appreciate wider opinions/assistance. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :As an aside the IP's appear to be too variable to realistically target/notify a single page so I haven't notified any of the IP editors but they seem to be quite good at locating posts related to Delbatros. If anyone can think of a good way of notifying them please let me know for future reference. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm trying to edit the pages of Turkish clubs in other languages ​​as well. I'm not making any wrong changes, I'm not vandalizing, I'm not a malicious user, I know Wikipedia rules, I'm just annoyed that the anonymous user (I know he has an existing wikipedia account) is following me with a different IP because he is wrong interfering with all my positive contributions. I started a new project to keep the jerseys of various branches of Turkish sports clubs up to date on other Wikipedias. We will design the jerseys with the support of relevant users, we will update the Wikipedia pages in other languages ​​of the relevant participants and branches of our sports clubs. (I will update most of the pages) [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::: Well, you'll only be updating them if they're correct. The IP, however, ''is'' correct regarding the away colours of [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] [https://www.footballkitarchive.com/karsiyaka-sk-2023-24-away-kit/] [https://scontent.fltn3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/417475928_908823971251092_512607324657550495_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&amp;_nc_cat=102&amp;ccb=1-7&amp;_nc_sid=5f2048&amp;_nc_ohc=yVzVYrdYXOIAX_Gyyyq&amp;_nc_ht=scontent.fltn3-2.fna&amp;oh=00_AfCt6Q_nWWTX6c-iv4F64ZIORZ2GsfYmhFDfcyDkhbp23A&amp;oe=660DC7C7 Image from a match from 25 February]. If you look at the version you have inserted, that ''can't'' be an away design because it's almost exactly the same as the home one. Google also suggests that neither of you are correct on the home shirts, they currently appear to be green/red halves [https://www.footballkitarchive.com/karsiyaka-sk-2023-24-home-kit/] [https://scontent.fltn3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/433860281_928137759319713_9132037574223492635_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x395&amp;_nc_cat=100&amp;ccb=1-7&amp;_nc_sid=5f2048&amp;_nc_ohc=U0oSIHy7uo0AX-B5IgI&amp;_nc_ht=scontent.fltn3-1.fna&amp;oh=00_AfBV1kfpxNQHjEq0Y4CI5NHf0qwmBC6PzkvlPC3JlvNdIA&amp;oe=660DA567 image from 24 March on the official FB page]. As regards [[Altay S.K.]], Adidas do appear to be their shirt manufacturers, so the IP appears to be correct there [https://store.altay.org.tr/ Altay's official kit store] though you appear to be correct on the kit colours (except that the away and third shirts should possibly be swapped). As regards behaviour, ''even if you were correct'' your behaviour on 16 March on [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] deserved a block (22 reverts!!) and you made 7 reverts today on [[Altay S.K.]] which deserved one as well, and I would be doing so if another admin hadn't partially blocked you. I suggest that this behaviour stops ''right away'' or you will find your ability to edit severely curtailed. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::A person who does not know what communication means, who only wants me to be blocked indefinitely, who does not dare to intervene or communicate with his own Wikipedia account (the same user who follows me with different IP numbers and tries to interfere with my contributions every time), is enough not to interfere with my contributions. You mentioned the jerseys of two clubs. Unfortunately, the current season jerseys of both clubs are not available on Wikipedia. I said that there is no harm in having the previous jerseys on the [[Altay S.K.|Altay SK]] page temporarily, and I say it again (the same jerseys are available on other Wikipedia pages). I cannot get rid of this anonymous user, I have to complain to the administrators about every intervention he makes against my positive contributions, but I do not want this because I do not want the administrators to waste their time. I think there is no harm in having the previous jersey on the page temporarily until we add the new jerseys. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 11:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1216326838 2024-03-30T11:22:09Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Altay S.K. and Karşıyaka S.K. battleground behaviour */ Reply</p> <hr /> <div>{{Short description|Report incidents to administrators}}<br /> &lt;noinclude&gt;&lt;!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.--&gt;{{/Header}}&lt;/noinclude&gt;{{clear}}<br /> {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}<br /> {{User:MiszaBot/config<br /> |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}<br /> |maxarchivesize =800K<br /> |counter = 1151<br /> |algo = old(60h)<br /> |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c<br /> |archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d<br /> |headerlevel=2<br /> }}<br /> {{stack end}}<br /> &lt;!--<br /> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE<br /> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE<br /> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--&gt;<br /> <br /> == NoonIcarus and &quot;Failed verification&quot; ==<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|NoonIcarus}}<br /> <br /> Apologies in advance for the [[WP:TEXTWALL|wall of text]], but this is mainly due to having to outline and explain a list of concerning edits. NoonIcarus has inaccurately cited &quot;failed verification&quot; in an apparent effort to remove information from the project. This was addressed before by {{u|Mbinebri}} in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2002_Venezuelan_coup_attempt&amp;diff=1156165078&amp;oldid=1156111689 the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt article talk page], who said {{tq|&quot;In your recent edits, you removed info again, claiming failed verification because you couldn't access the two cited articles. I think this was inappropriate&quot;}}. More recently, I have noticed NoonIcarus performing this similar edit (and engaging in an edit war) to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=1211447585&amp;oldid=1210444201 remove information about leftists being tortured during a former Venezuelan government], arguing that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANational_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=1213263432&amp;oldid=1213263020 this was not presented in sources]. Well, this information is from the ''[[New York Amsterdam News]]'' article cited, where the paper writes {{tq|&quot;Posada worked as an official in Venezuela's DISIP ... where he participated in the torture of left-wing activists&quot;}}. So, instead of NoonIcarus actually not having access to information to &quot;verify&quot; source content, it appears that they are {{underline|''intentionally'' ignoring source content in order to maintain a particular POV}} on the project.<br /> <br /> After noticing this repetitive behavior, I reviewed NoonIcarus' similar &quot;failed verification&quot; edits, recognizing inconsistencies:<br /> *[[Carlos Vecchio]]: NoonIcarus removes information about Vecchio working for [[ExxonMobil]], saying it &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Vecchio&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212775596 failed verification].&quot; However, on [https://books.google.com/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false page 38 of ''Libres: el nacimiento de una nueva Venezuela''], Vecchio writes {{tq|&quot;Trabajo entonces en Mobil de Venezuela, la empresa petrolera, estaba ganando seis veces más de lo que ganada en PDVSA,&quot; (&quot;I then worked at Mobil de Venezuela, the oil company, I was earning six times more than what I earned at PDVSA&quot;}}, showing that he clearly worked for ExxonMobil. This may be an attempt to hide that a high-level Venezuelan opposition leader previously worked for an American company, which is controversial in Venezuelan politics. <br /> *[[2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum]]: NoonIcarus removes information about the [[Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies]] working with the Venezuelan opposition during the election, citing &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212425521 Failed verification, dead links]&quot;. {{strike|Strangely, these Stratfor articles were taken down after I added them to the election article,}} however they are still present in Google searches (as of now, though I took screenshots if necessary) and [http://blog.b92.net/text/1561/Dole-opozicija/ the article in particular can be seen mostly intact in this random 2007 forum]. And [https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/venezuela-new-player-mix here]. '''Edit:''' Links should work now. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1213326088&amp;oldid=1211357855 Thanks]!--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 10:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *[[Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies]]: NoonIcarus tags &quot;CANVAS is funded by primarily American organizations&quot; as &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centre_for_Applied_Nonviolent_Action_and_Strategies&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211946387 Failed verification]&quot;. However, if you look at the ''[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]'' article about the Venezuelan opposition's links to CANVAS, it says {{tq|&quot;Canvas wird wesentlich von amerikanischen Organisationen finanziert&quot; (&quot;Canvas is largely funded by American organizations&quot;)}}, showing that this can be verified.<br /> *[[Venezuelan opposition]]: NoonIcarus removed information about CANVAS training members of the Venezuelan opposition, saying &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuelan_opposition&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211946246 Failed verification. This information comes from a 2012 WikiLeaks piece]&quot;. This is entirely inaccurate and a falsehood as this information is sourced from [[Stratfor]], ''[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]'' and ''[[Le Monde diplomatique]]'', with these sources not citing Wikileaks at all.<br /> *[[Guarimba]]: NoonIcarus tagged the sentence &quot;Oxford Analytica wrote that half of the protest deaths resulted at barricades&quot; as &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199089123 Failed verification]&quot;. In the cited article, it clearly states {{tq|&quot;an estimated half of those killed losing their lives at opposition barricades&quot;}}.<br /> *[[Guarimba]] 2: NoonIcarus says &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1198710396 Failed verification]&quot; about the sentence &quot;Many families were confined to their homes as a result of guarimbas and in turn, children were prevented from attending school and individuals were unable to receive medical care.&quot; The source, the notable Venezuelan historian [https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/margarita-lopez-maya Margarita López Maya] [https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/403/40305606.pdf writes] {{tq|&quot;Las protestas, conocidas como el «guarimbazo», ... [resultaron con el] confinamiento de centenares de familias a sus hogares por los cierres de vía que impidieron llevar a los niños a las escuelas, acudir al trabajo, o llegar a centros de salud.&quot; (&quot;The protests, known as the 'guarimbazo', ... [resulted with the] confinement of hundreds of families to their homes due to road closures that prevented them from taking children to schools, going to work, or reaching health centers.&quot;}}<br /> *[[Guarimba]] 3: With the sentence &quot;At some guarimbas, protesters rob individuals who criticize the method&quot;, NoonIcarus said &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197831253 Failed verification. Nowhere to be seen in article]&quot;. The [https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/venezuela-deadline/534885/ cited article] by ''[[The Atlantic (magazine)|The Atlantic]]'' says {{tq|&quot;more radical elements of the party take to what’s called guarimba ... MUD supporters have stationed themselves at these ... shaking down people who don’t support the shutdown&quot;}}.<br /> *[[Protests against Nicolás Maduro]]: A sentence about opposition protesters attacking a government facility said &quot;President Maduro said the attack forced the evacuation of workers and about 89 children&quot;, with NoonIcarus saying that this had &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protests_against_Nicolás_Maduro&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1185537948 Failed verification, no mention of children]&quot;. The [https://web.archive.org/web/20140425021139/http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/protestas-en-venezuela/140403/maduro-revela-que-hay-un-detenido-por-ataques-a-ministerio-de-vivienda archived story], however, says {{tq|&quot;había 89 niños dentro de la sede, de los cuales 3 necesitaron asistencia con oxígeno&quot; (&quot;there were 89 children inside the headquarters, of which 3 needed assistance with oxygen&quot;)}}. One could excuse a potential lack of knowledge about [[web archiving]], but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuela_and_state-sponsored_terrorism&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211037807 NoonIcarus is very knowledgeable about web archiving when they want to be].<br /> <br /> This is just a small review of the last four months of editing by NoonIcarus, so again ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1183363529&amp;oldid=1182822268#Advocacy? see here] about the previous [[Wikipedia:Stable version#Inappropriate usage|inappropriate use of &quot;stable version&quot;]]), who knows how much they have removed using the &quot;failed verification&quot; method this time. Overall, NoonIcarus' editing behavior makes it clear that they are removing information not based on &quot;failed verification&quot;, but for other reasons; most likely related to seeing this information as a [[WP:BADPOV|bad POV]] about the Venezuelan opposition. This is further evidence to add to the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive editing by NoonIcarus|previous concerns]] about NoonIcarus [[WP:NOTHERE|not being here to build an encyclopedia]]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 06:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Wow. These &quot;failed verification&quot; lies (which is what these are) are so pervasive that unless NoonIcarus has a very good explanation for all of these, I'd go ahead with a site ban. &lt;span&gt;♠[[User:JCW555|&lt;span style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;JCW555&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:JCW555|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;(talk)&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt;♠ 07:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::All of these edits are recent or recent-ish (2024), and it's apparent from his userpage that NoonIcarus speaks Spanish. NoonIcarus isn't an inexperienced editor. I ''do'' find NoonIcarus' position defensible on the 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum; I could imagine that if I saw commentary I found suspicious that was sourced to a dead link, I might tag it with {{tl|fv}}. I also think he's got an arguable case on Guarimba 3 because &quot;shaking down&quot; doesn't necessarily mean &quot;robbing&quot;. On the other matters I fully side with WMrapids.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 09:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{re|S Marshall}} There was a URL issue,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1213326088&amp;oldid=1211357855][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213327198&amp;oldid=1213326269] though as I said, the articles were still easily accessible on Google. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 10:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yes, I can see your side of it. I just think it's only fair to note that it ''was'' a contentious claim sourced to a dead link.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 14:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::IMO the correct solution is to use {{tl|dead link}} for the link not working, and also {{tl|Verify source}} if you have doubts and cannot check the source due to the dead link. Failed verification implies that you checked the source and could not find the claim rather than you could not view the source. Note that the documentation for the failed verification template specifically says you should use dead link '''instead''' when the website is unreachable. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::While I didn't see anything in the documentation that I saw that says it's okay to use both the dead link and verify source template, I'd argue it's perfectly fine since they describe two related but separate issues. One is that the link is dead, so someone needs to either fix it in some way. E.g. they could find an archival link. Or alternatively replace it with a working source. Or in some cases if the source doesn't need a link ensure that there is sufficient info in the citation and possibly remove the link. The second issue is that an editor has doubts over the content but couldn't access the source to confirm it one way or the other. So wants someone who does have access to the source to verify it, perhaps providing a quote on the talk page to help or something. This isn't so different from a book or journal the editor doesn't have access to or a paywalled website, except here the problem is a dead link so fixing the dead link and confirming it verifies should be enough. If for whatever reason e.g. an editor gnoming a lot of related dead links doesn't have time to check, they're perfectly fine fixing the dead link, removing the dead link template and leaving the verify source for someone else to deal with perhaps even the editor who added it in the first place when they find the link was fixed. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Using {{tl|dead link}} is the correct option, but [[Template:Failed verification/doc]] only mentioned that in the body. I've made a slight change to reflect that in the lede of the documentation. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::The main issue with said sources is that their format ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;oldid=1211595977]) did not show how they were accessed in the first place. There weren't archive links, archive dates or quotes, and if they had been truly accessed just a few days ago they should have been available when I did. I want to leave clear that I oppose removing links for being dead as the only reason, and I have rescued several of these references when I have found the archives. I was unaware about {{tl|Verify source}}, and it looks like an useful tag that I will probably use in the future. Kind regards, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::It should be noted that {{tl|Verify source}} should only be used {{tq|only after you have made a good faith attempt to verify the information yourself}} if you are unable to find it, ''and'' still have doubts about its authenticity. You might also be interested in [[WP:IABOT]], which can often repair dead links. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::{{re|The Wordsmith}} Not trying to [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeon]] here, but &quot;good faith&quot; tagging has been a consistent issue for NoonIcarus as well.([[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#Tags??|1]],[[Talk:ZunZuneo#Drive by tagging|2]],[[Talk:Guarimba#Tags|3]]) {{ping|Boynamedsue}} even said &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGuarimba&amp;diff=1199140170&amp;oldid=1199098876 All of the in text tags here lacked justification. '''I am very concerned about Noonicarus'''… This is the diametric opposite of our actual policy]&quot;. Just wanted to share this to provide more context. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Response '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214571997 here]'''. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 19:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Sure thing. Thank you kindly, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Re Carlos Vecchio: The cited book says &quot;Mobil de Venezuela&quot; and in the previous paragraph it suggests that the date was [https://books.google.ca/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38&amp;lpg=PA38&amp;dq=%22mobil+de+venezuela%22+trabajo+vecchio&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=A2k2n37WUy&amp;sig=ACfU3U2bwYlwu_aQ-dZmPNmB8dZnqd5XCg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiS7YXn6-6EAxV4MjQIHcVoAdgQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%22mobil%20de%20venezuela%22%20trabajo%20vecchio&amp;f=false July 1998]. Wikipedia's [[ExxonMobil]] article says Exxon merged with Mobil to form ExxonMobil in November 1999. So I think NoonIcarus was correct, the Wikipedia claim that BLP subject Carlos Vecchio worked for ExxonMobil was poorly sourced. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 14:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::This is splitting hairs. Looking at [[History of ExxonMobil]], we do not simply say &quot;Mobil&quot; when discussing the company historically. If we want to be super specific, &quot;Mobil de Venezuela&quot; could have been edited as a redirect (like [[ExxonMobil|Mobil de Venezuela]]), but this still doesn't warrant NoonIcarus' removal of the information entirely. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 14:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::In fact Mr Vecchio did work for ExxonMobil a few years later, I was thrown off by your quoting of a passage that is not about that. Although I think the citing could have been more specific I was wrong to say it's poorly sourced. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 16:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}<br /> {{re|Nil Einne|The Wordsmith|Peter Gulutzan}} I'm appreciative of you all clarifying the appropriate usage of templates and the source content regarding Mobil (ExxonMobil). But, {{u|Mbinebri}} already warned NoonIcarus about inappropriately using &quot;failed verification&quot;, {{u|S Marshall}} notes that NoonIcarus has the experience to have known better and {{u|JCW555}} suggests a &quot;site ban&quot; since the user appears to be a deliberately removing unwanted information. We have been dealing with NoonIcarus' inappropriate edits for some time now ([[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions|block deletions and canvassing]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive440#User%3AOnetwothreeip_reported_by_User%3ANoonIcarus_(Result%3A_Filer_warned)|edit warring against consensus]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive_editing_by_NoonIcarus|activist/battleground edits]]). So, do any of you have suggestions on how to remedy NoonIcarus' [[WP:GAMING|gaming behavior]] that has continued (especially on Venezuelan topics) for years now? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1194288807&amp;oldid=1194288478 I previously suggested a topic ban], which is less severe than a full &quot;site ban&quot;.--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Such suggestions should wait until NoonIcarus has had some time to respond, I think. We normally give users a while to answer.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 19:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Pre-emptively, I would definitely support a TBAN, because I have watched NoonIcarus's behaviour for a long time, and it is absolutely unacceptable. To be honest, I am suprised they haven't recieved a ban or block of any sort regarding this issue. I fear that they might be one of the [[WP:UNBLOCKABLES|unblockables]], and that would be a great shame. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 05:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:JML1148|JML1148]] The reason this issue is getting little attention from admins is because of how verbose all of the participants are and how this dispute is outside of the knowledge of most people in the west, which is the English Wikipedia's main editor base. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I totally get the the thing regarding the conduct of the participants. I don't really think the issue is with it being outside the knowledge of most editors, though - there's been a few RfCs with widespread participation including the dispute between NoonIcarus and WMRapids. I definitely think a large number of administrators know about the dispute and the poor conduct involved, but aren't getting involved. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 06:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I didn't remember where we knew each other from, until I found the request for comment [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|RfC: VENRS]], which WMrapids started. If your understanding about my experience as an editor comes mostly from WMrapids, I kindly ask if you have a chance to take a look at the ANI own complaints against WMrapids below. Best wishes, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Currently writing a response to the accusations. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :If I understand this correctly, the allegation is that a user should be blocked for adding &quot;failed verification&quot; tags where other tags are appropriate? Isn't that a sledgehammer/nut response? As people have already shown the first two e examples aren't straightforward, I'm looking at the third example, the Frankfurter Zeitung source on [[Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies]]. The tagged reference is as follows: {{Cite news |date=1 April 2019 |title=Generation 2007 |work=[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]}} There is no link, so impossible for someone to verify without finding the 1 April 2019 edition of FAZ, something I couldn't manage to do easily. It looks like the complainant here has access to the text, as they quote it on this page, so why not just add a hyperlink, or at least give the full quotation and maybe a page number, and remove the tag? Maybe &quot;failed verification&quot; is the wrong tag, but surely the ref doesn't meet our standards of verification and therefore Noonicarus was correct to tag it? [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 06:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Now I'm looking at the fourth example, [[Venezuelan opposition]]. Here the sources were removed rather than tagged. All of the removed sources are problematic from a verification point of view: the same FAZ ref without a link, a Monde Diplo article that is paywalled but which in another edit Noonicarus says doesn't mention Venezuela, and Stratfor links which are dead. So it would have been right to tag it. The removal was part of what seems to be quite a lot of back and forth editing with the complainant here inserting very POV material and Noonicarus hastily removing it. Would have been better for both editors to slow down and talk it out, but this is not an example of one user deviously using &quot;failed verification&quot; as framed in the complaint. The fifth example, [[Guarimba]], is a bit like the third: the citation to Oxford Analytica doesn't have a hyperlink so is impossible to verify. The quote is too short to confirm it supports the text. Noonicarus tags it instead of removing it. It should be tagged in some way as it does indeed need more to verify it. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 06:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC) With the sixth example, also from [[Guarimba]], I agree with WMrapids that on the face of it this should not have been removed. Noonicarus' edit summary is &quot;Failed verification. Care should be also be taken, since unreliable government sources are frequently used, such as Venezolana de Televisión and Correo del Orinoco. It's clear that this is not the best source&quot; which doesn't seem to match the content removed, suggesting it may have been a mistake, and WMRapids was right to revert it. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 07:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) The seventh example, same WP article, was also a bad edit. Possibly Noonicarus searched the source without noticing the paywall half way down but the full article[https://web.archive.org/web/20170727021506/https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/venezuela-deadline/534885/] does include the &quot;shakedown&quot; passage. I'd say the removed content was a rather POV rendering of the material, so this may have provoked this excessive response. So far I agree with WMRapids in two out of seven examples. There doesn't seem to be the malignant pattern the complaint implies. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 07:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Last one, on the protests. It's true the second source, a dead link, contained text about children, so flagging as need verification or checking the archive would have been better than removal. However, the actual claim in the WP article text doesn't correspond to the sources as comments attributed to Maduro (including about children) weren't made by Maduro. Again, there was bad POV material to which Noonicarus overreacted. So three out of eight edits raised here are problematic, but not in a way that suggests a need to sanctions. Is there an 1RR rule on Venezuela articles? That might be a better solution, to calm down the editing in general. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 07:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|Bobfrombrockley}} I think you might be missing some of the context here. Although whether or not this specific incident warrants sanctions is debatable, according to your analysis, NoonIcarus has a history of POV pushing, incivility and assuming ownership of articles. There is a very long and detailed comment that WMRapids left on a previous ANI incident, found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1194288807&amp;oldid=1194288478#Disruptive_editing_by_NoonIcarus| here]. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 08:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::As I explained in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199976378 my own response to the comment], the problem is that there hasn't been much ''pushing'' from my part, but rather from WMrapids. They have aggresively introduced POV in several articles for months now: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207984331 National_Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuelan_opposition&amp;oldid=1185607237 Venezuelan opposition], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;oldid=1185456874 Guarimba], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211595977 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Venezuelan_blackouts&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211608041 2019 Venezuelan blackouts], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Venezuelan_parliamentary_election&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199025984 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary election], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Venezuelan_municipal_elections&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199019968 2013 Venezuelan municipal elections]. Most, if not all, of the recent disputes with WMrapids have resulted from me challenging the POV content and WMrapids' reluctance to change it. As of article ownership, it's enough to point out to articles such as [[Operation Gideon (2020)]], [[Rupununi uprising]] and [[Guarimba]] to show how difficult it has been to make any changes different from the editor's preferred version. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 02:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thank you {{u|JML1148}}. I wasn't aware of that context. Was WMRapids' last complaint supported by the community? It seems to me that WMRapids engages in exactly the same sort of behaviour that NoonIcarus is accused of in these same contentious topic areas, and if NoonIcarus has been a bit quick on the trigger with tagging WMRapids content (which often tends to POV), WMRapids is quick to revert NoonIcarus' edits without establishing consensus. Both of them do engage in discussion on talk pages, but often it is hard to get consensus due to a lack of un-involved editors. I don't think this is a disciplinary matter, and if it is then similar sanctions should apply to WMRapids. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Prequel to some of the tagging mentioned in the allegation above appears to be a request to the OP for info on the sourcing which was responded to rather brusquely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum#Stratfor [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{re|Bobfrombrockley}} It looks brusque and rude, but it actually isn't. OP pointed to dead links [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=1212425673&amp;oldid=1196506749 asking] &quot;How did you get the information?&quot; WMRapids [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213305378 replied] on 06:36, 12 March 2024 that the links came from Google and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1212425850 '''corrected the deadlinks'''] four hours later (10:45, 12 March 2024) saying, &quot;No idea how this happened. Links should be fixed.&quot; Six hours ''after'' the links were corrected (16:32, 12 March 2024), instead of thanking WMRapids for correcting them, OP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=1213365508&amp;oldid=1213305378 said], &quot;Rude. It's your responsibility to ensure the verifiability of the content.&quot; WMRapids already had, so if anyone was rude, it was NoonIcarus, not WMRapids. One wonders if OP even made a minimal effort to correct the links.<br /> :::::I will give WMRapids the thanks at that discussion that s/he deserved and so the context is clearer for anyone who reads the short back and forth.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212425673 My message] showing how the previous links gave no results in Web Archive should hint enough that I did try to fix the links. WMrapids fixed the references five days after the ping, &lt;s&gt;only after I pointed out this fact again in this ANI&lt;/s&gt;. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 23:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::{{tq|WMrapids fixed the references five days after the ping, only after I pointed out this fact again in this ANI}}. I don't believe that is true. WMRapids fixed the links on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1212425850 10:45, 12 March 2024] shortly after {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1213326088&amp;oldid=1211357855 explained] the link problem on 09:08, 12 March 2024. (Thanks.) From my review of [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=NoonIcarus&amp;page=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max= your contributions here at AN/I], your first comment here was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=1213483343 09:58, 13 March 2024]--a day after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1212425850 the links were corrected]. Please provide a diff showing where you pointed this out at this ANI ''before'' WMrapids corrected the link on 10:45, 12 March 2024. Providing a false timeline does not help your case.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 01:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::{{re|David Tornheim}} You're right. It was after ActivelyDisinterested told me that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213326088 I thanked them] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213326713 fixed the links about ten minutes later]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 02:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::I'm striking that specific part since you're correct. My main point stands, though: WMrapids provided this example to falsely accuse me of &quot;ignoring the content&quot;, when I showed in my comment that I tried accessing the references and that Web Archive did not provide any results. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|Bobfrombrockley}} As I said in the opening of this discussion, {{u|Mbinebri}} already warned NoonIcarus that a &quot;failed verification&quot; tag is inappropriate if the user didn't have access to the source. A source does not need a link to be included. Failed verification means that someone had read the source and the content did not match the source. So, no, many of the tags and edit summaries were not &quot;correct&quot; as you suggest and NoonIcarus was deliberately removing information without properly verifying it.<br /> ::I know that [[Talk:United States involvement in regime change#Trimming|you two have worked pretty closely together]] on removing some info from [[United States involvement in regime change]]. This is where NoonIcarus and I have had a conflict (their frequent removals), but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1209395892&amp;oldid=1209308986 I reached out to them in an effort to avoid edit warring], suggesting that we ''add'' to articles and discuss instead of constant removals. This worked for but a moment until they reverted back to edit warring. It crossed the line when they inappropriately began removing information citing &quot;failed verification&quot;, and now we are here. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 14:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::By &quot;worked together closely&quot;, I think you mean that we have at times agreed on what the content should look like and you've disagreed. On that page, you secured consensus for some of your preferred edits and not for others. It seems to me that you both engage properly in talk pages and I was surprised to see you escalate this to an incident for admins. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Same here, particularly since WMrapids never told me about the misuse of &quot;failed verification&quot; or claimed that I wasn't accessing the references. While I have been frustrated by slow progress, I felt that the conflict had escaled down until now. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 18:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::1RR is a solution that has been proposed previously and I have tried to abide by. It wouldn't solve all of the current issues, but it is not currently implemented and it probably would be a good first step. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 12:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I agree with this, this may help lower the temperature without an excessive overreaction. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Just remembering that this is an electoral year and there will be presidential elections in Venezuela. There will definitely be more traffic and more disputes. The 1RR general restriction should be helpful. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Again, NoonIcarus, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214766605&amp;oldid=1214764162 you exaggerate and seem to inaccurately portray yourself] as the {{tq|&quot;last one remaining&quot;}} for Venezuelan political articles when this isn't the case ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214797142][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214797142]). [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable#You can be replaced|We can all be replaced]] and your depiction of yourself performing some sort of last stand (as you seem to do, arguing that this is an election year), is literally [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable#Situations|an example of a situation]] that validates evidence of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]]. {{u|Number 57}} themself has [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Number+57&amp;page=2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max= consistently assisted with the election article] too, so it's untrue to suggest we don't have knowledgable users focused on the topic. You seem to be more concerned about someone with what you consider a [[WP:BADPOV|bad POV]] participating in articles that you are interested in. <br /> <br /> :::::An unofficial [[WP:0RR]] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1209395892&amp;oldid=1209308986 {{underline|already}} recommended] and you reverted back to edit warring (and inaccurately removing information citing &quot;failed verification&quot;). Given the previous sanctions ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|you {{underline|already}} had 0RR and 1RR restrictions placed upon you]]) and the multiple ignored warnings, we are well past the point of further reversion restrictions as you have {{underline|already}} crossed over [[Wikipedia:BRINK|the brink]]. {{underline|''Multiple'' other users have outlined many examples of [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]];}} I have showed how [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Repeating a penalised edit|you are repeating behavior you were penalized for]] and that [[WP:REMOVECITE|you delete pertinent cited additions of others]] (the &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1183363529&amp;oldid=1182822268 stable version]&quot; and &quot;failed verification&quot; methods), {{u|Boynamedsue}} and {{u|Mbinebri}} already discussed you [[WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH|disputing the reliability of apparently good sources]] and [[WP:RGW|your &quot;political activism&quot; or &quot;ideological rewriting&quot;]] in articles, while Number 57, {{u|David Tornheim}}, {{u|Goldsztajn}}, {{u|Lavalizard101}}, {{u|Simonm223}} and {{u|JML1148}}, have shared how you have consistently [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject|introduced undue material]]. After reviewing all of the above, it shows that on Latin American political topics, NoonIcarus, [[WP:NOTHERE|you are ''not'' here to build an encyclopedia]]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::::::You have already made your point, there's not need to repeat yourself. Don't bludgeon the process. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> How long are admins going to let this go? It has been obvious for some time that Noonicarus can not edit competently on Latin American political articles and they need to be topic-banned at the very least.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 06:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Another few days. The OP has had time to write a thorough and well-formatted complaint. We give their target the same courtesy.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 08:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === WMrapids and source misinterpretation ===<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|WMrapids}}<br /> <br /> :'''''[[Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read|TL;DR]]: WMrapids accuses me of &quot;ignoring source content&quot; but omits that I access said content and try to help with verifiability, such as by asking for quotes, which the editor never provided until now. WMrapids has a history of source misinterpretation that needs to be checked.'''''<br /> <br /> :I was hoping that with [[User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 10#Future collaboration recommendations|this exchange]] and more interaction in talk pages there would be less conflict but alas, we find ourselves here again. I have already made several complaints about WMrapids' poor behavior in the past, including but not limited to edit warring, blanking and hounding ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS|ANI#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:WMrapids (blanking)|ANI#User:WMrapids (blanking)]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids|ANI#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids]]). For the sake of brevity I will focus in the recent issues.<br /> <br /> :WMrapids has a history of reference misinterpretation, original research and poor sourcing, sometimes leading to BLP violations (eg: [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 106#Nelson Bocaranda|WP:NPOV/N#Nelson Bocaranda]] and [[Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis#Lancet editorial misrepresented]]), ''not to mention lack of attribution or personal interpretation, as with the &quot;shaking down&quot; example''. Controversial or fringe claims such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=José_Manuel_Olivares&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1180967211 a congressman leading an auto theft gang], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207984331 the CIA infiltration of Venezuelan intelligence services] or the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Venezuelan_blackouts&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211608041 opposition involvement in the 2019 blackouts] don't help either. The editor continues accusing me of bias, but with them casting doubts about Venezuelan torture victims testimonies [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorent_Saleh&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208811280][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorent_Saleh&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209208884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81ngel_Vivas&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208817265][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karen_Palacios&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208819970][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81ngel_Vivas&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209050808][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilmer_Azuaje&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208822867] and own removal of content[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207924351][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protests_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211596504][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1159024505][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuela_and_state-sponsored_terrorism&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209509663] shows that the editor does not hold all of the information to the same standard depending on its point of view. Another example of this is how they question the Organization of American States as a source in the Guarimba article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197738262]), but doesn't have to have an issue with using it at the [[Ayacucho massacre|Ayacucho]] and [[Juliaca massacre]]s articles ([[Special:Diff/1156851831|1]], [[Special:Diff/1156852169|2]]). To this date no explanation has been provided for this.<br /> <br /> :When I say &quot;failed verification&quot; it doesn't mean that I wasn't able to access the source or that I was too lazy to try to. God knows I have. Web Archive, Google Books, JSTOR, all the possible means available online if I don't happen to have an offline method to verify. Threads that include [[Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman)#CIA informant accusation]], [[Talk:National Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services#Luis Posada Carriles|Talk:DISIP#Luis Posada Carriles]], [[Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs]] and [[Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia]] show that I have accessed the references and that I am familiar with their content, if I had already not said it at the edit summaries.<br /> <br /> :WMrapids often doesn't include URLs, pages, quotes or other means to help with verifiability for bibliographical sources, even when they are easily accesible ''(just as BobFromBrockley as noted above)'', and have continued to do so even when other users that asked for them to be included. [[WP:BURDEN|The responsability to ensure the verifiability of the information lies on the user that adds it]], but the user shifts this burden onto other editors, best exemplified by one of the last responses to the source requests: &quot;{{tq|Google}}&quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213305378]. Talk pages such as [[Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor]] are witness that I have tried asking about the original quotes or learning more about the content in question, even when I haven't found it after accessing the source, and I often choose rewording or fixing the references instead of removal when I have the opportunity: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enforced_disappearances_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209604584][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enforced_disappearances_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213352590][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211455507][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thor_Halvorssen_(businessman)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208919306][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213212436].<br /> <br /> :I am very dissapointed that this is the first time that any of these quotes are brought up: not in its references, not in the talk pages, but to make a case against me, as they have with other editors that have challenged their edits, for requesting them in the first place. I don't want to speak on behalf of {{u|Mbinebri}}, but I believe that our exchange was a lot more open and amicable at [[Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt#Recent edits... with more to go(?)]] than the ones that I've had with WMrapids when I have challenged the content. <br /> <br /> {{collapse top|Responses to WMrapids accusations|indent=1.6em}}<br /> * The text's original source about Luis Posada Carriles ({{cite book |last=Bardach |first=Ann Louise |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780375504891 |title=Cuba Confidential: Love and Vengeance in Miami and Havana |publisher=Random House |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-375-50489-1 |pages=184-186 |url-access=registration}}), which describes the group saying {{tq|[he] immediately went to war against the leftist guerrilla movements supported by Castro in Venezuela}}. It directly contradicts the description of {{tq|he participated in the torture of left-wing activists}}.<br /> * [https://books.google.es/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=Exxon&amp;f=false Searching &quot;Exxon&quot; in Google Books] gives back page 56, whose preview doesn't mention anything about Qatar or Vecchio being a tax manager. Looking online, the main websites that have this information are outlets with a heinous reliability record, such as {{RSP entry|The Grayzone|[[The Grayzone]]|d}} [https://thegrayzone.com/2019/06/18/exxon-ambassador-carlos-vecchio-venezuela-coup-lobbyist/] and {{RSP entry|Telesur|[[Telesur]]|d}} [https://www.telesurenglish.net/opinion/Donald-Trumps-War-of-Recolonization-Against-Venezuela-20190201-0015.html], as well as Venezuelan state outlets. ''This was added to the article just months after these articles were published:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Vecchio&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=929539862]''. [https://books.google.es/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA56&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false Modifying the URL solves this issue].<br /> * See [[Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor]] for the CANVAS content. The provided links were broken, Web Archive [https://web.archive.org/web/20240303110440/https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/article/venezuela-marigold-revolution][https://web.archive.org/web/20240303110438/https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/article/venezuela-new-player-mix] didn't throw any results, and I asked for the specific quote. Nothing misleading here, the provided reference did not reflect the added content. I'm glad this has been fixed now.<br /> * The information about the alleged relations between the Venezuelan opposition, Otpor! and CANVAS comes from Wikileaks' &quot;Global Intelligence Files&quot;. This is even mentioned by a source that WMrapids provided:[https://inthesetimes.com/article/wikileaks-docs-expose-famed-serbian-activists-ties-to-shadow-cia Wikileaks Docs Expose Famed Serbian Activist’s Ties to ‘Shadow CIA’]. Stratfor links were broken (see above) and ''[[Le Monde diplomatique]]'' didn't mention Venezuela, something I also asked at [[Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs]]. {{RSP entry|WikiLeaks|[[WikiLeaks]]|gu}} is an unreliable source per [[WP:RS/PS]].<br /> * See S Marshall's comment regarding &quot;shaking down&quot;. I'm not the only person that does not think that &quot;extortion&quot; is the same as &quot;robbing&quot;<br /> * If I recall correctly, I removed the information about children because the sentence talked specifically about evacuation. Yahoo's source was also dead, but can be accessed through Archive and says: {{tq|Several people, including a young girl, have been rescued from Venezuela's Housing Ministry after it was set on fire by anti-government protesters.}}[https://web.archive.org/web/20140425004926/https://uk.news.yahoo.com/venezuela-ministry-torched-protesters-094601485.html#ugF7qD3] If I had removed content simply because the links are dead and I didn't bother trying accessing them, as WMrapids claims, I would have deleted the whole statement, which is clearly not the case.<br /> The only exceptions that I can see are Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung's and Oxford Analytica's sources; in both cases I tagged the sentences accordingly and did not remove the content. I'm finding out about &lt;nowiki&gt;{{verify source}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; due to this thread, and I will probably use in the future in this context. As of López Maya's source, I simply did not find the original source. It is a 25 pages document and WMrapids usually doesn't provide quotes for the references, as I mentioned above.<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> <br /> :I cannot stress how exhausted I am of this. It will be almost a year since this pattern has started since WMrapids started editing in Venezuelan topics. I don't know what to ask anymore besides for the community to make up their position based on this information and to propose a solution. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :&lt;ins&gt;PS: I don't want to delve too much into the POV pushing accusations to not make the thread longer than it already is, and that it is neither the main topic at hand nor diffs have been provided to justify them, but in turn I want to provide a few in response:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209296860][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211821592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209088145]. I don't care about any specific point of view, just about the quality of the sourcing.&lt;/ins&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 18:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{collapse top|&lt;ins&gt;Response about POV&lt;/ins&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)|indent=1.6em}}<br /> :I'll provide more information about the POV, since it is one of the two main topics at hand but I haven't provided a response, although I will collapse this.<br /> <br /> :To describe my editing scope, in en.wiki I'm more interested in updating articles or current events, while in the es.wiki I'm more interested in created new content and starting articles, unless we're talking about translations into English or biographies for [[Women in Red]]. What I wouldn't want is that, given that writing about the current situation in Venezuela reflects negatively on the government, that automatically means having an anti-government POV, which in turns means having a pro-opposition POV. However, I want to leave clear that I am aware of my biases, as they're intrinsic to every person. I'm Venezuelan, which means that I have a different background and experiences from people from the Anglosphere, which is why I also understand the position of many of the participants here.<br /> <br /> :To provide an overview, I was the first person [[Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis#End date|to suggest an end date for the presidential crisis article]]. Since the Punto Fijo governments were brought up, though, as examples, in Spanish I have created the article about the 1969 [[:es:Operación Canguro|Operación Canguro]], the intervention of the Central University of Venezuela by President Rafael Caldera; the 1984 [[:es:Masacre de Tazón|Tazón massacre]], when National Guard soldiers shot at students from the same university; the 1986 [[:es:Masacre de Yumare|Yumare massacre]], during Jaime Lusinchi's government; the 1992 [[:es:Masacre del Retén de Catia|Retén de Catia massacre]], during Carlos Andrés Pérez's second term; and the [[:es:Incendio de Sabaneta de 1994|1994 Sabaneta fire]], the worst prison tragedy in Venezuelan history. I even created an article about a student from the University Simón Bolívar that was killed by the police in 1989, [https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Registro&amp;page=Gonzalo+Jaurena Gonzalo Jaurena], which at the end was ultimately deleted. At es.wiki I likewise used to patrol for vandalism in articles about government officials ([https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=122334298][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=122402239][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=124982674][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=124992363][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=128851475] and trust me, there were plenty) until it became too time consuming.<br /> <br /> :Given that we're discussing a general Latin American topic ban, it should also be useful to discuss other articles from the region. I have likewise edited about human right abuses by right-wing groups (or against left-wing followers) and I think it's important for them to be documented in Wikipedia: Argentina's [[Cecilia Cacabelos]], disappeared during the last military dictatorship; Mexico's [[Halcones (paramilitary group)|Halcones]], responsible for the [[Corpus Christi Massacre]] during the [[Mexican Dirty War|Dirty War]]; the [[1963 Dominican coup d'état]], where leftist President [[Juan Bosch (politician)|Juan Bosch]] was deposed; [[Chile truckers' strike]], supported by the CIA, and the [[2017–2018 Honduran protests]], after conservative [[Juan Orlando Hernández]] was declared elected among irregularities. In Spanish, I have also written about several cases about other countries in the Inter-American Commision of Human Rights: [[:es:Caso Artavia Murillo y otros vs. Costa Rica|1]], [[:es:Caso Barrios Altos c. Perú|2]], [[:es:Caso Bulacio vs. Argentina|3]], [[:es:Caso de la Masacre de Mapiripán vs. Colombia|4]], [[:es:Caso González y otras (Campo Algodonero) vs. México|5]], [[:es:Caso Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica|6]], [[:es:Caso Masacre de Santo Domingo vs. Colombia|7]], [[:es:Caso Masacre Plan de Sánchez vs. Guatemala|8]], [[:es:Caso Montero Aranguren y otros (Retén de Catia) vs. Venezuela|9]], [[:es:Caso Myrna Mack Chang vs. Guatemala|10]], [[:es:Operación Génesis vs. Colombia|11]].<br /> <br /> :I don't want to be defined by my worst moments or mistakes, or that the most recent editorial disputes. 2020, 2021, 2022 and early 2023 were relatively calm years overall. Regardless of the perceived POV, I'm knowledgable in general and I'm really looking forward improving articles. If there are issues in articles, including about neutrality (from human rights to corruption), it's something that can be discussed and I will probably have something to be able to help. Best wishes, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> <br /> ::Given that you are [[Wikipedia:Unblockables#What to expect|attempting to boomerang this back onto me]], as {{ping|JML1148}} mentioned this &quot;unblockable&quot; behavior, I will try to provide a short response.<br /> ::Yes, I may forget to include specific quotes and page numbers on occasion, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that you inaccurately designated content as &quot;failed verification&quot; and removed it inappropriately.<br /> ::You also failed to justify any removal based on &quot;failed verification&quot;:<br /> ::#The Posada information was based on the newspaper article, not the book.<br /> ::#You're attempting to deflect the information on Vecchio to Grayzone (who you personally and understandably have a beef with) instead of ''actually verifying the source itself''.<br /> ::#We can understand that this was an accident, yet this could have been easily verifiable doing an internet search for the article title.<br /> ::#Regarding CANVAS, you inappropriately said the information was from Wikileaks when this was not the case.<br /> ::#The &quot;shakedown&quot; appears up for debate, though looking at [[extortion]], it seems like protesters forcing disapproving people to give them belongs seems like a robbery to me.<br /> ::#The information about children was removed, period. You could have looked at the archived link to El Universal.<br /> ::#Finally, you use the excuse of not being knowledgeable of &quot;verify source&quot;, which seems like a cop out for a ten-year Wikipedia user.<br /> ::So, it still is clear to me that you are deflecting blame and making excuses for your inappropriate behavior on the Project instead of listening to the ''years'' of warnings from other users. I admit to not being a perfect user and [[Talk:Guarimba#Gara|you yourself have clarified things for me]], but I never went as far as being dishonesty. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 17:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I wrote a response towards your accusations. Nothing more, nothing less. You're accusing me of deliberately ignoring the content in the references, and the diffs I provide show this is clearly false. Your lack of URLs, pages and quotes has been the norm, not the exception.<br /> :::If we want to talk about dishonesty, it's probably best to ask: [[WP:IGNOREYOU|if for weeks I had asked for quotes or on what the changes were based]] ([[Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman)#CIA informant accusation]], [[Talk:National Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services#Luis Posada Carriles]], [[Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs]], [[Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia]] and [[Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor]]), why is it only now that you're providing them for the first time? You once said {{tq|it is becoming exhausting that we are arguing over the definition of a shake down now}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1198726221]. Do you find these questions annoying? That is something different and that you can say, but saying that I'm ignoring source content is deceptive. <br /> <br /> :::By providing the sources only now, it shows how easily and accessible it is for you, but here it looks not as an attempt to help with the content verifiability or address my behavior, but rather to sanction me. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :::&lt;small&gt;And talking about the &lt;nowiki&gt;{{verify source}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; tag, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. One thing is tagging, another thing is contesting and removing. I only said that I'll be looking using it more in the future. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Topic ban from Latin American political articles for NoonIcarus===<br /> '''Support topic ban:''' After reviewing the response from NoonIcarus, it appears that they will continue to deflect their misbehavior onto others and have not learned from the years of warnings they have encountered. Again, while I am admittedly not a perfect user myself, it does not justify their [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|dishonest editing]], frequent edit warring and their [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]] in apparent acts of [[WP:ACTIVIST|activism]].--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *No. Proposals are needed here but it's best if they come from uninvolved people.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 18:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Ah, agreed then. I was following [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213458134&amp;oldid=1213457340 the proposals already shared above], so no bad intentions here. Thanks for keeping this discussion in line! [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to WMrapids|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *[Later] This is complicated and hard to resolve. There have been previous reports by both parties and they've often been archived without result. That shouldn't happen again this time, and I've used {{tl|DNAU}} to make sure it doesn't.{{pb}}Aside from the conflict of views about Venezuela, there's an ongoing issue that reduces to citing sources with sufficient precision. NoonIcarus expects citations to be rather precise, and he tags citations he sees as vague. WMrapids' citations are less precise, and he objects to NoonIcarus' insistence. From WMrapids' point of view, NoonIcarus looks like he's [[griefing]]; while from NoonIcarus' point of view, WMrapids is adding material that isn't properly sourced. WMrapids expects NoonIcarus to fix imprecise citations when he finds them; while NoonIcarus wants to tag them for someone else to fix.{{pb}}I think part of what we need to do here is to define good sourcing practice and set expectations about how to deal with citations that have poor precision.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Well, I want to clear this up now. ''My'' point of view is that others shouldn't have to clean up after citations. Now, I get it, my citations weren't exactly the most detailed, but this is something that I can and will improve upon (this also could have all been solved on my talk page if there was actually a sincere concern). The issue I {{underline|''and'' others}} have is that NoonIcarus disingenuously marked content as &quot;failed verification&quot; and removed it, with most of this content being controversial towards the Venezuelan opposition. This is a clear behavioral pattern that NoonIcarus has continuously participated in, which is the true issue before us. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I have asked you countless times for content and sources when in doubt, and both SandyGeorgia and I have asked you to add links in your references previously. This is not a new issue. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 02:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::If editor X adds citations that are hard to verify and Y editor tags them, I'm not sure it's clearcut which editor is expecting others to clean up afterwards. Tagging seems to me the right approach, so the community can improve it. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I want to clarify that I don't mind fixing the references if I have the opportunity, it is something that I have done in the past: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lina_Ron&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1176734099][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Pitazo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1170068469][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Efecto_Cocuyo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1170066080][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Últimas_Noticias&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169968967] I just think this should not be the norm, or at least that the editor can help improving the format if possible. Too much precision probably isn't needed either. Just an URL should work in most cases, as it usually does, but if one isn't available, at least a quote and page. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|S Marshall}} Many thanks for the mediation, by the way. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> * '''Support topic ban on Latin American politics''' -- a wider TB to include politics in general might protect us from possible similar behavior in U.S. politics--especially those that might tangentially overlap with the interest this editor has in Latin American politics. I do think this ban should be extended to Spanish Wikipedia and WikiMedia files, but my understanding is that other languaged Wikipedia have their own judicial proceedings.<br /> :I don't think a site ban is necessary, as I don't think the editor has shown much interest in anything else, and maybe if s/he works on other subject matter might eventually understand just how problematic the behavior has been.<br /> :I agree with other editors that TL;DR is a real problem in this subject area. I think the reason for that has a lot to do with the fact that mainstream RS that is critical of [[United States involvement in regime change]] has been blacklisted on Wikipedia, by citing the mainstream U.S. sources that tend to parrot the U.S. State Department perspective (as I explain at [[WP:RS/N]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&amp;diff=1213759985&amp;oldid=1213754708 here]).<br /> :I remember {{u|NoonIcarus}}'s behavior under the former name {{u|Jamez42}}. In January 2020, s/he received a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions 1-year editing restriction] for behavior like the above. After the editing restriction expired, at some point the behavior returned. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1205311327&amp;oldid=1201962959 warned] him/her on 2/9/24 about repeated reverts of the same material, and s/he immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1205352399&amp;oldid=1205311327 deleted] it without archiving with the edit summary &quot;A single revert does not warrant this warning. Stop this harassment.&quot; --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to David Tornheim|indent=1.6em}}<br /> :*{{comment}} Linking this February thread between the filer and you, for context for the participants: [[User talk:WMrapids#Allegations against NoonIcarus]].<br /> ::I think it would also be helpful if you could specific ''which'' critical mainstream RS sources you're referring to. In {{RSP entry|The Grayzone|[[The Grayzone]]'s|d}} request for comment, you supported that it be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=933946722 categorized either under option 1 or 2], and I supported its deprecation (a decision I wholy stand by, by the way). [https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/ Grayzone's rant about the decision] and their attack against editors, including myself, was one of the reasons why I requested a change for my username. The RfC was also opened three weeks before you filed your own ANI against me four years ago. I really hope this decision of mine is not part of the reason why you're supporting a topic ban. Best wishes. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 23:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No. It's not because of a difference of opinion at a single RfC. It's the POV editing which has gone on for years, which I and numerous other editors have observed and expounded upon here and elsewhere: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoonIcarus&amp;oldid=1205311327#Edit-warring_on_President_of_Venezuela], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive_editing_by_NoonIcarus]. If the warnings were heeded, we would not be here, and I would not be advocating for a topic ban.<br /> :::<br /> :::To give an example of this POV-editing, and what prompted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoonIcarus&amp;oldid=1205311327#Edit-warring_on_President_of_Venezuela this warning]: NoonIcarus kept reverting to his/her preferred claim that the [[President of Venezuela|Presidency of Venezuela]] was disputed. This was no longer tenable ''after'' 30 December 2022, because &quot;Venezuela's opposition national assembly voted...to remove interim President Juan Guaido [and] dissolve his government...&quot; [https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-opposition-removes-interim-president-guaido-2022-12-31/]<br /> :::<br /> :::When at least four editors (one me) tried to remove the claim that the Presidency was still disputed (after 30 December 2022), NoonIcarus reverted, and kept citing an obsolete [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1213024450#RfC:_Is_the_presidency_of_Maduro_currently_disputed? RfC from 10 September 2021] and also despite [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Guaid%C3%B3/Archive_5#RfC:_Is_Juan_Guaido_still_interim_president_of_Venezuela? this RfC closed 3 December 2021] that determined &quot;There is a clear consensus that Juan Guaidó isn’t the interim president of Venezuela.&quot; (In the 3 December 2021 RfC, of the twelve !votes, NoonIcarus was one of only two editors claiming Guaido was still &quot;interim president&quot;.) It wasn't until I filed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1213024450#RfC:_Is_the_presidency_of_Maduro_currently_disputed? this RfC on 9 February 2024] that the matter was settled. It is not surprising that of the eight !votes, NoonIcarus was alone in claiming the Presidency is disputed. I don't consider that cooperative editing and the ability to judge the [[WP:RS]] with [[WP:NPOV]]. It's more like [[WP:OWN|ownership]] and advocacy for the opposition. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 08:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1205354029 A RfC that I suggested myself], about a change that had been disputed by at least two other editors: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=890150780][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131070148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131200793]. It's simply not as you're painting it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209480230 As I said in the RfC itself], if the community is clear on the position, I don't have any issues with the outcome.<br /> ::::I asked before you have been inactive for nearly four years, until WMrapids left a message in your talk page ([[User talk:David Tornheim#Operation Gideon (2020)]]). The actions you're describing are from 2020 and before (already dealt before in the specific ANI) and from this year, not a pattern that has continued over four years. <br /> ::::With that being said, I wonder once again why [[WP:RS/N]] was mentioned here to begin with. Regards, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 12:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You already provided those exact same three diffs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=890150780] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131070148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131200793]) on the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1214192465#Related_RfC here]. My reply included this text from the [[WP:LEDE]] of the [[President_of_Venezuela |article]]: ''&quot;The Venezuelan presidential crisis was a political crisis concerning the leadership and who holds the office remained disputed till 5 January 2023.” '' All three diffs are ''before'' 5 January 2023.<br /> :::::The last two diffs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131070148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131200793]) were from {{u|TEMPO156}} (fka {{u|25stargeneral}}) who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1158279306 reversed] saying “Consensus on the Maduro and Venezuela pages that this can no longer be considered current.” You were already shown that those diffs do not support your insistence—which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1214192465#RfC:_Is_the_presidency_of_Maduro_currently_disputed? no one else shares]—that the Presidency is ''still'' disputed. Yet, here you are showing those same three diffs again to defend your edit-warring ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1178536520&amp;oldid=1176760058 4-Oct-23], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1179611690&amp;oldid=1179610598 11-Oct-23], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1204670549&amp;oldid=1199503956 7-Feb-24], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1204947051&amp;oldid=1204734755 8-Feb-24]) post 5 January 2023 as acceptable. It’s more evidence of your inability to work collaboratively, listen to reasonable concerns, and objectively assess the RS. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::[[Talk:President of Venezuela#Should we stop claiming the status of the Venezuelan presidency is &quot;disputed&quot;?]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 21:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::{{ping|NoonIcarus}} Do you really feel that an RfC from 2021 takes precedence over the changing circumstances described by the [[WP:RS]] that I mention above? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]], your support of Grayzone, a deeply problematic media entity that has even gone after Wikipedia, is rather troubling here. Could you explain your position here? [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&lt;s&gt;i do not wish to become involved in this thread even in the slightest but David supported the ''deprecation'' of Grayzone; evidently he does not support the site itself.&lt;/s&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::He supported &quot;Option 1 or 2&quot;, which suggests we was in favor of keeping it as a source and furthermore says: &quot;Those raised eyebrows are the result of Blumenthal and his writers at Grayzone telling uncomfortable truths that need to be told.&quot; So I'm pretty sure he wasn't exactly supportive of the effort (unless I missed something somewhere else?) [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I misread the comment - {{self-trout}}. Ignore me! &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|David Tornheim}} While we're at it, I also recall that one time, when discussing images for [[Nicolás Maduro]]'s infobox, you described him as follows ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicolás_Maduro&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=933863374]): {{tq|The second image has none of those problems. He is evenly lighted and looks straight into the camera with a somewhat somber but friendly face ready to engage the reporter in an interview. He looks more humble and receptive.}}, and {{tq|Maduro consider[sic] himself to be a man of the people, including the working class, the poor, and the indigenous population, rather than a representative of the elites, as part of chavismo.}}, while also commenting: {{tq|This is problematic given that he is often characterized in the U.S. and Western media--and especially by U.S. officials--as a &quot;dictator&quot; to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives of regime change.}}<br /> :::You have already mentioned your concern about possible disruptive editing by me, but I want to clarify if your POV concerns are because it can differ from yours. Could you provide more insight into these comments? --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> * '''Support topic ban on Latin American politics''' Noonicarus' editing is, in large part, political activism. Noonicarus' is here purely to ensure that articles on Latin American topics have an anti-socialist bias in general, and an anti-Venezuelan-regime bias in particular. While these opinions are perfectly acceptable, in my view, their editing on this topic runs foul of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. All editors, including myself, have political biases, but I am 100% sure that Noonicarus views their contribution to wikipedia as part of the struggle against the Venezuelan regime. <br /> <br /> :They have explicitly declared that they believe &quot;mainstream news sources&quot; to be superior to academic scholarship, which is the opposite to our actual policy. For example, they [[Talk:Caracazo#POV_tag|recently]] spent a long time arguing against the inclusion in the text of the term &quot;massacre&quot; (used by many academic sources) to describe the killing of thousands of civilians by Venezuelan security forces in 1989. Their justification was that some Venezuelan news sources do not use the term. They have also dedicated a massive amount of time to attempting to enforce [[WP:VENRS]], which is an attempt to exclude any news sources from Venezuela which do not have a pro-opposition bias. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 20:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :&lt;small&gt;{{comment}} Boynamedsue is involved in the dispute from this discussion: [[Talk:Guarimba#Tags]] --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 08:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Boynamedsue|indent=1.6em}}<br /> ::I agree with ''all'' of your observations. Since resuming editing on 2/6/24, I have seen this troubling behavior in the articles you mention while it was happening (as well as back in 2019-2020), even if I did not comment on it.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Context here [[Talk:Caracazo#POV tag]] and here [[Talk:Caracazo#Sources]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 23:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] is well within his rights to enforce [[WP:VENRS]], it {{strikethrough|is a Wikipedia standard policy and}} should not be characterized as &quot;an attempt to exclude any news sources from Venezuela which do not have a pro-opposition bias.&quot; Frankly, I find that choice of characterization very concerning. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{Tq|it is a Wikipedia standard policy}}. [[WP:VENRS]] is not a [[WP:POLICY]]. It is just an essay documenting the WikiProject Venezuela local consensus on those sources. That is useful, and I think the fix there if the list is wrong is to talk it out on the VENRS talk page and then update VENRS. But let's be careful of the terminology we use. VENRS is definitely not a Wikipedia policy. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 19:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Commented [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215643191 below]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' I have many South American election articles on my watchlist and I have regularly seen NoonIcarus making POV edits over a period of several years, mostly to Venezuelan articles, but occasionally to other articles where there is a prominent leftist candidate/party. This has often involved selectively removing information that is inconvenient to their POV with somewhat dubious reasons (which is the original complaint here). Frankly I'm amazed they have lasted this long on Wikipedia given their long history of POV-pushing. [[User:Number 57|&lt;span style=&quot;color: orange;&quot;&gt;Number&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Number 57|&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;5&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;7&lt;/span&gt;]] 00:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN''' per my previous comments. It's very clear NoonIcarus needs something to restrain their blatant NPOV editing. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 05:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to JML1148|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:I assume you mean &quot;POV-pushing&quot; editing, because &quot;blatant NPOV&quot; editing would imply he was doing a blatantly good job. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support TBAN''' at the absolute minimum with the information provided by {{u|David Tornheim}}. There's [[WP:ROPE|no more rope]] here. – [[User:The Grid|&lt;span style=&quot;color:navy&quot;&gt;The Grid&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:The Grid|&lt;span style=&quot;color:navy&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 16:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' as target. WMrapids accused me of intentionally ignoring content. The diffs that I provided not only show my attention to the sources, but in many cases asking for even further information ([[Special:Diff/1208181859|1]] [[Special:Diff/1210109390|2]] [[Special:Diff/1211947657|3]] [[Special:Diff/1212414419|4]]). These charges against editors that have contested their changes aren't new ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#WikiLeaks edit|1]] [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#RfC: La_Patilla|2]] [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Take a break|3]] [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Ownership edits on Venezuelan topics?|4]] [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#User:Elelch|5]]), and the archived ANI complaints show this has been a long standing and unanswered issue ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS|1]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:WMrapids (blanking)|2]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids|3]]). WMrapids' bludgeoning has driven active participants from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela|Wikiproject Venezuela]] away ([[Special:Diff/1183391428|1]], [[Special:Diff/1185249115|2]], [[Special:Diff/1185571771|3]], of which I'm apparently the last one remaining) and the community shouldn't forget either about the excessive RfCs ([[Talk:La Patilla#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|1]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|2]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Source description dispute|3]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 415#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|4]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#WP:VENRS|5]]) that exhausted unrelated contributors ([[Special:Diff/1159504696|1]] [[Special:Diff/1159920143|2]] [[Special:Diff/1160230663|3]] [[Special:Diff/1159529215|4]]). A TBAN won't solve the underlying issues nor provide an answer to previous complaints. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to NoonIcarus|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:Responding to your claims of being a target, it is ridiculous as it is plain to see in the responses above that ''multiple'' users have had issues with your editing behavior across the project. It appears that your edits have a POV bias towards maintaining the positive image of the Venezuelan government following the signing of the [[Puntofijo Pact]] (while I have seen a similar description occasionally in sources, you frequently describe it as the &quot;democratic period&quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1211821592&amp;oldid=1211362450][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AHistory_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1211463049&amp;oldid=1208843652] or similar) and [[WP:BADPOV|discounting human rights abuses]] performed by the &quot;democratic&quot; government ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caracazo&amp;diff=1210485863&amp;oldid=1210441857], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enforced_disappearances_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1212418745&amp;oldid=1212418411], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_massacres_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1197735324&amp;oldid=1197689368], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caracazo&amp;diff=1206271251&amp;oldid=1203757558]) while overtly promoting a negative image of the government following the [[Bolivarian Revolution]]. This is even more clear with your repeated dismissal of academic sources, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APuntofijo_Pact&amp;diff=1213233281&amp;oldid=1204958950 minimizing them as &quot;opinions&quot; for the Puntofijo Pact article], something already mentioned above by {{ping|Boynamedsue}}.<br /> *:Further, while reviewing your edits some more, I even {{underline| found ''another'' &quot;failed verification&quot; edit from 2022 performed by you that was inaccurate}}; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1122685006&amp;oldid=1117054689 you removed] {{tq|&quot;President Maduro denied the allegations, saying torture had not occurred in Venezuela since Hugo Chávez became president&quot;}} when [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-protests-allegations-idUSBREA1P1AF20140226/ the Reuters article] ''clearly'' states {{tq|&quot;MADURO DENIES TORTURE ... The president says torture ended in Venezuela with the arrival of President Hugo Chavez, his socialist predecessor and mentor, in 1999. 'Commander Chavez never gave the order to torture anyone. We came from that school of thought,' Maduro said.&quot;}} Such repetitive behavior of participating in (using [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213308839 the description] of {{ping|JCW555}}) &quot;'failed verification' lies&quot; over ''years'' raises questions of whether an even more severe ban from editing is justified.<br /> *:Regarding the further [[Wikipedia:Unblockables#What to expect|boomerang attempts]], I learned from my mistakes with feedback from other users, which I have accepted, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1179130217&amp;oldid=1179019455 especially regarding RfCs] (which were mainly opened due to [[WP:STONEWALL|stonewalling]] from NoonIcarus). As for other users not participating, Venezuelan politics are ''very'' contentious and are obviously exhausting to edit about (I feel it, trust me), so of course users will come and go. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Members|Other WikiProject Venezuela members]] are still clearly active and choose not to participate in the articles that you are interested in, which is their own decision, but if there were an issue with my behavior in particular, they could have raised concerns on my talk page or on this very noticeboard. So, exaggerating and saying {{tq|&quot;I'm apparently the last one remaining&quot;}} shows how you view yourself as making some sort of last stand, which is further evidence that you are engaged in [[WP:ACTIVIST|activist]] edits to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|right great wrongs]] and clearly demonstrates that [[Wikipedia:NOTHERE|you are not here to build an encyclopedia]].<br /> *:After seeing the further deflection, your continued editing behavior that has not improved over years of warnings (especially after [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|the ANI]] raised by {{ping|David Tornheim}} in 2020) and the additional &quot;failed verification&quot; edit mentioned above that occurred years ago raises the question; '''is a {{underline|permanent ban for NoonIcarus}} more appropriate?''' [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 06:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213949723] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214571997] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209296860][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211821592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208764769], see response above). --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No, a permanent ban is certainly not appropriate, and even a topic ban is marginal. This whole things seems to be a rather roundabout way of you saying you disagree with NoonIcarus about what constitutes NPOV. The best thing to do would be to talk about your differences with respect to what you think NPOV is on these articles in some section of WikiProject Venezuela and come to an NPOV consensus there. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 04:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I see that once again, the sheer volume of text we've produced deters uninvolved people from reading it, and I hope that any further contributions from involved people are both (1) absolutely necessary and (2) very succinct indeed.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I have a question here. Would it be a good idea to call in other editors of [[WP:WikiProject Venezuela | WikiProject Venezuela]] to get a second opinion on these charges. I'd like to get people who know a lot about the subject to comment, and I feel we're missing a significant portion of the community here who might know a lot about the topic, but at the same time, I don't want to accidentally [[WP:CANVAS]]. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 14:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{re|Allan Nonymous}} NoonIcarus [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|did this in a former ANI]] and some saw that as inappropriate and borderline canvassing, so we should avoid doing this again. It is also better that we have users independent of the topic who can make their decision solely based on reviewing behavior and edits. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 20:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Probably nobody would answer, at any rate. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' I'm involved to the extent that I am a participant to an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venezuela and state-sponsored terrorism|open AfD discussion]] initiated by VMRapids on an article created by NoonIcarus, otherwise, to the best of my memory, prior to that AfD, I had not edited articles related to Venezuelan politics. &lt;small&gt;(Subsequent to participation in that AfD I made some edits [[InSight Crime|to a US thinktank]] cited in the discussion).&lt;/small&gt; The key question here is whether there is a pattern of POV editing favourable to the Venezuelan opposition being masked by claims over source veracity. As the Venezuelan government seeks to delegitimise the opposition because of its so-called &quot;foreigness&quot; or so-called &quot;terrorism&quot;, it is understandable that it will be contentious the extent to which the opposition is depicted as lacking endogeneity or engages in actions which may be deemed criminal. Nevertheless, with the evidence presented as it has been, the approriate response would not be to (a) throw accusations back at the filer and (b) to relitigate every edit, but rather to present evidence that one's editing is NPOV via a pattern of equal concern with the veracity of all sourcing in the subject area, not just the veractiy of sourcing which suits the editor's POV. Yet, the attempts to do this show a pattern of edits which reinforce negative aspects of the government or people associated with it and favourable aspects of the opposition. There is a consistent pattern of POV editing in the topic area. There does not appear to be any substantial reflection of a even a single mistake made or a point in time where the editor could have approached issues differently (reducing this to a &quot;technical&quot; issue of incorrect tagging avoids the core issue). FWIW, I think it is reasonable that the community draws VMRapids' attention to a lack of precision regarding their citations and a requirement for pinpoint referencing when possible (ie books, journal articles), especially given many elements of this are broadly wihtin a contentious topic area (post-1992 US politics). Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 23:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''', stonewalling, general combativeness, POV issues, etc. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 11:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''&lt;s&gt;STRONGLY&lt;/s&gt; Oppose topic ban''', while I personally agree that NoonIcarus seems to not have edited in the most consensus seeking way he could, it is clear that these are highly opinionated articles where the interpretation of sources is widely disputed. Hence, he seems to be following one interpretation, and WMrapids seems to be following another. As a result, I believe the best approach is for there to be a general discussion about the factual issues at hand and the sources somewhere to resolve this rather than using topic bans. --[[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous#top|talk]]) 21:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Allan Nonymous|indent=1.6em}}<br /> ::The problem is the consistent rejection of sources which disagree with them, to the point where they edit with an inverted hierarchy of sources: Noonicarus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGuarimba&amp;diff=1185626988&amp;oldid=1185457033 specifically states] that academic journals are inferior to Venezuelan news sources.<br /> <br /> ::They have also carefully curated a list of Venezuelan news ([[WP:VENRS]]) sources which excludes any source deemed to have pro-regime bias, but not sources containing pro-opposition bias, and frequently referred to it to support their arguments. They have shown no self-awareness or contrition here, no desire to change their editing style. Due to their prolific editing, they are, in effect, a one-user article-biasing machine.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :::This is not true. Unreliable anti-government listed in [[WP:VENRS]] include but are not limited to ''El American'', ''Factores de Poder'' and ''Periodista Digital''. You can see an example of me disputing said sources while citing WP:VENRS at [[Pablo Kleinman]], for instance: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Kleinman&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1068240983][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Kleinman&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1115210880][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Kleinman&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169647438] At any rate, WP:VENRS currently prioritizes descriptions from [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]], accepting the community's wider consensus. You can likewise see me recommending academic sources here: [[Talk:Caracazo#Sources]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::If you think that's an issue take that up with [[WP:VENRS]]. He's within his rights to enforce a Wikipedia policy. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 13:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::[[WP:VENRS]] is not a wikipedia policy, it is an essay written largely by Noonicarus.--[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 15:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Ah, I see. Well, in that case, an RfC concerning [[WP:VENRS]] might be a good idea. I think it would be greatly beneficial to get a consensus reliable sources list here given the issue. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 16:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{ping|Allan Nonymous}} Hi. WP:VENRS has had at least three RfCs (where some of the editors here have participated in), all started by WMrapids, of which the first two were withdrawn, in part due to the amount opened at the time and their broadness ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|RfC:WPVENRS]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#WP:VENRS|WP:RS/N#WP:VENRS]] and &quot;[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Source description dispute|Source description dispute]]&quot;). I don't want to speak on behalf of other participants, but from what I gather the consensus was that it was better to discuss the reliability of the sources in a case to case basis, if there were any doubts, which is what happened with {{RSP entry|''La Patilla''|[[La Patilla]]|nc}}. One of the points of contention was that I removed many state-owned sources from several articles and cited WP:VENRS as a justification, which is what Boynamedsue is probably referring to. I want to leave clear that I have never claimed that WP:VENRS should be applied as a policy, citing it instead as an example of [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] (just as the list of sources that other WikiProjects have), and since it is clear this has been controversial, I have not done this again since December and don't intend that to do it again. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::@[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]], Why did you ever think it appropriate to remove material and sources on the basis of an article which is clearly marked as &lt;b&gt;opinion&lt;/b&gt;? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::{{ping|TarnishedPath}} I'm not sure if I follow. Do you mean WP:VENRS or the sources themselves?<br /> ::::::::There were to main reasons for this. I mostly focused in references from the [[Bolivarian Communication and Information System]] state media conglomerate (but not limited to it; I also removed scores of references from [[EcuRed]] because its content is user generated, but I did open a thread at the RSN when there was opposition to it), including [[Venezolana de Televisión]], whose comments can be found here: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Bolivarian Communication and Information System|Talk:WP:VENRS#Bolivarian Communication and Information System]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#La Iguana|Talk:WP:VENRS#La Iguana]]. The first reason was [[WP:TELESUR]]'s deprecation at RS/P, because Telesur is part of the conglomerate and other of its outlets routinely cite it for fact.<br /> ::::::::The second reason are the sources individual histories with reliability, including {{ill|Alba Ciudad|es}} (discussion here: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Alba Ciudad|Talk:WP:VENRS#Alba Ciudad]]), besides the ones mentioned above. The sources lack editorial independence overall or fact checking.<br /> ::::::::I did not remove the sources merely because they are state-controlled or pro-government, but because of the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability principles]] and of their reliability track record, or in other words, per [[WP:GUNREL]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Boynamedsue and Novem Linguae clarified that it was an essay from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela|WikiProject Venezuela]] before I could. However, I'll link its talk page ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|Talk:WP:VENRS]]) and note that a rationale and a description are usually offered to justify the classifications, as it would happen in the RS noticeboard. The assesment is not capricious, and the description from [[WP:RS/P]] is always used first when available (which represents a wider community consensus). If anything, more people is invited to participate. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support tban''' as even the more &quot;defensible&quot; uses of failed Verification often seem a somewhat inappropriate and as it does seem like a pattern of POV pushing. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Simonm223|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:I think that NoonIcarus is largely editing in good faith here, and only about half (3/8, from sources cited as concerning by WMRapids) of his most troubling edits were deemed inappropriate. A warning and or 1RR for NoonIcarus seems more appropriate. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 14:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::FYI. I engaged in a brief discussion with {{u|Allan Nonymous}} about the numerous posts at this [[WP:AN/I]] [[User_talk:Allan_Nonymous#Comment_from_David_Tornheim|here]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Allan_Nonymous&amp;oldid=1215346160#Comment_from_David_Tornheim permalink]) --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 16:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks for adding this here! Is there a way you make sure to include the whole page in your link, just in case things things change there in the future? [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 16:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you, that provides additional context which reinforces my support for the tban as the most appropriate remedy. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support topic ban''': I guess I can't say I'm an uninvolved editor, as WMRapids cites me as the first one to bring to attention NoonIcarus' dubious removal of sourced content and NoonIcarus and I had many past debates over my bias concerns. It's been my long-held observation that NoonIcarus has been rewriting articles like [[2002 Venezuelan coup attempt]] to push an anti-government narrative using more subtle tactics like overweighting anti-government content/sources, using selective attribution to portray pro-government views as biased opinions (while anti-government views are portrayed as fact), as well as the at-issue tendency to challenge and remove ideologically-inconvenient sourcing and info on, to be generous, ''thin'' grounds. I'm not gonna lie though—it's been cleverly done and I burnt out trying to fight it, hence my lack of involvement in the current debates. I don't vote this way lightly, as NoonIcarus has always been cordial and willing to discuss things, and I certainly don't blame anyone for hating the Venezuelan government. But it seems I'm not the only one alarmed by NoonIcarus' ideological rewriting, and if it's spreading to articles across the entire topic of Latin American politics, I would say it's finally time to stop this. [[User:Mbinebri|Mbinebri]] ([[User talk:Mbinebri|talk]]) 16:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Mbinebri|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:This is a really compelling argument for a TBAN, and frankly, I share your concerns here. I think it's clear that NoonIcarus should consider making changes to his editing strategy, especially given that this has been raised as an issue before. For now, at least, I still feel that a TBAN is going too far, but these concerns will need to be addressed one way or another. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 16:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::You've made your vehement opposition to a tban very clear by now. But the thing is I remember run-ins with NoonIcarus under their prior handle going back years and it was, honestly, the exact same pattern. They should seriously consider finding some other area of the project to work on where they can operate more collaboratively and I doubt they will without some compulsion. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Personally, the arguments made here have, at least, reduced the intensity of my opposition here. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|Mbinebri}} This really chimes with me, Noonicarus is not here to annoy or troll anybody, and the origin of their bias is understandable. However, the volume of their edits and the lengths they go to in defending them means that very few users have the energy to confront them consistently. Overall this is leading to a bias problem spread throughout our Venezuelan politics articles.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 16:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::It seems that this describes [[WP:COMPETENCE]] more than disruptive editing. Still, I thank you for your comments. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I agree with you guys that the volume of the edits made and the aggressive reverts without seeking community consensus are a real concern. If anything this AN/I has taught me the importance of seeking consensus. NoonIcarus, is clearly falling short here often, and I feel a bit of understandable sympathy here (you should see the numbers I used to pull on old articles when I was younger, not my proudest work). At the same time, it is my opinion that NPOV is reached by taking the collective voices and perspectives of a wide variety of editors. My concern with a TBAN is, if NoonIcarus leaves, as a major contributor, could lead to a disproportionate under representation of his views among those who edit Venezuelan articles, leading to a worse [[WP:BALANCE]] overall, even if less edits are made disruptively by the remaining members. If there is evidence this will not be issue, I am more than willing to further reduce my opposition to a TBAN (as I have already done to some degree). This, I think cuts to the core of my concern here. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 17:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{re|Allan Nonymous}} I respect your sentiment and thought the same thing during my initial edits with NoonIcarus. They are fairly knowledgeable about such topics, but it depends on ''how'' you use such knowledge. It is important for us all to recognize that [[Wikipedia:YANI|we are not irreplaceable]] and our misbehavior on the project does have consequences. I've sincerely tried many things to avoid conflict with NoonIcarus ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1209395892&amp;oldid=1209308986 including this recommendation], though it returned to edit warring), but as you can see from other users, NoonIcarus' editing behavior has been a repetitive problem. While NoonIcarus portrays themself as {{tq|&quot;the last one remaining&quot;}}, I have shown that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214797142 WikiProject Venezuela members are still active] and others in this discussion (including myself) have shared their own unsympathetic feelings towards the Venezuelan government ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215354288&amp;oldid=1215353940], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215347521&amp;oldid=1215347383]). So rest assured, such topics will be okay, and I'm glad that you are using this opportunity to reflect on your own editing as well. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Links to some of the own olive branches I have extended to WMrapids in the past:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169157951][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1191955462], and linking full last talk page exchange: [[User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 10#Future collaboration recommendations]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|Mbinebri}} While I naturally disagree with your topic ban support, I want to thank you for your comments about our exchanges being cordial. Stay safe. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> :::::Here's what I feel might be a good compromise? '''Article Ban on Latam Politics''', with a possibility for review at some point. This allows NoonIcarus to participate in the topic through talk page discussions (i.e. to suggest changes in policy/flag sources he may find problematic) without disrupting the articles or leading to edit warring. This might allow NoonIcarus to participate, so long as he remains within consensus as other editors can take up his suggestions. If he shows signs of working well on talk pages, then he can be allowed back on the articles. So far, I have seen him work well in discussions. In addition to this, as a show of good faith, I would hope NoonIcarus would open an RfC with respect to [[WP:VENRS]] so that we could make it more clear which were good and bad sources,as well a more general policy with regards to academic versus media sources (in particular, we should be careful when the academic sources about current political events). This would help reduce a lot of future lack of clarity on vague sources and what sources we should be using which has been a major contributor to this. Let me know your thoughts on this people. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Allan Nonymous' article ban suggestion|indent=1.6em}}<br /> ::::::{{re|Allan Nonymous}} [[Wikipedia:AAB|Users can request to be unblocked on their own talk page]]. I might have seen custom restrictions before where administrators suggest against blocked users from making a block appeal for a certain period of time (For example: ''User banned from Latin American political topics: May appeal in one year''), but not too sure on this. Wanted to make sure that you know that not all blocks have to be permanent. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 01:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::I am aware here, but my hope is that this will prevent another case of &quot;this user gets TBAN unblocked after a year/two/three&quot; and goes right back to what didn't work before. This sort of approach would might help him and other people find a way to productively work together, instead of just creating a cycle. That's my thought, at least. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 02:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::That's why a topic ban is the right solution and your &quot;compromise&quot; won't work--the behavior extends to talk pages and the disruption would continue there. If NoonIcarus is going to learn proper editing behavior, they need to steer clear of politics.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::It is clear that the primary concern here are edits made to mainspace articles, and the vast majority of concerning edits are made there. I am disappointed to see that you seem to treating this as a punitive response given the general consensus that topic bans are not punitive. I am making an effort here to seek consensus, so I hope you are willing to do so as well. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 12:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::This is a misinterpretation of what has been said. Your continued response to every editor is verging on [[WP:IDHT]] and I would gently suggest your opinion has been heard and it would be wise to step back and allow a consensus to emerge. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::I'm a little confused by your concerns of [[WP:IDHT]] here? I agree that at the beginning of this discussion, I responded to a lot of different editors (this is my first AN/I so I didn't fully understand the discussion protocol and I apologize for that) but this was a response with regards to a consensus seeking solution and is is to an editor I have engaged with multiple times, as part of a discussion largely regarding an effort to &quot;step back and allow a consensus to emerge&quot;. If you could clarify a little more your concerns (maybe on a different page, as this may be off topic to the discussion), I would be more than happy to attempt to address them. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 18:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::Effectively half of this discussion consists of you replying to every other post to argue your case. You've been cautioned about [[WP:BLUDGEON]] once already. You don't need to reply to every post here. Doing so will do nothing more than raise questions about why you are so passionately defending NoonIcarus. So you should really stop. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::I apologize that at the beginning of this AN/I I replied over enthusiastically, this is my first AN/I so mistakes are bound to happen. At the same time, this section of the AN/I is mostly me asking [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] about my concerns about any action taken, and I was glad so see here that he mostly addressed those concerns. Hence '''I have significantly reduced my opposition to a TBAN'''. Furthermore, I did ask and still have actively raised serious concerns about [[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] citing [[WP:VENRS]] which I have continued to raise and hope he can make a good faith effort to address. I, personally, don't feel my recent efforts fit very well into a case of [[WP:BLUDGEON]] or [[WP:IDHT]], but I do appreciate your feedback here. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 14:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::@[[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]], I have been watching this thread and your replies have been coming up in my notices a lot. You should listen to Simon. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Notifying {{ping|Allan Nonymous}}, since it's their comment after all: do you agree that your comments in these responses to Mbinebri are collapsed? If so, do you have a preference if they are displayed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215867046 this way] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215873477 this way] (the current one)? --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> <br /> ===Indefinite block for NoonIcarus===<br /> *'''Support indef''' - per WMRapids’ opening statements and the statements of [[User:JML1148|JML1148]], [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]], [[User:Number 57]] and others here. This is a clear [[WP:SPA]] account with numerous examples of bad faith editing, resulting in a previous one year editing restriction. Now this. Enough is enough, I’m calling for an indefinite block. [[User:Jusdafax|Jusdafax]] ([[User talk:Jusdafax|talk]]) 23:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===TLDR===<br /> <br /> Disclaimer: I personally am not an &quot;involved party&quot; in the case however, I have interacted with several of the editors in other cases. My position on the topic ban proposed is &quot;STRONGLY oppose&quot;.<br /> <br /> This is an effort to provide a brief summary of the events leading up to and the part of the vast, wall-of-text dispute titled &quot;NoonIcarus and 'Failed verification'&quot; in an attempt to make it easier for other users whose eyes may glaze over at the sight of so many words, inspired by the suggestion of [[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]].<br /> <br /> The dispute here starts with a complaint from [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] concerning [[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] removing a variety of citations and associated text using the tag &quot;failed verification&quot;. Of these, NoonIcarus is a confirmed Spanish speaker and member of Wikimedia Venezuela, WMrapids is a member of English Wikipedia's Peru project. This notable here as the articles the two seem to primarlily edit concern latin american history, mostly, Venezuela. After consulting with members of the Wikipedia discord concernin the best editing practices, it is clear that this is generally considered acceptable within the confines of Wikipedia. Furthermore, in articles for controversial topics, it is considered standard practice (better to say nothing than something controversial). However, it quickly became clear that issue involved was not merely the use of &quot;failed verification&quot; efforts but whether these efforts systematically contributed to a POV. Some of the edits appeared more than defensible, others were significantly more dubious and it may have been possible NoonIcarus was removing sources that were in fact verifiable. From there, debate escalated to a wider debate around whether NoonIcarus' editing approach was approrpiate for the topic, particular concerns were raised about edit warring. A possible mitigating factor was raised that, if WMrapids was making unsourced edits, these may have been partially justifiable. There was no general total community consensus about the veracity of the allegations, but it does seem that at least some of the edits were to actually verifiable content. After this, NoonIcarus was given an opportunity to respond to the complaint. '''[This is Part 1 of a Multi-Part series, more to follow.]''' [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :NoonIcarus provided a report responding to the allegations made. The report was not directly responded to, but discussions on the original complaint did continue afterwards. Soon after, WMrapids, immediately made a request for a topic ban on NoonIcarus concerning Latin American political articles. This was immediately good-faith rejected (and the request was later voluntarily withdrawn) on the grounds that a complaint filer cannot be the one to initiate such action. Another user made supported the request which was then considered the initial request. Tensions at this point were high. NoonIcarus' response to this topic ban attacked WMrapids, claiming the user was a toxic influence on the English language Wikipedia's Venezuela project, and that additionally, a series of aggressive rolling RfCs he had made against existing policies on articles was &quot;exhausting and demoralizing&quot; members of the Wikipedia Venezuela project, as part of an effort to support his agenda. WMrapids and some other involved editors countered these claims with claims he was selectively ignoring evidence that went counter to positions amenable to his own agenda. '''[This is Part 2 of a Multi-Part series, more to follow.]''' [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{comment}} Just to mention that I'd be happy to answer any related questions. I don't want to cram this thread any further, but it could really benefit from clarification to non-involved editors, so they could be broken into sections or collapsed. WMrapids should be given the same courtesy as an involved user, as they probably and understandably will disagree with some of my replies. I'll provide an answer to the POV pushing accusations as a collapsed hatnote below my first response &lt;ins&gt;(added '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215919160 here]''')&lt;/ins&gt;. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 00:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Moved prior comment to correct section. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:Wrong place to put this, this is for discussion and summary, if you want to stake your position on the TBAN, post in that section. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 13:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::I really need to stop using the mobile interface. I intended to post there. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Can we close this?===<br /> Honestly I think this discussion has progressed as far as it is going to. I'd ask for an admin to review and determine appropriate consensus. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I provided one last response regarding POV '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215919160 here]'''. New participants can drop the last thoughts before closure. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 22:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I agree with {{u|Simonm223}}. Having those who have already commented continue to edit this thread and add more diffs and never-ending argument/counter-argument is tiresome for readers. I can suggest one admin who has already shown a willingness to review one of these lengthy discussions (about this topic) and make a final ruling. If another admin believes it is acceptable to ping them and ask for their help here, please advise.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It might be better, now that a request has been made (and given the fact that this is at the top of AN/I) for you not to ping admins, and for one to naturally come around and close this. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 03:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> '''SEND TO ARBCOM'''. I am not surprised to see a citation tagging incident escalating to a show of blatant and shameless partisan participation at ANI while I have been on a mostly-break since early December when two of my closest friends died coincidentally on the same day, and I knew that I could not reasonably deal with serious grieving and WMRapids' editing at the same time. Editing around WMRapids since I first looked in to these recurring issues in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids_and_WP:ASPERSIONS Aug 2023] and found few admins or independent editors willing to engage (for example, zero feedback at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_106#Nelson_Bocaranda NPOV noticeboard], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive352#Nelson_Bocaranda BLP noticeboard], and much more in other places) has required CONSTANT citation cleanup, correction of failed verification and flagging the use of non-reliable sources and much more, complicated by WMRapids' failure to engage collaboratively on talk, as documented in three full archives of one article only at least. {{pb}} When I engaged initially, I had hoped that the [[J. K. Rowling]] experience could repeat, via a combination of patience and demonstrating collaborative editing to yield good results, but that was not to be the case. {{pb}} When I had to also deal with serious real life loss and grief, I gave up and left Wikipedia almost entirely, because the situation has such a long history of diffs and behaviors and hounding and aspersions that have gone ignored at noticeboards, that it really belongs at ARBCOM where it can receive a dispassionate and non-partisan examination of long-standing behavioral issues and polite POV pushing, and I just have not been in an emotional place to be able to face the work required. There is plenty detailed in the talk archives of Operation Gideon ([[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5]], [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 6]] and [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7]]) and plenty at WMRapids' user talk, (samples, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;oldid=1180799100#Bludgeoning,_personalization,_and_multiple_faulty_RFCs] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;oldid=1180799100#Copyright_and_copying_within]) but I see (again) few people taking the time to understand the full situation.<br /> <br /> I found this thread because I received an email ping this week from Tornheim [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)&amp;oldid=1215578894#Do_we_still_need_the_POV_tag?_If_so,_why? here], on a page where Tornheim admits not reading the talk page, did not examine even the most recent edits, and the POV tag was clearly reinstated by WMRapids,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Gideon_(2020)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209503834] which is easily apparent in recent edits and detailed on talk. It is not surprising that anyone would give up in the environment I experienced in trying to edit around WMRapids, and simply tag their edits as failing verification, as they usually do, as seen in three archives on that talk page, because after months and months of dealing with similar editing behaviors, one tires of having to do all of the EXTENSIVE cleanup required from their style of editing. I am not yet ready to face situations like this again on Wikipedia, but I do have months worth of diffs showing recurring POV and failure to use and cite adequate sources (see the three pages of talk archives mentioned above, but there is much more and in more places). Should anyone take the time to send this situation to ArbCom where it belongs, I could eventually provide diffs including those showing why the community has not been able to deal with this, but I am now on an extended vacation visiting my children and have a long drive home next week. This thread is a fine example of using ANI to eliminate one editor with whom others disagree over something fairly minor in comparison to the other behaviors seen in several articles by other editors. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I wanted to propose this, but I'm unfamiliar with the requirements to start a case there. It will definitely help handling such a complex issue. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :When multiple users, who even state that they hold a similar POV to NoonIcarus (not being sympathetic to the government), say that there is a severe and consistent POV issue, that is not something &quot;fairly minor.&quot;--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I agree that this needs escalating to Arbcom. I think there's detectable brigading going on in this AN/I and that's why no uninvolved sysop has stepped up to deal with it.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 11:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't agree with your &quot;[[Wikipedia:Tag team|brigading]]&quot; assessment as it appears that the majority of these users have not been involved with one another. Being transparent, David did mention to me on how to correctly present an ANI somewhere before possibly, but this ANI seems clearly appropriate given that NoonIcarus disingenuously applied the &quot;failed verification&quot; tag and removed material.<br /> *::&lt;s&gt;That's not true, though. I've had editorial disputes with the majority of users that support a topic ban against me, which is understandable given how controversial the topic is. I haven't brought it up to not sidetrack the discussion, but I'd be happy to comment more about it if needed.&lt;/s&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::&lt;small&gt;Striking since I misread. Apologies. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *:SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus do have a history of collaborating together for years, however, which makes it interesting that SandyGeorgia began editing again at the same time this ANI was opened and became involved after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandyGeorgia&amp;diff=1213952863&amp;oldid=1213117743 NoonIcarus contacted them in their talk page.] Allan Nonymous' mention of discussing this ANI on Discord was something new to me, too.<br /> *:As for Arbcom, I'm open for whatever may aid with settling disputes, but there seems to be a solid consensus of users supporting a topic ban for NoonIcarus. MoneyTrees, who is a member of Arbcom, was involved earlier on in this discussion. Would it be appropriate to ping them and ask their opinion? [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 13:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I think the reason this hasn't been closed is because you're right. There does ''seem'' to be a solid consensus. People qualified to close this might be a bit wary of it, though. I very much doubt if MoneyTrees would oppose an escalation to Arbcom in the circumstances, but if you'd like to ask them, you're welcome to do so. SandyGeorgia edits widely in controversial areas and it's not at all unusual for her edits to intersect with someone else's, but if you have concerns or suspicions about her, feel free to raise them at Arbcom when I open the case, or here now, or in any other appropriate place of you choice. Sandy won't be angry or defensive if you do, but she might be amused.{{pb}}To be quite frank, the only reason I didn't open an Arbcom case this morning is because Sandy wants to be involved and this isn't the best time for her. So I'm holding fire.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 14:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I would appreciate feedback from at least one admin about whether they feel it necessary to escalate this incident to Arbcom before we just decide to supersede the obvious consensus here. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::We don't need an admin's consent to escalate to Arbcom, because Arbcom's where you go when uninvolved admins ''aren't'' stepping up to deak with the problem.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 15:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Then I trust, when you've created this arbcom case, it will accurately reflect that the core subject is NoonIcarus' edit history and will notify all editors involved in the AN/I discussion. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::That is one of the core subjects, yes, although I hope to persuade Arbcom to accept a case whose scope is ''Conduct in articles about the current politics and recent history of Venezuela.'' I certainly don't intend to make ''everyone'' who's posted here a party to the case, and it's not needful to notify non-parties. I'll notify parties to the case on their talk pages, and in the interests of transparency I'll also place notices here in this thread and on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela]].—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Butting in here; some three months ago, I was on the verge of taking these disputes to ARBCOM, because the conduct and content issues are inextricably linked, and there's experienced editors shielding disruptive editors on both &quot;sides&quot; of this dispute. I desisted largely because I wouldn't be able to participate in the evidence phase of such a case. It's been increasingly clear to me that that was a mistake, and I was waiting for the expected non-resolution of this thread - despite the numerous NPOV violations documented from multiple parties - to file a case. If nobody else does so, I intend to do so soon. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I've been caught up in some of the side discussions in this areas with multiple RFCs, or attempted RFCs, happening at RSN, and have thought that it might all end up at Arbcom. -- &lt;small&gt;LCU&lt;/small&gt; '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A&lt;small&gt;ctively&lt;/small&gt;D&lt;small&gt;isinterested&lt;/small&gt;]]''' &lt;small&gt;''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''&lt;/small&gt; 15:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{u|S Marshall}} thank you for that consideration, but frankly, there will be no optimal time for me. The vacation has somewhat helped me regain my bearings post-grief, but when I return home, I am scheduled for hand surgery for a pre-cancerous growth that needs to be excised, so I don't know what typing ability I will have. Growin' old ain't for sissies, but we all know the arbs are heaving a huge sigh of relief to hear that my typing might be affected, and my typical verbosity might be curtailed, but I will have timing issues regardless. The reasoning for opening the case is well summarized to the one sentence in this thread by Moneytrees; finding the extreme list of previous dispute resolution will be more time consuming, and unfortunately I have most of that back at home. The behaviors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard should also be within the scope of the conduct, and one can easily see in all of those threads who the other parties are. {{pb}} {{u|Dustfreeworld}}, thank you for the concern (I haven't actually read the majority of my talk page yet-- as I said, I came to this thread by looking in to an email ping from Tornheim when I was settled in at my son's house and able to review my email), but in the interest of length, the new casting of aspersions and failure to assume good faith re when or why I returned to editing are better explored with the facts and diffs in the arbcase, as they demonstrate a pattern. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::{{heart}} --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{re|S Marshall}} I'll trust your judgement on this then, though I do want to get the opinion {{ping|Moneytrees}} as well. I've always advocated for more involvement in these disputes, so the more the merrier in this case. I'm just glad that these issues are getting some attention. Thanks for guiding us through this. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 16:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Hi there, as an uninvolved editor, may I ask {{highlight|what’s the problem with a user (Noonlcarus) replying to my message expressing [[WP:Wikilove]] to a [[WP:Missing Wikipedian]]?|lightgreen}} Sandy already said that she had lost two close friends recently in the same day. May I also draw your attention to [[WP:Kindness campaign]] and [[WP:Editor retention]] as well? [[WP:ABF|Thanks]]. --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 14:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::There's nothing wrong with this, but the timing is curious to post something to a talk page which will be usually emailed. I don't know Sandy's personal background, so of course condolences to them, but I am more concerned about NoonIcarus' gamey behavior due to their history of unconventional canvassing. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 16:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I did email her months before all of this happened, because it's not the first time and she mentions she has gone through a difficult time. I found the WikiLove after looking for diffs to add to this case, and I'll remind that this is not the first time that you accuse me of canvassing for questionable reasons ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: VENRS|Talk:WP:VENRS#RfC: VENRS]], hence why the aspersions casting is also an important issue in all of this). I'll ask you again to not throw stone in a glass house after your own potential canvassing in previous and related move discussions. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::@[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]]. Thank you for the reply. I know nothing about your/Noonlcarus’s background either. I don’t know what do you mean by “usually emailed”. If user’s talk page can’t be used to express [[WP:Wikilove]], what is it used for? Used for arguing or [[WP:ABF|assuming bad faith]]? At least 10 users have replied to that [[User talk:SandyGeorgia|post]] of mine with messages such as “stay safe” already. What does that mean?<br /> *::::1. It’s not “usually emailed” as you said. 2. Sandy is a well-respected and much-loved user. {{pb}} &lt;small&gt;Aside, just curious, have you ever sent any Wikilove to other users on their talk page?&lt;/small&gt; --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 16:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::&lt;small&gt;Just for the record, I'll link once again the Wikilove I left for WMrapids in Christmas: [[User talk:WMrapids#Season's greetings]].&lt;/small&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::{{u|Dustfreeworld}}, just an FYI ... because of my dislike of the pingie-thingie, I have my preferences set so that I see pings only via email; that way, they don't disrupt my concentration when I'm in the midst of complex edits. For most of late December, and until early March, I wasn't up to even checking my email. I did see the Tornheim ping via email because it was the most recent when checking in after I arrived at my son's house for Holy Week, and I was finally feeling ready to see if the Venezuelan editing situation had improved during my absence. As this situation has long needed to go to ArbCom, now seemed to be the time to say so. I'm sorry I won't be able to help out at my typical rate for medical content for at least the near future; after a long absence, catching up can be daunting, and I'm not sure I'm ready, as I also see [[J. K. Rowling]] descending into non-collaborative editing, which is discouraging. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::{{u|SandyGeorgia|Sandy}}, no worries, RL is more important. I hope things will get better soon. People like you,[https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&amp;platform=all-access&amp;agent=user&amp;redirects=0&amp;start=2024-03-28&amp;end=2024-03-28&amp;pages=User_talk:SandyGeorgia%7CUser_talk:Jimbo_Wales] so please, be well and take good care of yourself. {{heart}} {{smiley|:-)}} --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC); edited 02:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{re|SandyGeorgia}} I know you have a lot going on, but I have to respectively ask since you have become involved; why haven’t you commented on NoonIcarus' behavior (either in support or opposition) and have instead focused on users who have had to deal with their POV editing? <br /> <br /> Now, I also have to respond to your accusations about my citing and copying within Wikipedia. Regarding the citations, your &quot;sample&quot; is from about ''6 months ago'' when I first was getting involved in controversial articles (I now know about exceptional claims needing exceptional sources, etc.) and we discussed above how I could be more specific when creating citations. Understandable. As for attribution, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_91#Attribution_edits I have already discussed this with a patroller and they said my edits have improved]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Rosales&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215951085 In a recent edit], I even made sure to attribute when it was my ''own'' original edit.<br /> <br /> So while you have tried to make the point that I am some sort of troublesome user, there is direct evidence that I have responded to the feedback and have improved my editing. This isn't the case for NoonIcarus, however, so that is why I have to ask, Sandy, why have you decided not to comment on their misbehavior? Why haven't you discussed on how they are removing information while making false &quot;failed verification&quot; edit summary claims? Again, my sincerest condolences for all that you’re going through, but this is something that needs to be discussed as well.--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 20:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Tornheim pinged me to an immediate question for which the answer is obvious, and that is what brought me to this ANI. You reinstated a POV tag that had been resolved, as you re-added UNDUE material that had been many times discussed, without engaging talk,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Gideon_(2020)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209503834] and that is the (immediate) pattern of editing behavior I've observed over the long haul, which hasn't improved. You take long absences, then don't engage talk at all or ignore requests and questions, and then come in to edit as you please regardless of what has been discussed on talk, sometimes having found sub-standard sourcing or sources that either don't verify content or conflict with higher quality sources, ([[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7#Use of scholarly sources]]) and then leave the citations and other cleanup to others until the next lather-rinse-repeat cycle, and don't appear at times to have read or digested what is written on the page (eg the most recent aspersion in this thread). And you can be extremely polite when under a microscope of scrutiny, but less so with the constant casting of aspersions in talk discussions, which derails productive discussion. {{pb}} As to whether your editing has improved, I haven't had time to check for good faith engagement on talk, but I see the same casting of aspersions as always in this very thread; you seek out obscure journal sources to back your POV (aka cherrypicking via apparently google searching on terms eg [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7#Use of scholarly sources]] rather than relying on a preponderance of higher quality sources); you leave the burden of discussion on others while the content you edit war in stands for months as others won't edit-war it out again; and the finger-pointing and the aspersions are persistent (see above), as is the tendency to not see that you do everything (and more) that you accuse NoonIcarus of doing.{{pb}} Beyond the immediate instance that brought me here, I haven't taken time to look at anyone's recent editing, because a) I am visiting my son, b) all of these matters should be examined before ArbCom, not here, c) the issues with NoonIcarus in this instance are already beaten to death, and d) discussions with you (as with me) tend towards verbosity that will simply exhaust other readers. I am well aware that at times NoonIcarus's editing is also sub-par in several ways, but he has a full command of the sources, context and history, and a full and fair airing of a complex situation is unlikely with an ANI pile-on. The aim of my posts here is only as is appropriate to outline why an Arbcase is called for and context for the immediate issue here (failed verification tags as cleaning up after your edits can be exhausting and it is difficult to get you to engage talk). And I note that, unlike you, NoonIcarus is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to his command of English and being able to explain himself (eg, the misunderstanding about his objection to how some scholarly sources are frequently misused in Venezuelan content, and he is not the only editor to have noticed that). There is no need to fill up this ANI with further analysis of NoonIcarus's editing; what was not represented here at all was both sides of a complex situation in which users with less command of the sources frequently show up. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::ArbCom. --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 22:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Now at Arbcom===<br /> Please see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Venezuelan_politics]].—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 10:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' - Please do not close this thread while ArbCom is considering whether to open a case. If ArbCom accepts the case, they will of course have the final say about NoonIcarus. If ArbCom declines the case, the community should take action, so that dummy edits will be useful to prevent this thread from being archived without action. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Follow up from [[WP:VPM#A personal analysis and proposal|VPM]] ==<br /> {{mbox<br /> | type = style<br /> | image = [[Image:Emblem-WikiVote.svg|50px|Not a vote]]<br /> | text = If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is '''[[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|not a majority vote]]''', but instead a ''discussion'' among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]] regarding the encyclopedia's content, and '''[[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]''' (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, ''not'' by counting votes.<br /> <br /> However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] on the part of others and to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]] on this page by adding &lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt; at the end.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;'''Note:''' Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|single-purpose accounts]]: &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:spa|spa]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt;, suspected [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] users: &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:canvassed|canvassed]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt;, accounts blocked for [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry|sockpuppetry]]: &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:csm|csm]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:csp|csp]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/small&gt;<br /> }}&lt;!-- This is the Not a ballot template --&gt;<br /> === Topic ban proposal for Rachel Helps ===<br /> <br /> :{{userlinks|Rachel Helps (BYU)}}<br /> :{{userlinks|Rwelean}}<br /> :[[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal]]<br /> <br /> Per the evidence I outlined at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal|this VPM discussion]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;oldid=1213522218#A_personal_analysis_and_proposal permanent diff]), Rachel Helps, the Wikipedian-in-Residence at [[Brigham Young University]] and operator of the above two accounts, has for years engaged in extensive undisclosed [[WP:COI]] editing on Wikipedia in collaboration with her employees and professional colleagues. This misconduct falls well short of what is expected of any editor, let alone a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence, and as I have been informed that en.wp has no ability to revoke said position, I propose that '''Rachel Helps be topic-banned from LDS Church-related topics, broadly construed''', which should achieve the same result. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Don't know if this is of any importance, but this sandbox page showed up just recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlomorrIDTech/sandbox Seems to have something to do with BYU, not sure if it's important [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 21:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Original page deleted, archive [https://web.archive.org/web/20240317214235/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlomorrIDTech/sandbox here] [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 23:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> &lt;small&gt;Pinging editors who participated in the prior discussions per [[WP:APPNOTE]]: {{ping|ජපස|WhatamIdoing|Horse Eye's Back|Rosguill|JoelleJay|Bon courage|Aquillion|Hydrangeans|BilledMammal|FyzixFighter|Levivich|Primefac|Vghfr|David Fuchs|Pigsonthewing|BoyNamedTzu|Fram|Certes|Naraht|Guerillero|Awilley}}&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> * How anyone can read Rachel Helps (BYU)'s user page (even before recent edits) and say her CoI is &quot;undisclosed &quot; beggars belief. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **Please take the time to reread the above post and the linked discussion. If you feel that everything outlined in that analysis is perfectly above-board, may I ask if you have performed comparable edits while a WiR? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **For example, taking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rwelean&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213525368 this recent diff into consideration], have you ever created a page for a friend while a WiR, and subsequently edited it after you had co-authored an article together and/or one of you had begun to supervise the other's education programme? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***Now try addressing what I said, rather than some other imagining. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *** And '''don't''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213531040 edit my comments]. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 17:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ****My sincerest apologies, I think that was an edit conflict (you added it in a separate edit presumably while I was replying to you). [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *****NP, I've also just had an EC with no notification. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. There seems to be some idea (such as advanced by Andy above) that merely disclosing ''a'' COI absolves you of any possible infractions; that is not the case, as the evidence at the VPM discussion amply demonstrates. There's apparent evidence of off-wiki coordination that obfuscates COI editing. I see the concern that there are much ''worse'' offenders here, and Helps' self-identification makes picking out the COI edits that much easier... but that doesn't materially change the problem, discussed at length [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Wikipedia_in_Residence:_is_this_a_way_around_conflict_of_interest_rules? in the wider VPM thread], that Helps and similar editors have materially distorted and overemphasized coverage of LDS topics in ways that are not keeping with due weight. This is probably an issue with a ''lot'' of GLAM/WIR stuff, so I'm not surprised Andy is circling the wagons, but this is a pretty egregious example. [[User:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **First you misattribute a view I do not hold to me, then you impugn my integrity. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Overwhelming Support.''' WP:COI editing is bad enough, but considering that WiR is involved and that the COI violations are related to religion (which is already a subject that requires great care to maintain NPOV), Helps should absolutely be topic banned from LDS articles. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:* And to further comment on this, these violations seem to be contrary to the purpose of WiR, which is for an existing editor to &quot;''accept a placement with an institution to facilitate Wikipedia entries related to that institution,''&quot; ''' ''not'' ''' to have an person with existing ties to the institution to &quot;facilitate&quot; Wikipedia articles on their institution<br /> *:[[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 16:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''', the disregard and disrespect this paid editor has for our COI expectations is staggering. The attitude is not that they should follow best practices, its that anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted and permitted in infinite quantities. An example of this attitude: &quot;Also, if something is &quot;strongly discouraged,&quot; it sounds like it's actually still allowed. A rule that can't be enforced is not really a rule.&quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zeniff&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213375632] So lets do what we have to do and enforce our community expectations, otherwise people will continue to ignore and disrespect &quot;A rule that can't be enforced&quot; [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''' I do see violations of COI policies but they are not an end in themselves and exist to protect the reliability of our content. So, can I get some examples of shoddy content being injected into our articles by Rachel Helps? Thanks, [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 16:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:jps wrote in the linked discussion, {{talkquote| I continue to find poor writing, sourcing, and editorial approaches on page after page dedicated. The cleanup that will be required to recover from this is tremendous ...}}Some diffs are in order? [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 17:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I listed diffs in that thread. Happy to list them again, but it may be a bit repetitive. Also, you can check my article space edit history from today as I’ve begun the long process of dealing with the fallout and that history may be illustrative. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose'''. Apparently Airship was posting this while I was posting my disagreement with the evidence presented in the other thread. Yes, she seems to have written an article about an (apparently notable) co-author. More than half the evidence presented is about other editors (how dare she help newbies?). There have been previous discussions about her editing, and they've agreed that [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board]] applies. She has [[User_talk:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)/Archive_6#c-Rachel_Helps_(BYU)-2020-12-03T17:38:00.000Z-SlimVirgin-2020-12-02T23:11:00.000Z|confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things]]. More generally, I think that much of this is based on fear of religious editors. For example: She is accused of – over the course of 18 years and nearly 10,000 edits – writing two (2) articles that some editors (including me) think she might be too close to the subject to do so independently, and that it would have been more appropriate to send through [[WP:AFC]]. That's 4% of her article creations. Banning someone for a procedural error in 4% of contributions is not a proportional response. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You know it should be 100% through AfC right? &quot;you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;&quot; Thats incredibly damning. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No, I don't agree that articles she needed to send articles such as [[Stretch Armstrong (ska band)]] and [[List of inmates of Topaz War Relocation Center]] and [[Anarchism and Esperanto]] and [[Hidden Figures (picture book)]] through AFC. Can you think of any reason why, e.g., she should consider herself to have a conflict of interest with a Japanese interment camp that was closed before she was born, then do please explain that. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Because she was paid to make them. Thats a direct financial COI. I didn't say she needed to send the articles to AfC, I said she should have sent the articles to AfC. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 01:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{u|WhatamIdoing}}, a couple of things: the co-author is also a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rwelean&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213525368 Master's thesis supervisor], which isn't great; as there is precisely one &quot;newbie&quot; named in my analysis (the others being employees, editors with [[User talk:Thmazing|extensive COI history]], and a bureaucraat currently at ArbCom for a CoI issue), I would ask you to consider your words more carefully. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{redacted}}. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::A large proportion of our articles on universities and their staff are probably heavily edited by external relations offices and staff of the organisation, but they generally do it very professionally, under the radar. If we nobble this editor, we need, in fairness, to do the same to all those others too. But the articles are often accurate and well-written (because they've been written by someone who actually knows what they're talking about). Apply COI rules with caution lest you end up with an encyclopaedia written entirely by clueless people using out-of-date sources. Remember, most academic/institutional COI editing won't be reported because the person who knows (a) that the University of Somewhere's article is edited mostly by JSomeone, and (b) that the public relations officer happens to be called John Someone, can't actually do anything about it without outing themselves as another staff-member, and DOXing Dr Someone. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 18:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Isn't this argument the equivalent of saying &quot;If the cops don't have the knowledge and resources to give every single speeder a speeding ticket then nobody should get a speeding ticket&quot;? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::No, it's like saying that if ''absolutely everyone'' is speeding down a particular bit of road, then maybe something's wrong with the speed-limit (or the overall approach to its enforcement) and issuing one ticket won't solve the problem. Our COI policy is wildly naive, and particularly good at punishing those who admit their COI rather than those who just deny everything. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 20:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::But your argument isn't that everyone is speeding, your argument is that most roads have been sped on. Do you really think that &quot;absolutely everyone&quot; is doing egregious undisclosed COI editing? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::If you happen to see any other paid contributors, grandly titled &quot;Wikipedians-in-Residence&quot; and promoted by the WMF as an example of Wikimedia-public relations, who undermine COI to this extent, give me a ping and I'll certainly !vote to &quot;nobble&quot; them. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 18:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Nobble is actually a word, huh. Also, another day, another {{u|Primefac}} LDSuppression — when will it end? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::In fairness he's also been taking action to resolve these COI issues off-wiki, see discussion on his talk page. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 21:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|She has confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things.}}{{pb}}Contrast this with her COI declarations:{{pb}}{{tq|However, curators and other librarians sometimes request that I work on certain pages.}} ...&lt;br&gt;{{tq|One of my students created the page for James Goldberg at the request of a curator, in conjunction with the library acquiring his personal papers. I assigned this to one of my students rather than myself because I know James personally.}} ...&lt;br&gt;{{tq|When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work. When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work.}} ... &lt;br&gt;{{tq|At the request of one of my curator colleagues, I improved the page for Glen Nelson.}} ...{{pb}}{{tq|I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon. I participate in this community of Mormon artists. Their shows have featured work by artists whose pages I have worked on for work, for example, Matt Page (artist), whose page I created when our 21st-century curator requested that I work on his page after acquiring some of his personal papers.}} [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::People make suggestions for topics; sometimes she agrees. So? People ask me to make edits, too; sometimes I grant their requests, too. I'd bet that if people in your life know you edit Wikipedia, that you also get such requests. That's not a conflict of interest.<br /> :::I'd also like you to think about what {{xt|I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon}} means. It means she gives money to them, not the other way around. Shall we ban Wikipedia editors who donate to the WMF or one of the affiliates from editing anything in [[:Category:Wikipedia]]? Shall we tell editors that if they buy Girl Scout cookies, they can't edit [[Girl Scouts of the USA]]? Kick all the devs out of the open-source articles? Merely being a minor donor or a minor customer is not automatically a conflict of interest. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Are you just...willfully ignoring all context now? Because this is starting to look like bikesheddy obstructionist nitpicking for the sake of...who knows?{{pb}}Here we have an ''employer'' requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer, because Helps is officially employed in a WP liaison capacity with that employer. Helps says she fulfills some of these requests. All of this is above-board PAID (but not necessarily COI) editing and is utterly different from your hypothetical of some random person suggesting you write about some topic neither of you has a COI with. It also happens to contradict your claim that Helps says BYU doesn't choose topics for her to write about, which wouldn't actually even be a problem if those topics weren't connected to her or BYU (and I'm not alleging they are!).{{pb}}Your second paragraph is somehow even more of a strawman. Nowhere in the comment above did I allege Helps has a COI with any of those examples of employer-requested editing, and certainly nowhere did I suggest editors can't edit on things they've ever spent any amount of money on. It's almost like you are replying to some synthesis of my comments in this thread, but I know that can't be true because if you had actually read my one other substantive comment in this ANI discussion you wouldn't have made that ridiculous comparison to Girl Scout Cookies in the first place when it's abundantly clear Helps' COI with ARCH-HIVE goes way beyond simply donating to them on Patreon. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 22:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{u|JoelleJay}} my editing experience with {{u|WhatamIdoing}} has been {{mdash}} their Wikipedia editing style comes across as inexplicably argumentative or contrarian on most any topic. I don't recall if they eventually come around or change their mind, such as after somehow ferreting out a truth during a particular confrontation or argument. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 21:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::{{xt|Here we have an ''employer'' requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer}}:<br /> ::::::No, we don't. Here we have ''colleagues with no authority over her whatsoever'', often from unrelated departments, who think they've identified a cool subject for Wikipedia, chosen for their relevance to ''the colleagues' own interests and activities'', and an employer who thinks Wikipedia is cool enough that they let her spend part of her work time making that information freely available to the world. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Are you really suggesting someone whose position is &quot;Coordinator of Wikipedia Initiatives at the Harold B. Lee Library&quot; is being paid to edit in whatever topic areas they want with no expectation from the university that this work ever ought to benefit the university or further the interests of its owner? Or that a BYU employee requesting an article on a former BYU professor after the employee helped procure some of that professor's own works for BYU's collection, might be making this request on behalf of BYU as part of their ''job''?{{pb}}Do you think, in the above example, that someone serving in an official, Wikipedia-supported expert editing instructor position would believe COI from their extensive personal relationship with the subject is eliminated by assigning that article creation request to their own BYU employees? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 00:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''' in response to ping: frankly, I haven't read the mountain of evidence in enough detail to !vote, but I don't think this problem is limited to a single editor. We may need to take a more holistic approach rather than hoping that removing one person will make everything right. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 17:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' and agree with Certes above that this is only part of the problem. I became aware of the BYU walled garden of sources, awards, and editors through the Nihonjoe ANI discussion and subsequent Arbcom case. Looking at their edits, I first noticed the problematic editing and undisclosed COI of [[User:Thmazing]], who will warrant an ANI section on their own. But other names which kept popping up where &lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;[[User:Hydrangeans]]&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt;, who keeps denying the obvious COI issues, and Rachel Helps (and her other account) and her large number of paid BYU students (who list her as their employer). <br /> :When I look at an article like [[Second Nephi]], completely rewritten by these editors over the last few months[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=1212916834&amp;oldid=1166026852] (apart from [Hydrangeans] and Rachel Helps, I count 3 other paid BYU editors there): the page is expanded, but hardly improved. Claims like &quot;J.N. Washburn, an independent scholar, cites that 199 of 433 verses from Isaiah appear with the same wording and proposes that Joseph Smith used the King James Bible version whenever it was close enough to the original meaning of the plates he was said to be translating and used the new translation when meaning differed&quot; not only treat the &quot;he find some old plates he translated&quot; as truth, but try to claim that &quot;independent&quot; scholars support this, even though Jesse Nile Washburn was a LDS missionary who had studied at BYU before he published his books on Mormonism, so no idea what's &quot;independent&quot; about him. The whole article, just like most articles rewritten by Rachel Helps and her employees, are written from a distinctly in-universe, uncritical perspective. <br /> :For some reason she is very reluctant to note her COI on the talk page of these articles, insisting that the declaration on her user page is sufficient. She also takes it upon herself to remove critical tags from the pages, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Noah&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1202040173 here] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Omni&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213185725 here], or to remove correct[https://books.google.be/books?id=QDsALaUZapUC&amp;pg=PA150&amp;dq=%22Brian+Thomas+Kershisnik%22&amp;hl=en&amp;newbks=1&amp;newbks_redir=0&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiwr7-i7PGEAxVhdqQEHZOOANkQ6AF6BAgOEAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Brian%20Thomas%20Kershisnik%22&amp;f=false][https://www.smofa.org/uploads/files/219/LA-StoryboardBuilding-a-Movie.pdf] but unsourced info and revert to equally unsourced info for unclear reasons[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Kershisnik&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196164460]. A typical edit is something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tree_of_life_vision&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1195021060 this], supposedy &quot;more detail for the naturalistic explanation section&quot; but in reality removing two of the four sources and changing the more general claim about the non-religious origin of some Mormon belief to a much more LDS-friendly version. Just some examples from her 100 most recent mainspace edits... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> &lt;s&gt;*'''Support''' per Fram's evidence and others. I should note the above mentioned [[Second Nephi]] refers to another &quot;independent scholar&quot; (Matthew Nickerson) and then cites an article that appeared in a journal published by BYU. I would also hope that if a ban is enacted, it explicitly covers the [[Association for Mormon Letters]] and related topics, including fellow members, per the information provided in the Village Pump thread. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 18:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/s&gt;<br /> ::I'm striking my support for this topic ban (you can call me neutral I guess) though I still support the one for Thmazing below. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 23:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support''', not because Rachel Helps has undisclosed COI (she discloses BYU and AML on her userpage), but because she helped other editors with undisclosed COI (e.g. BYU, AML) make undisclosed COI edits, and did things like nominate their articles to DYK, or move their articles to mainspace. The diffs are at [[WP:VPM]]. I also agree with Certes that this problem is broader and includes the editors who have/had undisclosed COIs, but that doesn't absolve Ms. Helps of her role in what now seems to be an actual conspiracy of AML people to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, their work, and by extension their religion, by using a combination of undisclosed accounts and paid BYU editors. The unfortunate thing is that if everybody affiliated with AML had just disclosed it, there wouldn't really have been a problem... except they would have had to wait for editors without COI to do things like approve drafts, but I don't get why that would have been a problem. Undisclosed COI editing is a problem even if it's ''good'' undisclosed COI editing because it undermines trust. It's really quite dangerous to the mission of an encyclopedia anyone can edit: the whole venture rests on the belief that editors will follow &quot;the honor system&quot; and either avoid or be transparent about their COIs. Finally, '''a note to anyone commenting''': If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::One of the reasons I still support a full TBAN and not a lesser sanction is that Rachel Helps has been editing longer than I have. And unlike me, she was paid to do it. If she cannot learn in eight years of paid editing what I learned in five years of volunteer editing in my spare time, then I'm not sure there is much hope here. She's not new at this, and this isn't the first time these problems have come up. I'd have more sympathy if she had less experience or if this wasn't a repeat issue. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 15:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::On one hand, I'd support a topic ban on the paid student employees. Certainly going forward that's what I think is best (''employees'' of the BYU WiR should not edit articles related to Mormonism... let them do that on their own time), but then TBANing the WiR should be sufficient to prevent problems with student employees in the future (and per her note below, she is already reassigning them to other topics).<br /> ::On the other hand, I don't like the idea of sanctioning any of the student employees because they were &quot;just following orders,&quot; and if their orders were different, they'd have followed the different orders, so I don't view the student employees as being culpable or even being able to act independently of their supervisor (the WiR), I see them as proxies/meatpuppet accounts except they understandably would think their proxying was OK because it was directed and supervised by a WiR. So I think I come down on the side of giving students a pass for past policy/guideline violations as long as there are clear guardrails for the future. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :'''Support with regret'''. I really wish this could be done differently, but I think things have come to a head now and there may be no way to fix it without this kind of drastic approach. I tried to have a conversation yesterday with Rachel about improving her sourcing guideline, and I think that she is likely trying her best to act in good faith, but she is well past being able to collaborate with those who are going to question the [[WP:FRINGE]] nature of the claims that many apologists for the Mormon religion continue to make about their holy books. I could handle that (indeed, we see that sort of issue a lot here) if it was not also coupled with institutional support from Wikipedia as well as BYU in a way that I think was never done properly. If we are going to pay students to edit Wikipedia, they ought to be allowed to edit it freely. BYU students are at a risk in being active here. If I saw one of them make an edit that looked like apostasy, I could report them to their stake or bishop or the school itself and they could be found in violation of the strict honor code and expelled. I don't think we have thought clearly about what that means given the openness of this website and the unusual closed-ness of the BYU system. For the benefit of all involved, it is probably best that this partnership be ended with a clean break. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. Rachel Helps has now disclosed a massive amount of COI on her user page. Given how extensive and egregious it is, as well as her repeated emphasizing that she uses her personal account to publish articles she feels would be in violation of PAID if published from her BYU account, I get the impression that she still does not understand what it means to have a COI and how that should impact her editing. Initially this put her actions in a slightly better light to me, since it seemed many of these violations were done in mostly good faith and simply weren't recognized by her to be COI (or at least not ''that'' big of a COI, which is more of an institutional problem), rather than intentional concealment of edits she knew weren't kosher. I would have been satisfied with a promise to avoid editing or directing others to edit articles where there is even a whiff of apparent COI and an agreement to limit LDS-universe sourcing. However, reading this [[Special:Permalink/1213529782#The_ARCH-HIVE_moved_to_draftspace|dissembling exchange]] she had on her personal account talkpage with an NPPer regarding COI and blatant PROMO for ARCH-HIVE, I have a hard time believing no deceit has occurred: {{tq2|Hi Celestina007, first you said that you draftified it because of sourcing issues and notability issues, but now because of promo and possible COI? A little consistency would be nice. I thought about what you said about the page having too much promotional language, and I removed most of the background section. I have an interest in the page (otherwise I wouldn't have written it), but I don't think it's a COI. I don't make any money from the ARCH-HIVE's success, and I have not been paid to write the page.}} This was in Feb 2022, well after she had started writing blog [https://www.arch-hive.net/post/in-praise-of-funeral-potatoes posts] and [https://www.arch-hive.net/post/the-arch-hive-holiday-gift-guide-2020 participating] in exhibitions for the group, and well after she [https://www.associationmormonletters.org/2020/05/rachel-helps-reviews-2019s-mormon-novels/ served] on an AML judging committee the same year ARCH-HIVE won an award. This led me to look into some other potential COI edits involving authors she has reviewed for the AML: [[Dean Hughes]], whose wiki page has been edited extensively by Helps' student Skyes(BYU) (66 major [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Skyes%28BYU%29/0/Dean_Hughes edits], 8000+ bytes added, including bibliography entry for the book Helps reviewed); [[D. J. Butler]], to whose bibliography Helps [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._J._Butler&amp;oldid=952515895 added] the book she judged, sourced to an AML announcement by her colleague, and to which Skyes(BYU) [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Skyes%28BYU%29/0/D._J._Butler added] 11 major edits; and [[Steven L. Peck]], 85% of whose page was [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Steven_L._Peck written] by Helps between 2017 and 2023. I'm sure I could go on. Incidentally, pretty much all of these pages have also been edited by Thmazing (AML president) and NihonJoe (ArbCom case)...{{pb}}All of this goes well beyond what we could reasonably expect even a novice editor to understand are COI edits, let alone someone in a ''paid'' position of authority who is mentoring other ''paid'' employees of BYU on how to edit wikipedia articles! Honestly I think ArbCom might be the next place to go given the amount of promotion of minor Mormon contemporary authors by what seems to be a heavily interconnected group of BYU-associated editors with un- or under-declared COIs. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''' I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI. The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground. This will happen as long as anonymous editing is allowed on Wikipedia. But what I think is far more important for determining a possible topic ban for myself and my team is the quality of my edits in the topics the ban is aimed at covering. I believe an underlying assumption is that since I work for the BYU Library, I wouldn't say bad things about Mormonism (broadly construed), the LDS Church, or BYU. I have edited on many pages in these topics and many have changed the way I think about the LDS Church and BYU, and not in a good way. Some examples are [[Battle at Fort Utah]], a page I expanded about a one-sided attack on Timpanogos families supported by Brigham Young that lies at the heart of the city of Provo's founding. What about [[Seventh East Press]], a page for an independent student newspaper at BYU, which was banned from being sold on BYU campus primarily because of an interview with Sterling McMurrin where he said that he didn't believe the Book of Mormon to be literally true (which I promoted on DYK)? The fact that [[Lucinda Lee Dalton]] requested her sealing to her husband be cancelled and it was revoked posthumously? [[Ernest L. Wilkinson]]'s spy ring controversy? Dallin H. Oaks's negative evaluation of [[Nothing Very Important and Other Stories]]? My own students have said things like &quot;I've summarized stuff I disagree with&quot; (and they have published it as part of their job). Some people have expressed shock that as a professional writer, I'm messing up all the time. Guess what. There's no degree in Wikipedia editing! If you examine my considerable edit history, you are going to find errors! But I believe that on the whole, the work I and my students have done has improved Wikipedia. We have added so much accurate information, cited in-line, to reliable sources. We have helped to make more sources discoverable by summarizing and citing them. Is it that surprising that my years of editing Wikipedia in Mormon Studies have led me to gain some expertise in my field and made me want to study Mormon literature professionally? I've attempted to list all the possible COIs I could think of on my user page, and I stand by the NPOV of all of my edits. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment'''. Yes, I'm a paid student editor who works on LDS topics. But that doesn't mean that I have been out to present a construed vision of Mormonism. When people have pointed out a lack of neutral point of view (which was wholly unintentional on my part and consisted of a few words) I have made an effort to fix it and invited them to help me. Other than that, I'm not seeing where there is a lack of this neutral point of view. Is summarizing what other people say about Mormon topics considered a violation of NPOV? Because I didn't think it was. If you're worried about the Mormon authors, keep in mind I have also used sources from Elizabeth Fenton (not a Mormon), John Christopher Thomas (a man who follows the Pentecostal tradition), and Fatimah Salleh (a reverend). [[User:Heidi Pusey BYU|Heidi Pusey BYU]] ([[User talk:Heidi Pusey BYU|talk]]) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{Hat|reason=Getting a bit off-topic. ජපස seems OK with hatting this. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 01:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> *:The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here. You may feel that you run no risk of falling out of favor with your bishop, but if that happened because of your attempt to include content that was critical of your church, ‘’you could be expelled’’. This is what your school says in its policies. Now, maybe they don’t enforce those policies anymore, but I can only go by what I read of BYU’s rules. And according to those rules, it’s not really safe for you to try to accommodate the radically open ideology of this website as you work for and are enrolled in a school which has an entirely different ideological commitment. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Have you seen anything in my edits that is harmful to the LDS Church or to anyone else? [[User:Heidi Pusey BYU|Heidi Pusey BYU]] ([[User talk:Heidi Pusey BYU|talk]]) 22:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You don’t seem to be understanding my point. It doesn’t matter what I have or haven’t seen in your edits. You are free at this website inasmuch it is an Open Culture Movement website to explore, edit, study, and expand your horizons to whatever extent you would like. We encourage that on principle. Normally, I would welcome such engagement. But here is the thing: you are employed by BYU to write here. You are also a student. My commitment to radical openness then is now necessarily tempered by my greater concern for your well-being as a student and student worker because, frankly, that is far more important than the openness of this website. And if your school had a commitment to academic freedom, free speech, and so forth, there would be no tension there. But the fact remains that BYU has really strict policies. To be clear: You aren’t doing anything wrong! But we can’t stop your school from mistreating you on the basis of what I would considered normal activity at this website. If you came out tomorrow as a promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist (and I’m not saying you will… just go with the hypothetical) then while we would welcome you, suddenly you find yourself without support from the institution you rely on. And so we’re stuck. I think we can’t operate according to our own community rules because doing so puts you at risk and we need to figure out how to fix that. Having you contribute to article space is almost certainly not the right answer. If you had a sandbox where you could offer quotes from sources or apologetics or what have you that would help maintain your ecclesiastical endorsement, then there would be less of a problem. But you are duty bound to maintain a fealty to your church and your faith which this website should not be challenging because it can cause you problems. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Acknowledging my [[user:Hydrangeans|disclosed past connection to BYU]], I can't help but think it's a little disingenuous, howsoever inadvertently, to frame this as humanitarian concern for Heidi Pusey (BYU) and kind of paternalistic to insist that she can't assess for herself what her situation at BYU is like and whether there's any {{tq|risk of falling out of favor with your bishop}}, to use your words. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 00:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::The concern is not whether she made the correct or incorrect assessment. I trust that she knows what she is doing. ''I'm assessing the entirety of the situation for myself as a member of this community.'' My goal generally (it has nothing to do with this user specifically) is to make sure that all people are taken care of as best they can be. I see the following situation: (1) BYU has rules (2) this website has rules (3) those rules are by my reading at fundamental odds. I think that the ''best thing we can do'' given that, as a website community, and given that I have absolutely zero sway over BYU, is to prevent a situation where students acting as compelled editors (that's part of what getting paid to edit does, as fun as I find it to be since I do it for free) edit content that is directly relevant to those rules. It's that simple. Because let's say ''there is no risk'' of her running afoul of such. Then that is equally a problem in my mind. This stamps out the very radical openness we are trying to promote and makes me worried that the BYU student who is in the closet about their scholarship that identifies problems with the Book of Mormon would not and ''should not'' take this job. This can of worms is ugly and it gets worse the more you look at it. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 00:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::1. I am not in the closet about my scholarship and do not appreciate such an assumption. <br /> *::::::2. I do not appreciate you attacking my identity and saying I could hypothetically become a &quot;promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist.&quot; Such an assumption is unfounded and unacceptable. I will not tolerate it.<br /> *::::::3. I will no longer reply in this thread. [[User:Heidi Pusey BYU|Heidi Pusey BYU]] ([[User talk:Heidi Pusey BYU|talk]]) 00:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::Y'all don't see the problem here? This is an editor who can't follow a hypothetical and she's being ''paid'' to write about Mormon exegesis. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here.}} I do not think it is our place to try to sanction or remove adult editors from our community because we as a third party judge they are taking on too much risk by editing here. I think this argument is very weak. This is an ANI thread about sanctions. We should stick to discussing and sanctioning actual, demonstrable misconduct. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 00:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::They are at a risk ''because of our toleration of the situation of paid editing through this program''. Shut the program down and it is no longer a risk. The misconduct was done by her boss. I support sanctioning the boss. I'm not sure what to do about the student, so sure, close this whole commentary as off-topic. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{Hab}}<br /> *'''Support''' The evidence seems to be quite clear. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 22:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' based on Rachel Helps' own defense above. {{tq|The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground}} is not a good reason to allow blatant COI editing. I'm okay with driving it even further underground. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 02:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': The COI editing stuff was not my main concern (I'm far more worried about the paid editing junket), but I just thought I'd let the watchers here know that I tagged an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Austin_%28writer%29&amp;diff=1213610933&amp;oldid=1213479191] just now. It's a puff-piece pure and simple and the evidence for COI is pretty straightforward if y'all have been paying attention to these posts. I agree, this needs to be stopped. I'm pretty close to striking my &quot;with regret&quot; which gives me regret. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Honestly, this entire situation shows that we need to take a step back and take a look at possibly changing policy to prevent this from happening again. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::This may need to be kicked to Arbcom. It involves at my last count at least 5 editors not even counting the students. Oh dear. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 02:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': I worry we're conflating separate issues. <br /> ::1) Rachel Helps' involvement with articles about AML, ARCH-HIVE, and Michael Austin strikes me as a clear COI issue and a breach of community trust.<br /> ::2) There's a broader question around how to interpret COI when it comes to BYU and the LDS church. I think the COI argument here is plausible, but much less clear cut than #1. I do worry about creating a chilling effect for e.g. an Oxford professor citing a colleague who was published by Oxford University Press, or a math teacher at a Catholic school editing a page on the Trinity. If we do need to consider this COI, I think we should take our time and define the problem narrowly and precisely.<br /> ::3) There are NPOV and sourcing concerns around some Book of Mormon articles. I'm skeptical that a topic ban will improve this, or that the articles are worse for BYU editors' involvement. [[Second Nephi]] and [[Ammonihah]] are in much better shape than, say, [[Jason]], a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid. The BYU team seems to take these concerns seriously and make good faith efforts to include non-LDS sources. If individual articles aren't notable, we can delete them. <br /> ::4) Finally, there's a concern about implicitly endorsing BYU policies and potential risks to BYU's editors. I agree with [Hydrangeans] that this feels paternalistic, and I don't think this standard is workable. Even if we assume the worst of BYU, should we shut down any attempts to engage editors in China, in case someone writes something that upsets the CCP?<br /> <br /> :I would support a sanction that's more narrowly tailored, e.g. blocking Rachel Helps from edits around AML and BYU faculty, while still letting her write about scripture and history. It seems excessive to block her from absolutely anything LDS related (e.g. [[Battle at Fort Utah]]) or to shut the program down.<br /> <br /> :(In case there are any concerns: I've never met any of the editors involved, I've never attended, worked for, or even visited BYU, I learned what AML was earlier this afternoon, and I've never been a member of the church). [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 03:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Courtesy Break (1)====<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose''' Topic bans should not be punitive and are reserved for editors that engage in [[WP:TE|disruptive]] behavior within that topic area. I just don't see the hallmarks of disruptive editing that I've encountered in other situations, particularly in physics-related topics, that did result in topic bans. I do see very poor judgement when editing with both disclosed and undisclosed COI and operating with the gray zone caused by inconsistence guidance in the COI guidelines (Gray zone example, in one part COI editor should identify in all three places, in another it says that editors may due it in one of three places - an editor who tried to push the former with regards to Rachel was told by multiple admins that their interpretation was more expansive the intended COI guideline). I do find her response to HEB regarding this gray zone very troubling, but not disruptive. This should have been raised at COIN, prior to being elevated to ANI. I would note that Rachel editing and her WiR function have been brought up there before which did not end with sanctions, so it seems like bringing the dispute here has the appearance of forum shopping - might not be given new information since that discussion. I also disagree with the insinuation that because her COI is with BYU, she is incapable of editing in an NPOV manner when it comes to the LDS Church under some kind of threat, spoken or unspoken, from the religious leaders and therefore inherently disruptive if she edits in that topic. BYU teaches evolution in its biology classes, teaches the standard 4.5 billion year age for the earth in its geology classes, teaches a human history/prehistory that does not kowtow to Biblical or Book of Mormon teachings in its anthropology and archaeology classes, and so on - so the argument that the BYU employment means she has to edit inline with church doctrine is based on faulty assumptions and extrapolations. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 03:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:If Microsoft hired people to create articles about its products, and these editors disclosed they were paid editors but in some cases promoted some of these products while working with other Microsoft employees who edited with undisclosed COI, Wikipedia would siteban all of them with little discussion. It doesn't matter if Microsoft doesn't tell the editors exactly what to edit, or tells them explicitly to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if the articles about Microsoft products are totally NPOV and policy-compliant. Advertisement is advertisement, and this is advertisement. It doesn't matter if it's the LDS Church or Microsoft, it doesn't matter if it's articles about characters in the Book of Mormon or articles about characters in Microsoft video games. In both cases, it's just paying people to raise the profile of their products and their brand on Wikipedia. A TBAN from promoting the product seems actually lenient to me, like the minimum preventative measure Wikipedia should take in this situation, not punitive at all. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 04:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|It doesn't matter if the articles about Microsoft products are totally NPOV and policy-compliant.}} Sounds like you're saying that it doesn't matter the quality of the edits, if the motivation for making the edits is wrong. Is this correct? Some might disagree with that statement, preferring to accept high quality edits regardless of motivation. Although maybe we should discuss this more at [[WT:COI]] rather than here. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::No, not the ''motivation'' for making the edits, and no, this is the right place, this is about whether this proposed TBAN is preventative or not. I'm saying &quot;it doesn't matter&quot; in several different ways, but the motivation of the editor isn't one of them, who knows or cares about people's motivations, since we have no way of determining an editor's motivations.<br /> *:::If an edit violates one rule, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate another rule. If an edit violates COI or PAID, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate V or NPOV. If an edit violates NPOV, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate V or COI or PAID. If V or NPOV editing excused COI or PAID editing then we can just mark those pages historical, what's the point of even reading them?<br /> *:::It also doesn't matter because a policy-compliant, high-quality Wikipedia article is good advertising. A TFA is the highest-quality level of article that Wikipedia offers, and also the highest-quality advertising placement. If someone is trying to promote themselves or something on Wikipedia, a high-quality article is going to be better than a low-quality one, and while a puffery article might be the best, an NPOV article is still better than no article. Companies/people/churches/other orgs will pay to have policy-compliant articles created about themselves or their products because it's good advertising, it's good for their reputation, which is good for business and the bottom line. It's about $$$.<br /> *:::And just to belabor that point a little bit, think about it: how much are they paying per article? Hundreds of dollars? A thousand or a few thousand? Where else can you get guaranteed top-of-Google SEO placement for ''any'' search term for that cheap? And it's a one-time cost when they pay a paid editor to put it on Wikipedia, whereas ordinarily SEO of that quality is a monthly payment not a one-time. I think paid editors are like 90% cheaper than traditional SEO. Damn, I should advertise :-P<br /> *:::But if you step back, by piggybacking on volunteer labor, organizations can use paid editing to save themselves a ''ton'' of money on internet advertising while breaking ''no'' Wikipedia rules (if done properly). If we were smart we'd bypass paid editing and the WMF and just set up an actual job board on Wikipedia and have some kind of group Patreon account. Instead of making donations to the WMF, buyers could just pay for articles about whatever they want, and editors can get paid for writing articles, like $50 for a stub, maybe $500 for a GA, $1000 for an FA. Channel it all into an official channel and kinda kill two birds with one stone, I say. (And I'd be happy to administer it all for a reasonable management fee.)<br /> *:::So anyone who wants to invest their marketing $ in paid editing is actually free to do that, as long as the editors disclose and otherwise abide by the rules. But in ''this'' case, we have undisclosed COI and PAID editing by a number of people, and in the situation where an organization's marketing $'s are going not just to policy-compliant editing, but also to non-policy-compliant editing, then it seems like barring the non-policy-compliant editors from editing about the organization, broadly construed, is appropriate.<br /> *:::As an aside, it also bothers me that paid undergraduates are involved. Teaching the wrong lesson here. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Do you have these concerns about GLAM in general? Suppose the British Museum pays me to write about obscure parts of their collection. This will be great SEO and may encourage people to visit, and even though the museum is free, many visitors will probably make a donation. If I use the best available scholarship and teach millions of people for free, and the museum gets donations, would you object? [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 07:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::GLAM walks a fine line, no question. That's why it's extra important that people who participate in that sort of program as leaders be extra careful to keep their noses clean and think very carefully about the implications of their actions and activities, as far as I'm concerned. The alternative can easily devolve into this mess. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *:::::@[[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]]: I don't know much about GLAM, but yes, same concerns, no reason to treat galleries, libraries, archives, and museums, as any different from other organizations (companies, non-profits, churches). In your hypothetical, you'd still be hired to promote the museum's product (their collection), no different from Microsoft paying someone to promote one of their products. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::The problem with COI-tainted editing is that it given us an encyclopedia (and community) different to what we would have with if unconflicted editors were at work. It skews the process. It is &quot;dirt in the gauge&quot; as [[WP:COI]] used to mention. In practical terms we seem to have ended up with Wikipedia giving disproportionate/undue and often credulous coverage to this religion. The argument that &quot;COI doesn't matter if the edits are good&quot; would justify lifting restrictions on [[WP:PAID]] editing (and is often delpoyed by paid editors). [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 05:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::If it truly is a prescriptive ban, intended to enforce adherence to COI guidelines, then the TBAN should be narrowly applied to where she has actual COI, as defined by those COI guidelines. In this case, the COI is BYU and AML. I am not convinced that it extends to the LDS Church or LDS topics generally. She is a BYU employee, not an LDS Church employee. BYU employees can and do say things that contradicts the church, and the same is true for Rachel - some examples that immediately come to mind are her edits that do make look the church look good (see her list above) and even her use of &quot;LDS Church&quot;, which indicate the arguments that her terms of employment affect LDS-related topics generally are easily disproven. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 12:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::That's like saying an [[Altria]] employee only has a narrow COI to the company, and is free to write about the [[Health effects of tobacco]]! If you're paid to write a load of stuff about Mormons, the COI problem resides in doing just that. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 13:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::{{tq|She is a BYU employee, not an LDS Church employee. BYU employees can and do say things that contradicts the church}}{{pb}}This is completely false, as BYU is ''owned'' by the LDS Church and its honor code (literally the Church Education System Honor Code, sponsored by the LDS Church) expressly prohibits actions that go against church doctrine:{{tq2|As faculty, administration, staff, and students voluntarily commit to conduct their lives in accordance with the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ, they strive to maintain the highest standards in their personal conduct regarding honor, integrity, morality, and consideration of others. By accepting appointment, continuing in employment, being admitted, or continuing enrollment, each member of the campus communities personally commits to observe the CES Honor Code approved by the Board of Trustees: &lt;br&gt;Maintain an Ecclesiastical Endorsement, including striving to deepen faith and maintain gospel standards}}{{pb}}Multiple ''BYU professors'' have been fired for supporting--off-campus and strictly in a personal, sometimes even private, capacity--things the LDS church considers against-doctrine[https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4969940&amp;itype=NGPSID][https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2006/10/27/fired-byu-professors-speak-out/][https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2006/10/27/fired-byu-professors-speak-out/][https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/19/mormon-university-instructor-fired-after-facebook-post-supporting-lgbt-rights-she-says/][https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2022/02/16/byu-professor-says-she-was-let-go-lgbtq-advocacy], so there is absolutely reason to believe they would fire a mere student employee for expressing such opinions. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 13:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::It is an extrapolation beyond the stated honor code that you quoted to say &quot;principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ&quot; equals &quot;church doctrine&quot;. If that were true then all members of the faculty and employees would have to be members of the LDS Church (they aren't), not teach evolution (they do), not teach the big bang (they do), not teach a completely non-theistic abiogenesis and creation of the earth (they do), not teach that human civilization extends way past 4000BC with no mention of Nephites, Lamanites, or Noah's ark (they do), or not use &quot;LDS Church&quot; (they do). Again, it's demonstrably false the claimed level of control over BYU employees in general and specifically in this case. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Please read the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal|original thread]], this is discussed in great detail. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 13:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::You are conflating the acceptability of BYU profs lecturing on ''what is the mainstream, secular perspective on those topics, outside the context of the church'', and BYU profs opining on what is &quot;true&quot; about those topics ''in relation to church doctrine''. The former is endorsed by BYU, the latter can lead to threat of excommunication.[https://www.chronicle.com/article/mormon-scholar-facing-excommunication-for-research-gets-a-reprieve/] ({{tq|A professor at a Washington State community college who expected to be excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over an article he wrote regarding the Book of Mormon has had his disciplinary hearing postponed indefinitely. &lt;br&gt;Thomas W. Murphy, chairman of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, came under scrutiny for an article he wrote for American Apocrypha, an anthology published in 2002 by Signature Books. In the article, he reviews genetic data to refute the Mormon assertion that American Indians are descended from ancient Israelites. ...}}) [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-feb-16-me-mormon16-story.html][https://www.smh.com.au/world/mormons-excommunicate-australian-author-20050805-gdltir.html] ({{tq|An Australian author who wrote that DNA evidence fails to support the ancestral claims outlined in the Book of Mormon has been excommunicated by The Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints.}}) This is also blatantly obvious from the examples I gave above of BYU lecturers' personal opinions on homosexuality and feminism directly leading to their termination of employment. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::All BYU employees are directly employed by the LDS Church, there is no separation between the two. I'm surprised that someone who primarily edits in the LDS topic area wouldn't know that. Its also a bit odd that you're holding up evolution, age of the earth, Big Bang etc up as ways in which BYU contradicts church teachings when the LDS Church doesn't take a position on evolution and doesn't take a position on the age of the earth or how it/the universe was created beyond a rather wishy washy one. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 14:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *::::Note: a query to {{noping|FyzixFighter}} about any potential COI elicited this strange response.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FyzixFighter&amp;curid=2607466&amp;diff=1213843417&amp;oldid=1213808563] [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 13:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Thats not terribly surprising, at this point it looks like all of the editors besides FyzixFighter who were harassing anyone who question Rachel Helps (BYU) have disclosed COIs. Its a shame they have chosen to retire rather than face the music but thats their choice. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' If you aren't allowed to be neutral on this topic per terms of employment, you shouldn't be able to edit. Wikipedia has a lot of stuff not related to this to edit. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood|talk]]) 04:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose broad topic ban''' Oh no, don't ban my second-favorite wiki-gnome! Seriously, though, it saddens me to see someone who is so clearly a net-positive getting hauled off to AN/I like this. Though I don't recall collaborating directly with Rachel Helps, we've crossed paths many times over the past several years, and I've always been impressed by her approach to editing and interacting with others here. I've found her to be polite, intelligent, and honest, if perhaps a bit naive. I remember being confused the first time she crossed my watchlist...my knee-jerk reaction was &quot;why is an official BYU employee/representative editing articles about Mormonism&quot;? Then I looked at the substance of her edits...adding sources here, reverting vandalism there, removing copyvios, expanding articles about Mormon women, and refusing to take a stance on controversial issues where she thought she might be influenced by bias. Whenever there was a consensus on something, she would follow that consensus. If she wasn't sure about something, she would ask. I think I remember seeing her report herself to a noticeboard somewhere when another editor continued challenging her on something where she thought she was right but wanted to make sure the broader community thought so too. Look at her response to this. She's not digging in—she's trying to understand and comply with the community's expectations. If you look at her recent edits to [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)#Conflict of Interest statements]] you'll see that she's gone waaay overboard on trying to declare every possible conflict of interest. She's openly admitting fault where she was wrong, and is clearly committed to doing better. I hope the people !voting here and the closing admin will take that into consideration. Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 04:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't get the impression she is trying to understand me or anyone else who is concerned about the sum total of the mess that is Book of Mormon articles. There is absolutely no engagement with the issues at hand and when I tried to explain [[WP:FRINGE]] sourcing, the answer came back &quot;yes, we disagree.&quot; That's fine, but one of us is being paid to be here and has a ready paid group of students who look to her for editorial guidance, right? You haven't been in conflict with her. If you end up in conflict, do you think the wider context would be a problem? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 11:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I don't know that I'd call it &quot;conflict&quot; but I can recall instances where I've disagreed with edits I saw her making. In each case, she immediately stopped what she was doing and listened to my objections. If she wasn't convinced by my argument, she sought a wider consensus. I've never seen her edit against a consensus. <br /> *::A few years ago there was a big influx of newbie editors trying to scrub the words &quot;Mormon&quot; and &quot;Mormonism&quot; from the encyclopedia because of recent remarks from the correct LDS president/prophet saying that use of the term was offensive to God and a victory for Satan. (The LDS church has had a long on-again-off-again relationship with the word.) I personally thought it was best to continue using the word on Wikipedia, both to be true to how reliable sources talk about Mormonism, and to be accessible to readers who are only familiar with the common name. But I suddenly found myself in the minority in opposing the changes. I suspect that personally Rachel Helps wanted to follow the command of the LDS president and that her colleagues and possibly employers at BYU were hoping that she could make Wikipedia comply with the church's new style guide. But she didn't. She participated in some discussions about the disagreement, but she didn't push hard for any particular outcome, and she (afaict) has continued to this day to respect and enforce Wikipedia's own style guide that still explicitly allows calling people Mormons, probably to the chagrin of church leadership. <br /> *::Anyway, my point is that as far as disagreements go, Rachel Helps is one of the more pleasant people I've ever disagreed with. I wish more Wikipedians were like her in that respect. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 15:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I don't think pleasantness is an issue. There is a common misconception on Wikipedia that COIs are inherently somehow &quot;bad&quot;, but in reality the more you do in life the more COIs you accrue. It's only people who sit in their basement all day who don't have any COIs. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You didn't really answer my question. Here's where I am as of two days ago. This user has stated ''point blank'' that she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources. In the last two days, after going through hundreds of edits at dozens of articles I notice that this is the ''primary'' kind of sourcing that her students are inserting into articlespace and they are still active. I get the distinct impression that she will not be directing her students to re-evaluate their sourcing guidelines or engage with me in discussion about this topic. Now, if I had a bunch of students I could employ to check up on all this, maybe that would be an equal footing dispute. But I don't think the idea here is to start a paid editing arms race, is it? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Sorry, I definitely wasn't trying to dodge a question. I guess my point is that I think Rachel Helps is the kind of person who would voluntarily direct her students to follow whatever policy, guideline, or consensus you pointed her to. I think she could also be convinced by logic alone, but I can't say for sure...people like that seem to be rare these days. I wouldn't be surprised if, to comply with a consensus, she asked her students to nominate their own articles for deletion. That said, I am not really clear on what you mean by religious sources that have been noticed by other religious sources. Are you talking in general about religious academic sources citing each other, or specifically about Mormon academics citing other Mormon academics but without getting cited by non-Mormon religious scholars? (There are probably better forums than AN/I for that discussion.) &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 16:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::If you're interested, this discussion that ground to a halt is still on her user talkpage. Feel free to check it out. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::So this whole long thing arose out of a dispute over whether religious sources could be reliable? She wouldn't agree that reliable religious sources needed to be validated by reliable secular sources, or that verifiable information should be omitted entirely when nobody could find a reliable secular source on the subject, so you started a COI discussion at VPM and now we have a topic ban proposal?<br /> *::::::Why didn't you start an RFC over whether information only available in religious sources should be excluded wholesale from all of Wikipedia, instead of trying to get rid of one editor who disagreed with you? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::That is ''not'' what this arose out of. ''That'' dispute arose because I asked if she would consider hitting pause on her program and she came back with a set of sourcing guidelines that I found problematic. I asked her to hit pause on the program because I saw widespread issues that I am still working my way through and then noticed that all these students were being organized by one coordinator with what essentially amounted to the blessings of the GLAM/WIR system. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I want to offer an addendum that since I wrote this comment, Rachel Helps has begun engaging with me on her talkpage. I find this encouraging. I still think on the balance having her and her students move away from LDS topics is a good idea, but there is discussion happening and as long as that is happening there is hope. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Reply|Awilley}} did you see Levivich's request &quot;If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it.&quot;? We know you're involved and not a neutral admin, but do you have any conflicts of interest you should be disclosing? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 14:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::That's kind of a weird litmus test for participating in an AN/I thread. I'd like to think that people should be judged based on the strength of their arguments rather than assumptions about their motivation. But if you insist, I attended BYU from about 2006-2012. I would have no idea what AML was if I hadn't just read the thread on village pump. To my knowledge I don't know and have never met any of the people in this or the other thread IRL, though it's possible we crossed paths without my realizing it. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::: Its not weird if its an AN/I thread about undisclosed BYU related editing... Ok, I'm planning to open a new subsection about canvassing in a minute. Specifically regarding you and BoyNamedTzu. Is there anything you can tell me which would suggest that I should only open a discussion about BoyNamedTzu? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Eh, what? I don't know who BoyNamedTzu is. I logged in yesterday after getting a ping to the VP thread because I had participated in an older thread about you and Rachel Helps. Then I got another ping here because I had participated in the thread yesterday. I don't know what you're looking for, but since I've got your attention, I'd appreciate it if you could clue me in on what the invisible game of baseball is you mentioned on the VP thread. Because your response here seems a bit disproportionate. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Yes, it is your sudden and inexplicable participation in that older thread about Rachel Helps and I which forms the basis for the canvassing concerns. I believe I said it was a game of inside baseball with an invisible ball... Unfortunately I can't provide any of that information due to WP:OUTING concerns, but it has been provided to ARBCON. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose broad topic ban'''. If we banned people who had any formal association with a Christian church or worship group from editing articles about Christianity, and the same for all religions and sects, we would have nobody left to edit the articles about those important topics, except maybe culture warriors from opposing beliefs, and who wants that? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 07:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I think you have misunderstood Rachel Helps relationship; it goes beyond a &quot;formal association&quot; - she is an employee, and one who is paid to edit. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Do you think it's ok for a BYU employee, who is paid and pays others to edit Wikipedia, to publish a puffy {{diff2|1073250079|article}} about a Mormon organization she was actively writing pieces for; whose citations toward notability are an interview with one sentence of secondary independent coverage of the org, a piece on an exhibition organized by/featuring org members that also has only one sentence of secondary coverage of the org, and an award from another Mormon company for which this employee served as an awards judge the same year? Is it ok for this employee to initially deny COI with the claim she's merely &quot;interested in the page&quot;? And then, even after concerns about COI have been raised and seemingly acknowledged by her, and after the article was first draftified and then declined at AfC, to still recreate it? {{pb}}Is it ok for her to direct her employees to write articles on subjects ''because she can't write them herself due to COI&quot;? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 12:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', per above. I also believe we should be considering topic bans for the other involved BYU editors. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose such a ban'''. Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page, for example January 2023[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)&amp;oldid=1131332465] at a location allowed by [[WP:DISCLOSE]]. In brief, [[WP:COI]] says &quot;There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs) — Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations ...&quot; ([[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board]]) though there is considerable further nuance which requires careful consideration. Different people may legitimately have different understandings. The status of Wikipedians in Residence has for long been a contentious matter and the problems should not be visited on particular individuals. My own experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 12:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **What has your &quot;experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive.&quot; to do with a proposal to ban her specifically from BYU editing where evidence shows that it is not &quot;extremely positive&quot; as in neutral, but has too often a clear pro-BYU stance, reducing the emphasis on scientific positions and increasing the emphasis on non-scientific, partisan positions? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': I just added COI tags on ''&lt;s&gt;ten&lt;/s&gt;twelve more articles'' that are connected directly to the COI campaign to promote the [[Association of Mormon Letters]]. Friends, this is really gigantic problem. It's been going on for years. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''': Not being paid by Microsoft is not an excuse for being paid by another lobby group while acting against our trustworthiness guidelines. [[User:Pldx1|Pldx1]] ([[User talk:Pldx1|talk]]) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Courtesy Break (2) ====<br /> <br /> *'''Question''' - Is this a situation that could be resolved with some careful voluntary commitments? The primary issue, it seems to me, is about COI/PAID and not otherwise about competency or a pattern of violating NPOV (I understand there are side conversations about NPOV/RS, but it doesn't seem to be the primacy concern). A topic ban from LDS would not, then, address COI matters to do with any other topic and ''would'' prevent her from working on articles with no COI (unless we say belonging to a religion means you have a COI for articles about that religion and anyone else who happens to belong).&lt;br/&gt;What about a voluntary commitment to (a) maintain a list on her userpage of articles edited with a conflict of interest, erring on the side of inclusion; (b) adding a notice to the talk page of any article edited in connection with her job (there's another parallel discussion about templates/categories which could accomplish this); (c) specifically noting if an edit is made at the request of an employer? That, combined with the knowledge that her edits will receive additional scrutiny due to this thread, seems like it would resolve this without a topic ban, no? &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 13:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Can you explain how it would be possible for a paid edit not to come with a COI? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 14:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't think I understand your question. If an edit falls under [[WP:PE]], there is a COI. The trouble in this case, I think, is in the line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and paid editors. That's a big, messy question. Ditto the relationship between Mormon subjects broadly, BYU, LDS, etc. (not whether there is one, but how we should think about COI). &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Wikimedian in Residence is a type of paid editor, there is no line between the two. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm not sure what point you're making, but for clarity I will edit my words above: {{tq|line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and ^how we treat other^ paid editors}}. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::So if every edit that falls under PE has a COI... And every edit made by a wikipedian in residence falls under PE... How can a wikipedian in residence work on an article with which they don't have a COI? Any article they work on is one they have a COI with. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::This has not generally been how the community chooses to interact with Wikimedians in Residence. We expect them to take a &quot;warts and all&quot; approach to editing, and to be cautious, but we also do not expect or AFAICT want them to spam {{tl|edit COI}} on most of their contributions. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::And the Wikimedian in Residence in question here has met neither of those expectations. They have not taken a &quot;warts and all&quot; approach to editing and have been about as far away from cautious as its possible to be. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Note that they were first cautioned about this back in 2016 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amgisseman(BYU)/Archive_1&amp;oldid=854327236#COI] and yet the issue there &quot;main concern is breach of our terms of use and COI&quot; is the same issue here because they did not heed the caution. At some points Helps must have wondered why dozens of editors she didn't know were raising issues with her edits and why the people defending her were almost all people she knew personally. She's not a stupid person, she pretty clearly knew that what she was doing wasn't kosher from at least 2016 onwards. She continued to do it anyway. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I would like to understand how this would prevent, for example, the coordinated editing from the Church of Scientology that we banned. We don't enforce disciplinary measures against people on the basis of their religious adherence. But here we have a group is being paid by an institution which is directly involved in the promulgation of said religion. When that happened with the Church of Scientology, we ''blocked the associated IP addresses'' on the argument that there basically was no way they could contribute to the encyclopedia ''at all''. And to be sure, a lot of those accounts did good work other than being part of that coordinated effort. How is this different ''at all''? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The Scientology case began with extensive NPOV violations achieved through sock/meatpuppetry/coordination. We didn't ban them because they were scientologists writing about scientology; we banned them because they were scientologists writing about scientology ''contrary to our policies''. Such evidence hasn't been presented here as far as I've seen. Some level of coordination, yes, which should be disclosed, but not to game the system. That's a fundamental difference that makes the scientology comparison misleading. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Did you read the VPM thread? I document a few of the diffs there and it's basically a litany of the same. Here we have a group of editors who are adding prose that basically takes the Book of Mormon ''on its own terms'' as a text. When called out on it, the ringleader declared that she fundamentally disagrees with people who object to that behavior. It's exactly the same kind of thing the scientologists were doing. And, I mean, I was there for that one and saw it happening. Do me a favor and look at ''any'' of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group. Or look at all the pages I just tagged with COI and see how many of them were connected to Rachel. This is a complete clusterfuck. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Scanned it, but apparently I have more to look at. Will check it out before !voting here. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 16:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I could use a pointer to the evidence you're referring to. I see diffs about COI, but not diffs of edits made my Rachel which violate our policies. The content-related diffs I do see (e.g. in your 17:06, 12 March 2024 comment) were made by others, who aren't the subject of this section. {{tq|Do me a favor and look at ''any'' of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group.}} Is this an argument about over-coverage (in which case I'd rather see evidence of lots of deleted pages created by Rachel rather than focused efforts to cover a subject -- I'd argue we have overcoverage of a lot of religious subjects, including Mormonism, and a whole lot of editors focus on specific subjects), or is it an argument about use of inappropriate sources? Regardless, this isn't a topic ban for a group, it's a topic ban for one person so we'd need evidence that Rachel is editing in a non-neutral or otherwise problematic way (not just COI, which seems like something that can be resolved with transparency/assurances). It seems to me there's a bigger conversation that needs to happen regarding use of sources published in connection to a religion and/or by members of that religion. I don't think I peruse religious articles as much as you or many others, but it seems to me like most of them rely on such &quot;in-universe&quot; sources. I don't think that's ideal, but I'm wary of singling one out. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Hmm... are you saying that you don't think that she should be accountable for the edits that she paid her students to make? I can give you some examples of edits that she made if that's more to your liking, but I'm somewhat surprised that you are so dismissive of student edits which she has later defended on talkpages (but it's possible you aren't looking at larger context due to time). [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::How does a tban for RH prevent her students from doing anything at all? How would it prevent anything that happens off-wiki? As with any student program, if a student is persistently making bad edits, sanction them like you would any other user. If an instructor displays a pattern of disregard for our policies such that their students are a consistent net negative, that's a different kind of sanction (and I don't think there's enough evidence for that here, either, though that doesn't mean there haven't been problems). What I would expect for a tban on an individual is a pattern of harmful edits made to that topic area. That case hasn't been made sufficiently. The case that has been made, insofar as I've seen, is that there have been some clear COI problems and a difference of opinion when it comes to sourcing religious topics. On the latter, I think you and I are probably on the same page, but I don't see it as an entirely resolved policy issue. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Wouldn't a TBAN mean paying her students for making any particular edits in that area would be sanctionable for both her and the students? So any edit made in LDS topics by the (BYU) student accounts would be a TBAN violation, but they would be free to edit in that area on their personal accounts. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::The students would be stopped by [[WP:MEAT]] because they receive assignments from RH. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::The relationships are a little confusing to me. We're talking, I think, about effectively interns/research assistant/student ''workers'' on one hand and students being students on the other hand. If RH were to be tbanned, that would make any students hired/directed to make specific edits by RH fall somewhere between MEAT and PROXYING, yes, which is a bad place to be. I don't think a general instruction to &quot;edit Wikipedia&quot; would be prevented, though. Nor would students hired by someone else and merely supported by RH. And a tban wouldn't prevent RH from what I suspect is the more common scenario: helping students, faculty, staff, and others to edit according to their ''own'' interests (i.e. not directed but supported). And that's IMO a good thing, not just because that attempts to reach too far off-wiki with on-wiki sanctions, but also because while the COI stuff should definitely be avoided, RH is better equipped than a typical student (or even faculty) editor to provide best practices/instruction, etc. I'd say that's probably more rather than less true after this thread. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 14:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::The way RH has set up the projects is that she guides the students ''very carefully'' in what they do. This is actually one positive thing she does that does not happen with other similar programs I have seen, so good on her for that. The upshot is that I would not want this kind of guidance on her part to end if this paid editing program continues, so her students would ''effectively be TBanned'' as well. If we started to see lots of edits the way they have been editing, that would, in my mind, constitute a topic ban violation. I cannot speak for RH, but I suspect that she would have them move away from Mormonism topics if she were TBanned which would be ''the best possible outcome'', as far as I'm concerned.<br /> ::::::::::And, no, I am not convinced that things are going to get better just because of this discussion. There seems to have been an enculturation over the last few years which has provoked a kind of perfect storm of bad editing practices that I have been digging into over the last few days and it is not going to be easy to figure out what to do about all this. There seems to be an over-focus on treating the Book of Mormon as literature which is the main thrust behind RH's favored approach and that of others conflicted with the [[Association of Mormon Letters]]. Right now, we have lots of articles on weird little topics within the book of Mormon which treat the thing as though it were literature like Tolkien or Dickens I guess as a way to sidestep questions related to the religious beliefs that surround these things. The students she has coached seem to have adopted this approach in part while also maintaining delightfully matter-of-fact retellings of the mythology as though it were fact. It's a mess.<br /> ::::::::::But the students aren't really to blame here. They're being led by a much-lauded (by enablers you can see in this very thread) Wiki[p|m]edian in Residence who has been scrupulously trying to follow the rules and no one bothered to tell her that maybe editing about a religion as controversial as Mormonism ('''to which she belongs and is employed by the religious authorities of that religion through their in-house institution of higher education with strict rules on what she can and cannot do vis-a-vis that religion''') maybe is not going to sit well with some in the Wikipedia community that takes things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:FRINGE]] seriously.<br /> ::::::::::So here we are. Your idea to get her to clean things up means unlearning years of training that she invented without input from the community. I look forward to seeing what kind of program you might be able to invent that could address that. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Voluntary commitments, really? No I wouldn't support that because a number of the editors involved have previously lied about not having COIs when asked. Also because this is years of undisclosed COI editing happening here. So, no, it'd be crazy of us to trust any voluntary commitments from people who have actively deceived us for such a long time and up until so recently. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]], and similar action against other COI editors should be considered, per [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]. This is an area where WP should take a hardline stance. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per [[User:Vghfr]], [[User:Fram]] and others. But I think we have a wider issue with LSD-related articles here that a few topic bans will not solve it. I agree with [[User:JoelleJay]]'s comment in the other discussion about the lack of NPOV in &quot;topics that are only discussed in publications by LDS members and thus exclusively reflect LDS-endorsed teaching on the topic&quot;. We have a massive walled garden of hundreds if not thousands of these obscure, otherwise NN topics sourced only to LSD-related publications which could pass the surface of GNG and easily [[WP:GAME|game]] the notability rules. --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Our articles on Catholicism mostly reflect Catholic sources. Our articles on Judaism mostly reflect Jewish sources. That is natural and only to be expected. Why is it suddenly a problem when the same thing occurs in our articles on LDS? The people one would expect to be interested in and write about LDS are...LDS people. That is the nature of the sources. It is not a conflict of interest to use the mainstream sources that are available. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::While [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]], that has ''not'' been my experience as I edited those topics. In fact, many of our Catholic articles have sources which are explicitly critical of the Catholic Church nearly to the point of vitriol. By contrast, Judaism is so irreverent and delightfully self-critical that I am at a loss for why you think the comparison to those pages is at all apt. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Yes – if and when those other sources exist, are reliable, are relevant, etc. <br /> *:::But from your comment above that {{xt|she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources}}, it sounds like the complaint you have here is that some content is being added from LDS-related sources when no non-religious source has ever disagreed with the LDS-related source. <br /> *:::I have not seen any disputes in which someone adds information about a Catholic or Jewish religious idea, from a reliable source written by a religious organization, and someone else demands that the reliable source be removed on the grounds that non-religious sources haven't published anything on that subject. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Then you haven't been looking at disputes over the [[Shroud of Turin]]. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Why would we even need specific examples from Catholic or Jewish editors when we had a whole arbcom case surrounding exactly this behavior from Scientology adherents? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Because a new religious group with something on the order of 10 thousand members is not the same as a 200-year religion with 17 million members. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::LDS is a [[new religious movement]] the same as Scientology. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::What does the number of years a religion has been around or number of members of a religion have to do with anything? The only thing I can think of is that there are probably more sources if there is more time and people involved, which is true. But on the substance these things are the same. I mean, Mormonism and Scientology are actually ''very'' comparable. There are a great many excellent sources which show that. In fact, that was at one time one of the articles on my list of articles to write. The funny thing is that neither the Mormons nor the Scientologists like the comparison. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that ''actually might have happened'' and so are of interest to secular historians, enough primary interpretations of scripture to engage dozens of generations of academics, and far broader and more significant impact on human culture in general, permitting even more opportunities for interdisciplinary scholarship. We should not be treating every religious movement as if they're each equally likely to have the depth and independence of sourcing needed to support pages on minor aspects of their faith. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Well, some new religions too. For example, the foundational sacred texts of the [[Nation of Islam]] has some fascinating description of what life was like in the African American community of Detroit in the 1930s. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Re &quot;Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that actually might have happened&quot;: this reads as straight-up prejudice to me (and I have zero connection with LDS). You might just as well say have a much greater likelihood that those older religions' texts contain fabulations, misreadings, and other material we wouldn't want to take as literally true, simply because they've had so much longer to accumulate that sort of material. But we are not basing our content on the content of the Book of Mormon; we are basing it on the accounts of their historians. I would tend to imagine that, while biased, those accounts are maybe more likely to be accurate, because they are from a more recent time with better records, while the writings of the early Christian church historians have the same tendency to their own bias. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 00:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::Yes, the older religions generally do have much more fabulist text, as well as a lot more material that has taken on mythical aspects or been reported by apologists (e.g. miracles) over hundreds or thousands of years. But that's irrelevant to what I am saying, which is that it's far more likely texts recounting religious narratives that we can accurately date to c. 300 AD will also have some bits of real history and info on life at the time that can't be found anywhere else, and would thus be of intense interest to modern scholars in many fields, than scripture written more recently (as contemporaneous writings become more numerous, the preciousness of any single one as a major primary source across multiple disciplines outside religion decreases) or scripture that wholly fabricates ancient history and is virtually useless to anyone actually studying its purported time period. {{pb}}There are extensive secondary analyses of secondary analyses etc. of scholarship on Jewish or Catholic scriptural and metaphysical questions, and new external sources or theories on the cultural/geopolitical/philosophical climate of a time continue to be discovered and incorporated into what we know about a spiritual topic ''beyond'' exegesis of scripture. We don't need to rely on unreliable primary or old secondary sources to do this because we generally have plenty of modern secondary sources, often in multiple nonsecular fields, to use in writing a comprehensive and neutral article on a subject. We ''don't'' have this for LDS topics because the furthest back historians can go from BoM et al scripture is 200 years ago. But LDS historians are still analyzing their scriptures in the sincere belief that they recount actual events from thousands of years ago, making the same kinds of extrapolations and interpolations from their holy books to reconstruct that past that any other historian would do with genuine ancient text, except ''none of it corresponds to real history''. No questions in anthropology or archaeology or history are being answered in any way that is meaningful outside of LDS faith, and so no secular researchers in those disciplines have any reason to publish academic commentary on the LDS scholars' theories. The result is that we have hundreds of pages on minor characters and events from BoM where the only sources are from adherents collaboratively building what amounts to a fictional literary universe &lt;small&gt;(or, perhaps as a more fitting analogy, a new, Hardy-hard branch of pure math)&lt;/small&gt;, except it's dressed up in the same historiographic structure as we'd have on a topic with thousands of years of history. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 02:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::It's my view, not necessarely agreeable, but if an LSD topic has no sources outside LSD sources it is likely unnotable, and writing a balanced article about it is impossible. Also, I am not necessarely referring to strictly religious topics, eg., we have obscure, semi-amateur and poorly released films only sourced from ''[[Journal of Religion and Film]]'', byu.edu and similar, same with books and other products. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 19:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I think this is a sensible rule. However, I worry about defining &quot;LDS source&quot; too broadly. ''Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction'' is written by a Mormon, but it's published by Oxford University Press and targeted at a non-LDS audience. Oxford also publishes an annotated Book of Mormon. I think we need to narrowly define what falls into this category, and have that conversation in a less heated atmosphere than ANI. [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I agree with Cavarrone about notability, but I think the solution there is not to announce that only a secular source could possibly be acceptable for explaining the symbolism of the story, and that if no secular source ever wrote about the symbolism, then symbolism can't be mentioned in Wikipedia, but to take the article to AFD.<br /> *::::When we're talking about a notable subject, though, I think our usual rules work perfectly well for this subject. We don't require independent sources for everything that gets mentioned in an article, and that's true whether you're writing about how many employees Microsoft has, or what the symbolism of the story is, or why the artist chose to put a colorful blanket behind the cow's skull. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Let me give a concrete example to help focus the conversation. On multiple articles I found years given for events described in the Book of Mormon. Some of those years were laughably specific. Some of those years are repeated by many, many Mormon sources. Now, I would love for there to be an article in Wikipedia about [[Ascribing dates to the stories in the Book of Mormon]] or something like that to explain exactly the weird calculus that Mormon apologists go through in arriving at these dates and why certain dates are more popular with certain Mormons than others, but the fact of the matter is that this has been so little noticed by independent sources that in many cases it ''has not even occurred to the authors of our own articles'' that putting in years might be a problem. The easiest solution I think is to excise them, but sure, it's not the only possible solution. But the solution cannot be, &quot;let's just put those dates in the articles and call it a day.&quot; which was, as far as I can tell, the standard operating procedure. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::No, but the solution ''could'' be &quot;Let's put the dates in with [[WP:INTEXT]] attribution&quot;.<br /> *::::::The main point of this sub-thread, though, is to talk about whether we're treating all religions equally. Have you seen a similar thing in, say, Catholic articles, in which someone adds some papal pronouncement, and other editors say, &quot;Oh, no, you can't add that unless you have a secular source, too&quot;? I haven't. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::Absolutely! As I pointed out above, when there are clear fabrications (as in, for example, the case of [[Marian apparitions]]), we do the same thing. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::By the way, these students got the memo about [[WP:INTEXT]]. The problem is that that often goes like this, &quot;According to [PERSON'S NAME THAT IS UNMENTIONED EXCEPT FOR RIGHT HERE], this story is all about...&quot; Or, worse, &quot;According to historian [HISTORIAN]...&quot; and you research the historian and come to find that they are a professor of history at BYU who wrote the book, &quot;How I KNOW the Book of Mormon is true&quot; or whatever. So, no, [[WP:INTEXT]] isn't cure-all. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Neutral'''Yes, things are not okay. But I have serious trouble with the fact that a topic ban can cost her her job. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px&quot;&gt;[[User:The Banner|&lt;span style=&quot;color:green&quot;&gt;The&amp;nbsp;Banner&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|&lt;i style=&quot;color:maroon&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/i&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:If this ban will cause loss of employment as a Wikipedian in Residence, wouldn't this be seen as a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] as this is threatening the editor's livelihood? Furthermore, wouldn't the effort to have editors who have any affiliation with [[Brigham Young University]] in relation to [[Mormanism]] cause a [[chilling effect]] and diminish the improvement of articles around that topic? [[User:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B22234&quot;&gt;'''Right'''Cow&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background-color: #C2B280; color:#3C3B6E&quot;&gt;'''LeftCoast'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;Moo&lt;/span&gt;]]) 23:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Surely you could ask these questions about any analogous remedy addressing a WiR or systematic COI. Surely these positions aren't immune from scrutiny; we're concerned about people being paid by BYU to edit Wikipedia, not every individual affiliated with them in any way. If you're making some other point, I am not able to tell what it is. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 23:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Strong oppose'''. Rachel Helps has been a consistent positive contributor to an essential area of religious discourse. She is professionally talented, responsive to community, an active participant on multiple open networks of movement organizers, and an ambitious trainer and supervisor for others. There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed and aims to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion. There are plenty of COI battles to fight; this isn't one of them. [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]&lt;sup&gt; [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]&amp;#124;[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:To clarify, are you opposing the topic ban for Thmazing (not Rachel Helps)? [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 20:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I've moved it to the correct section. Apologies and thanks for the tip! [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]&lt;sup&gt; [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]&amp;#124;[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **{{u|Ocaasi}}, you appear to have a) !voted in the wrong section and b) failed to read anything more than the section heading, as then you would know that the issue is that their work has not been &quot;disclosed&quot; or &quot;rigorous&quot; on subjects they were professionally connected to. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 20:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't think &quot;aiming to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion&quot; is necessarily good enough. Otherwise [[WP:CIR]] bans/blocks wouldn't be a thing. Now, maybe you oppose those bans/blocks too, but I am ''deep'' in the weeds right now of seeing how Rachel Helps's students were treating material relevant to their religion and... hooboy... even if their hearts were in the right place they are doing us no favors in articlespace. I am very, very happy she has finally told her students to work in sandboxes which, if that had been happening all along I probably wouldn't be involved in this, but the conversation I'm having with her right now is one the &quot;Open Networks of Movement Organizers&quot; should have had with her ''years'' ago about her programming. Y'all did her dirty and I'm actually angrier at her enablers than I am at her. She honestly did not know this was coming and by running defense this whole time after multiple people have sounded alarms (just look through her usertalkpage archive), you did not give her the support she would have needed to actually make something like this work (or choose to not do it at all in case, as I suspect, it would be impossible to make this stuff work). [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Point of order: she knew this was coming for the last four years at least[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Brigham_Young_University]. Thats what makes the refusal to improve and meet the standards/practices outlined by the community so bad. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Thanks for bringing that up. You neglrct to mention that there was no administrative acton resulting from that discussion, and no community admonishment or sancation. Indeed, even the person raising the issue noted {{Tq|1=&quot;They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable.&quot;}} and, later, {{Tq|1=&quot;I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions.&quot;}} &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *::::Well yeah, that discussion got mobbed by people we now know had major undisclosed COIs. You're selectively cherrypicking in a way that seems misleading at best, especially considering the things you say in that discussion. We have the same thing happening there as here, Rachel Helps is informed about best practices and rejects them saying for example &quot;In my opinion, best practices should be defined by the people doing the job.&quot; [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{tq|They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable.}} I don't really have time to go back into the history of four years ago to check if that was true then, but it is ''absolutely not the case right now''. I have been going through dozens of Book of Mormon articles that were being edited by this crew and with ''very few exceptions'' they are not NPOV nor well-sourced -- many are either [[WP:PROFRINGE]] or written in something like [[WP:INUNIVERSE]] with bizarre assumptions, turns of phrase, etc. I am finding all kinds of sources being used that have 0 citations according to Google Scholar! [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmmonihah&amp;diff=1213862128&amp;oldid=1213852106 Rachel Helps (BYU) is defending this practice of keeping such shoddy sources in these articles] much to my disappointment. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Ping|Ocaasi}} Are you also an active participant in those open networks of movement organizers? Any conflicts you should be disclosing? Pardon the question but we seem to be having an issue with undisclosed COIs on a number of levels in this discussion. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Strong support''' per Rachel Helps: &quot;{{brown|I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI.}}&quot; I am unable to trust this user in this topic area any longer. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 01:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **I believe the above admission I highlighted contrasts with several opposers' rationale, and I quote from each of them: (1) {{tq|How anyone can ... say her CoI is &quot;undisclosed&quot;}} (2) {{tq|Banning someone for a procedural error}}, (3) {{tq|Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page}}, (4) {{tq|There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed}}. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***Please don't quote me (and others) out of context; even if you do neglect to give attrbution when doing so. What I wrote and what I was replying to when I did so is avaialble for anyone to see, at the top of this thread. What you quote Rachel saying does not negate my comment. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ****{{re|Pigsonthewing}} - you defended Rachel indicating that she disclosed COI on the (BYU) account. But, she admitted undisclosed COI on the other, personal account. The same person is behind both accounts, so I am afraid she didn’t handle COI properly. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 00:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Hesitant oppose''', because I'm a little worried we're conflating some related but separate issues here. It is quite clear that Rachel Helps did a poor job of disclosing her COIs, and lost perspective when editing some topics on which she had a COI. It is clear that many BYU-affiliated editors have been writing poor content. And it is clear that many pages related to Mormonism have too much material from uncritical sources (but this isn't limited to Mormonism by any means). But I don't see this topic-ban addressing any of those issues, and indeed I think it might worsen them, because Rachel is better placed than many editors to help fix these issues. I do think her ''students'' need to be moved away from LDS-related topics: whether because they're being paid, or the rules of BYU, or their upbringing, or some combination thereof, there seems to be a recurring pattern of poor content that others need to fix. But at this moment I don't see how this TBAN would achieve much besides being a punishment. It wouldn't even fix the COI issue, because as best as I can tell religion is sort of incidental to those COI issues; it's just Rachel editing about things she's involved with in RL, which is a problem to be sure, but isn't limited to Mormonism. It seems to me Rachel is taking the concerns expressed here seriously, and we'd do better to focus on the problematic content other editors, including her students, may have introduced. For the record, I consider myself quite firmly in favor of avoiding apologetic sources and in-universe sources for religious subjects, and have argued for this position in numerous cases involving most major religions. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 03:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Okay, this is a convincing (to me) oppose. Only reason I stay supporting the ban is that I see a topic ban from LDS would probably encourage a lot of the best-case scenario stuff to happen anyway and it might get accomplished and probably more quickly. Yes, she is well-placed to fix issues and I'm sure she wants to fix them, but maybe it would be better if she and her students focused on other things that could be done at that library. The flora and fauna of the Great Basin, for example. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 05:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future (minor, because major ones receive editorial scrutiny and attention from critical sources; it's the ones that don't that seem to be the focus of the problem). [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::In that case, why not topic ban just to make it clear? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Because there's a big difference between &quot;shouldn't add substantive content to these pages going forward&quot; and &quot;isn't permitted to discuss these topics in any way shape or form&quot;. I stand by what I said above that Rachel herself is best placed to help us clean up some of this mess. Not to mention that TBANNing her when she still has active students would be quite silly; those would then be completely unsupervised. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Why would that be silly? We're all completely unsupervised and these are adult in college, not children in middle or high school. They should be entirely capable of editing wikipedia on their own, we all do. Also note that while these are student employees they are not her students in the sense that they are enrolled in a class where she is their instructor. She is an employer/manager not a teacher or professor to these editors. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::So you're describing a TBAN from articlespace? I agree that this is where most of the damage is happening--discussion spaces are much less problematic. As for your &quot;unsupervised active student&quot; argument, I don't understand it even a little bit. You already said &quot;I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future.&quot; RH would still be able to supervise them to edit articles on the flora and fauna of the Great Basin. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Very simply, those students are a net-positive largely because of Rachel's supervision, and as such I oppose any TBAN on those grounds until we simultaneously apply it to all students she is responsible for. She may technically be able to supervise them on non-LDS topics, but that's quite unworkable in practice. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' Even though the COI is greater than Mormonism this would at least serve as a warning that Helps' COI editing is causing concern. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 12:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **&quot;serve as a warning &quot; You think this thread doesn't do that? &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:Some warnings may need to be more forcefully made than others. I sympathize with the idea that Rachel Helps (BYU) probably thought everything was fine and that the complaints that had been leveled against her over the years were nothingburgers. Unfortunately, those complaints were serving as warnings that obviously went unheeded. And, to be frank, I think people like you are to blame for enabling her and not being honest with her that this was coming. Now, maybe you didn't know this was coming, but ''someone'' in your group of WMF/GLAM/WIR in-person conference/wiknic attendees should have noticed and taken her aside and given her the advice that right now is coming down like a pile of bricks. But it didn't happen. Years went by and here we are. That's right, I am much angrier at ''you'' (and the position you are representing right now) than I am at her. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' per Vanamonde93. While there are some issues, they don't amount to the kind of egregious problem that would warrant such dracionian action; and there is no previous sanction, let alone one wilfuly disregarded. I might suport some lesser remedy, such as mentiorship. or a probationary period after which we can reviist the matter if issues persist. But I believe Rachel's work has been shown to be - and wil contnue to be - a net benefit to this project. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 14:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Reply|Pigsonthewing}} I see this isn't your first rodeo[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Brigham_Young_University]. Can I ask how opinion has changed since the first time you commented on this issue four years ago? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Maybe we should start asking the harder question whether involvement in WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest. Because I see wagon circling. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::There's no question it does, the only question is whether its enough of a COI to be an issue (signs point to yes BTW given the wagon circling). [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::{{tq|WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest}} - ''Does'' WMF fund this WiR? Most WiR positions these days (AFAIK) are funded by the hiring institutions. I would be shocked if the WMF were funding this one just based on the fact that it involves on-wiki editing, which has been a line for the WMF, historically. Likewise most GLAM projects have nothing to do with the WMF. If you go to a museum and say &quot;can I tell you about Wikipedia&quot; or &quot;want to upload some photos to Commons&quot; or &quot;want to host an edit-a-thon&quot; then you're involved with a GLAM project, regardless of who funds it or whether it involves any funding at all. The extent to which the WMF is involved with most edit-a-thons is to fund an affiliate, who then e.g. buys a couple pizzas for attendees. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 16:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I don't think that sponsored and funded are synonyms there... Anything under the banner or that is allowed to use the branding is sponsored even if there is no funding provided. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *:::::Agreed. While more-or-less radically open to anyone, someone (the community) ultimately does have to agree that GLAM is appropriately attached to something so that it can be called that. This is usually pro forma, but it still ends up supported. If &quot;sponsored&quot; is the troubling word, choose another synonym that means the same without necessarily monetary support. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' - I started typing this yesterday, and find that Vanamonde has articulated some similar reasons, so partially &quot;per Vanamonde&quot;. I see evidence of insufficiently disclosed COIs, evidence that RH is working to address those problems, evidence of years of good faith engagement with the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community, evidence of problematic edits made by ''other'' people, a big thorny question about independence of sourcing in religious articles that's better addressed elsewhere, and not nearly enough diffs showing violations of our content policies by RH to justify a tban.&lt;br/&gt;That said, I would strongly urge RH to set some boundaries in the WiR role and to articulate those boundaries on their user page. Our COI guideline is messy and applied inconsistently, and often with a rhetorical flourish that tries to combine the negative connotations with ''close'' COIs and the technical definition of COI that includes ''distant'' COIs we don't actually view as a problem. All of this makes things challenging for anyone who does any editing with a close or [moderate?, for lack of a better word] COI, since you have to be able to judge how much COI is going to be too much, and be prepared for that scale to slide based on other factors (as in this case, the role of money and the role of other affiliated editors). Being transparent goes a long way, but my own $0.02 is that you should absolutely abstain from editing or assigning anyone to edit an article on any subject you've received money from, that you're on the board for, that you have a nontrivial personal relationship with, etc. That's what {{tl|Edit COI}} is for. The COI guideline doesn't ''require'' you stay away, but editing those articles while being paid is a recipe for disaster. I worry that it erodes the thin line between &quot;the kind of paid editing we like&quot; and &quot;the kind of paid editing we don't like&quot; such that the life of future WiRs will be more difficult. Enwiki's view of COI seems like it will only become more volatile.&lt;br/&gt;All in all, I think having a highly experienced Wikipedian on staff is very much a good thing. RH has the ability to translate the complicated and ever-evolving PAGs (and their interpretations) for a large community. As long as most of the problematic ''content'' edits are other people's, it would be good to have RH available to help. Besides, as I started off saying, the evidence just isn't here to justify a tban. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Mostly I agree with you, however I do assign greater accountability to RH for what you're calling &quot;other people's&quot; edits. In these cases she is both acting as the supervisor of, and ''paying'', these other people to make those problematic edits, which I think elevates her responsibility quite a bit. Especially given several of the articles she assigned to students were assigned because she felt she had too much of a COI to write them herself... [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Yes, if you have a COI and assign/pay someone to edit it, that doesn't negate the COI. It just creates another level of PAID and/or a [[WP:MEAT]]/proxy-based COI, which is probably going to be regarded as worse insofar as it obscures the COI. Along the lines of voluntary commitments and clear articulations of boundaries that I've been talking about, I'd hope something acknowledging as much would be in there, if she hasn't addressed it already. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 19:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::The best I can say is that she is asking her students to sandbox. That's the full extent of it that I've seen. She will be stepping away for a few days, but maybe you could ask her when she gets back to implement something that would make you comfortable? I'm kinda of the opinion that the more ways we try to solve this the better. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 21:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Courtesy Break (3) ====<br /> <br /> * &lt;u&gt;'''Support''' per {{u|Aquillion}}&lt;/u&gt; &lt;s&gt;'''Oppose''' per {{u|Awilley}}, {{u|Rhododendrites}}, {{u|Vanamonde93}}, {{u|FyzixFighter}} [&lt;/s&gt;I admit that the comment pointed out by {{u|Starship.paint}} is troubling.&lt;s&gt;], but at minimum a strong warning and possibly some edit-restrictions and proposals like agreements by {{u|Rhododendrites}}.&lt;/s&gt; I did &lt;s&gt;not&lt;/s&gt; see evidence of a strong warning for the behavior when it was discovered followed by a recalcitrant refusal to comply and/or apology with repeating the behavior. (If that was the case, I would reconsider.&lt;u&gt;It was per {{u|Levivich}} (thank you for providing this link: [[WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University]]), and I have hence changed my !vote&lt;/u&gt;) It appears her editing is not so much a problem as the failure to disclose the COI and paid-editing, e.g. {{u|Awilley}}’s comments. As for her students' editing as described by {{u|Vanamonde93}}, that is another matter&lt;u&gt;. I explain my position on that below in response to jps and Grandpallama&lt;/u&gt;&lt;s&gt;--I'm not sure how best to handle that. I'm not in favor of a topic ban for all of them--but consquences for those that have problematic behavior, were warned, and continued. Would support this done on case-by-case basis. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the two examples kindly provided below to see if such mass action is best.&lt;/s&gt;<br /> :&lt;s&gt;As much as I am opposed to paid editing, unfortunately, we allow it, so--unless I have misunderstood [[WP:PAID]] (and [[WP:PEW]])--our greatest concern by allowing compensation for edit (or COI) is on their ability to follow [[WP:NPOV]]. If they can’t follow [[WP:NPOV]], then the COI and paid-editing are aggravating factors favoring restriction or prohibition of editing in that area. And although non-disclosure is certainly a problem and must have consequences and accountability, it’s not clear to me there was an intent to deceive or other behavior so severe that we can’t seek an alternative accountability measures than a topic-ban.&lt;/s&gt;<br /> :I don’t know what typically happens when a failed disclosure is revealed. Has it *always* been the case that such discovery resulted in a topic ban from the subject area, site ban, or similar? Is it true as {{u|Levivich}} opined {{tq|If Microsoft hired people to create articles about its products, and these editors disclosed they were paid editors but in some cases promoted some of these products while working with other Microsoft employees who edited with undisclosed COI, Wikipedia would siteban all of them with little discussion.}} Are there such examples?<br /> :&lt;s&gt;I believe we warn the editor, give them another chance with a short leash, and bring them right back here if it continues.&lt;/s&gt; --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;small&gt;[revised 05:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC); 06:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> ::Scientology is the obvious example. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 01:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Editing around Falun Gong has also had similar problems. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 17:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{ping|ජපස|Grandpallama}} Thank you for the examples. Would you mind giving me a link or two for the mass action?<br /> ::::I do ultimately think what is done with the students might best be adjudicated separately with evidence for each student involved--if that was done sufficiently already here and I glossed over it, my apologies. I was focussed on the incorrect assumption that Rachel Helps had ''not'' been warned. That really changes everthing about my thinking about both her and how it impacted the students behavior.<br /> ::::Any that we know conclusively were paid and didn't disclose it, I would support a topic or site ban. I don't care if she said it was okay not to disclose.<br /> ::::For any that are unpaid, it is likely she misled and incorrectly advised them about proper behavior here. So, the key question, did WE advise them about proper behavior -and- did we warn them when they crossed a line? Any student who crossed the line after OUR sufficient warning--regardless of what she might have told them to the contrary--I would support an indefinite TB for students falling into that case. Those students might realize they were duped, apologize, and come clean. I do see this as a &quot;teachable moment&quot;, and I would hope we can retain some of the students who really are interested in following the rules and helping to build an encyclopedia that is NPOV. They may actually gain respect for us for holding her accountable.<br /> ::::Any in this second category that are allowed to stay here, I'd say we give each an immediate stern warning about the result of what happened to her and why, about COI and POV-editing and the consequences for their instructor for such inappropriate behavior. Let them know they will be under scrutiny moving forward and that they are on a short leash in that topic area.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 05:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> :::::I guess let [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology]] be your light reading today. There is a lot here and I'm not sure I can help wade through it all. RH and her students ''have'' disclosed that they were paid. I am not sure there are any unpaid volunteers or not, but that would be good to clarify. The warnings about COI were thwarted in the past through certain COIN discussions that were closed with &quot;no action&quot;. This was definitely unfortunate because here we are back today. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 10:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I agree with SCI (which was almost entirely about a situation like this), not so much with COFS (which was more about [[User:Shutterbug|User:COFS]]). I think [[WP:Requests for arbitration/Hunger|THP]] or [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors|MrW]] is better reading here than COFS. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 23:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thanks for the links. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{ping|ජපස}} Thanks for the links. I started to continue to write about what I thought should happen with the students given the fact that they are all paid, but the more time I spent trying to articulate a fair position, the more I realized it would be better to give space to those like yourself who know what typically happens in these cases and the policy involved. From first reading about this, I was inclined towards {{u|Levivich}}'s position of not holding the students unduly responsible for poor supervision, but my concern about paid editing is closer to {{u|Aquillion}}. I'm stepping back.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''2020 COIN''' - [[WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University]] - just want to make sure everyone is aware of the time this issue was discussed in 2020. Among the people claiming there was no COI editing at that time was Nihonjoe. We now know that the concerns raised then were real, some of the people defending it had undisclosed COI, and the discussion did not lead to improvement in how COI was handled by Rachel Helps. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Oh dear. From that thread: {{tq|Hi, I disagree with the idea that all pages I edit are COI. My job doesn't depend on showing people in a positive light.}} What she fails to say that if she started showing [[Russell M. Nelson|certain people]] in a negative light, she absolutely runs the risk of running afoul with her employer. I had a discussion with her about this on her talkpage and she said that she was worried about that when she started and her supervisor assured her that her students could write whatever ''as long as it was attributed to sources''. So if a student wrote, &quot;The Book of Mormon contains anachronisms&quot; as a statement of fact without attribution, I am not sure they would be protected by that. But more to the point, the BYU authorities themselves are not bound by this agreement. The social control that is exerted over people who are in the employ of BYU is ''absolutely real''. There is a reason that only a mere 5% of faculty at that college are not members of the LDS church. Y'all, there are lots of reliable sources that identify Mormonism's cult-like behaviors. It is on display here ''loud and clear''. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Using a term like “cult-like” is prolly not helpful here. A lack of academic freedom regarding theologically sensitive topics is pretty normal for unambiguously sectarian universities. If [[Al-Azhar University]] had a WiR, how do you think that would go down?<br /> *::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 18:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', since just asking nicely in 2020 ([[WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University|COIN]]) did not have any positive effect. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 15:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It is worth noting that, per [[WP:PROXY]], this topic ban would effectively ban any student/employee to edit under the supervision of Helps in any way that bypasses the terms of the main topic ban. So it might make sense to formally extend the sanction to any and all BYU programs. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 19:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * For Detective Levivich of the COI Bureau: While I have never had any affiliation with BYU, the LDS movement, or anything adjacent, I know more people who go/went to BYU than I can count on two hands. Which means that I know not to click on [[Soaking (sexual practice)|soaking]] in the LDS template footer, I already knew that the second item in the [[Church Educational System Honor Code]] is &quot;be honest&quot;, and I can see the irony in the editors of [[Second Nephi]] engaging in small deceptions (28:8, c'mon!). On-wiki, I spent a great deal of time about five years ago in grinding arguments at AfD over articles about non-notable LDS subjects sourced mostly to official LDS sources, church-owned media, and LDS-focused blogs. So I also have a sense of how much valuable editor time can be burned up bringing that sort of content back in line with English Wikipedia policies/guidelines.{{pb}}Rachel Helps has breached community trust while modeling behavior for students under her supervision. And it looks like we've got some content issues around assuming that stuff that's important within the LDS movement is important outside of it as well. Both of those things are bad. But a lot of the edits are good. So for us here at English Wikipedia, I think it's a matter of finding a way to rebuild trust while keeping the good parts of the BYU WiR project going.{{pb}}I '''support''' a topic ban on the WiR and all student workers, because it will clarify an important difference between 1) the BYU WiR project's main goal is to improve this encyclopedia, and 2) the BYU WiR project's main goal is to legitimize/normalize the LDS movement and institutions, and to spread its doctrines and lore by getting as much LDS-related content as possible into the highest-visibility website that still allows people to sign in and add stuff. Sometimes those goals align, but clearly there have been some problems when they don't. So for me a topic ban is not punishment, but rather a chance to recalibrate the relationship and rebuild trust. If BYU will still pay the WiR and (BYU) editors to contribute to English Wikipedia on the approximately millions of other topics, and they do that, great, let's have another conversation about lifting the topic ban once that trust is regained. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 18:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;small&gt;*chomping cigar* All right, boys, this one checks out, let 'em through. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *:I appreciate your rational approach here. I'm not the expert, but I think the role of the BYU WiR is quite a bit more narrow than just 1) improving the encyclopedia and sideways from 2) legitimizing and spreading Mormonism. Rachel would be a better person to clarify, but I understood her role more along the lines of facilitating access to and improving content related to some of the more unique collections owned by the BYU library. Most of those collections will probably have some connection to Mormonism. <br /> *:One of the things I've appreciated most about Rachel's editing is the nitty gritty source work that she does. For example: many editors are somewhat sloppy with sources... They'll take a sourced statement and modify it a bit without changing the meaning too much and move the source somewhere, maybe to the end of a sentence or clause or paragraph. Then someone else will come along a year later and do something similar. Eventually you end up with sources that are completely disconnected from the statement they were meant to support, or that original statement may be gone altogether. I've seen Rachel fixing long term problems like that, as well as immediately cleaning up after other editors when they move soures around in a sloppy way. I've also seen her cleaning up copyvios, circular references, wrong page numbers, random {{cn}} templates, and other tedious gnomish work that so many of us avoid, ignore, or take for granted. I would love to see her be able to continue this kind of work in the topic area where she has expertise.<br /> *:I think it's clear from the above that the community agrees that Rachel fell short in disclosing COI when editing and creating articles about people and organizations close to her. I personally think those shortcomings were exacerbated by scope creep, unclarity, and even contradictions in our own guidelines and expectations, but let's set that aside. There are also a lot of people who see problems in the work of her student editors, which I'm not familiar with myself, so I'll take that at face value. That suggests a lack of training, supervision, etc. on Rachel's part. I have not, though, seen significant criticisms of Rachel's own edits. <br /> *:So my question to you is: would you support some kind of narrower sanction that directly addresses the above problems but still allows Rachel to do her job as WiR and make the kind of helpful edits I mentioned above? That might include a ban on directly creating articles and a ban on editing articles where she has a (well-defined) COI. Or maybe even a ban on editing articles outside of citation management. And likely more strict restrictions on her students. I don't know what would work best, and some workshopping with Rachel would probably be helpful when she comes back from break. Thoughts? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 21:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{ping|Rhododendrites}} Okay, I'm not going to let this excuse that &quot;it was all her students&quot; slide anymore. RH has made some absolutely atrocious edits over the last few months. Fram, above, documented the result in the actual article of [[Second Nephi]], but here they are the diffs ''from her'':<br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210504480]<br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210463754] <br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207877166] <br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204248142] <br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204242867] <br /> *::These diffs are all inclusive of an extreme amount of unduly weighted apologetics content from obscure Mormon Theologians. This also, infruriatingly, includes apologias for the abject and abhorrent racism in the text. That’s right, RH is trying to apologia away the racism in her faith’s scripture. Lest that not be enough evidence for you:<br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204666111] Here she is whitewashing away the fact that Joseph Smith instituted racist dogma.<br /> *::I'm sure she saw nothing wrong with that. It's the frog in the boiling pot of water. In the LDS Church, this kind of game-playing is what happens as a matter of course. We are not the LDS church. We have a standard that is not apologetics. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::@jps: The first 5 diffs you cite are not apologetics, they're analyzing how different themes/ideas in the Book of Mormon &quot;Second Nephi&quot; have been interpreted and have influenced LDS thought and belief over time. As far as I can tell her citations are to secondary reliable sources from reputable publishers. In the 6th diff she is reverting a blatantly POV IP edit and attempting to make a clarification along the way. The original sentence, before the IP's edit, incorrectly stated/implied that Smith taught that dark skin was a curse for &quot;premortal unrighteousness&quot;. That's false, and you can verify that by scrolling down to the body of the article and doing a Ctrl+F for &quot;1844&quot;. Apparently Rachel had missed that the sentence could be read in a different way: that Smith had taught it was a curse, and that LDS leaders after Smith had taught that the curse was for &quot;premortal unrighteousness&quot;. Fortunately 2 days later, editor Pastelitodepapa (the article's original author) came along and removed all ambiguity. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1204666111] This is a normal interaction on Wikipedia. People write ambiguous sentences. People misinterpret those sentences and make mistakes. People fix the mistakes. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 06:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::@Awilley They ''absolutely are apologetics''. What they are doing is trying to recast/reframe a discussion of this book in a way to encourage understanding the text ''as though it really happened'' and offer apologia for the ways in which it clearly runs into anachronism and error. Reliability is always contextual and the context here is that these sources are being used to support preaching and proselytization (that's their raison d'etre). The claim that the IP edit was &quot;blatantly POV&quot; as absurd. The IP edit is correct. Joseph Smith supported the racism of the Mormon church as you even show ''was confirmed later on''. RH reverting that edit was acting in accordance with her faith and not in accordance with the facts. Whether intentional or not, the whole point is that this is a paid editor gatekeeping at Book of Mormon articles, paid by a Mormon faith-based institution to edit our encyclopedia. She needs to be held to a higher standard. This is faith-based POV pushing. [[WP:Civil POV-pushing]], but POV pushing all the same. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 12:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::@jps, You've got it backwards. Take a closer look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204467979 the IP edit]. It most certainly is incorrect and POV. Read the edit summary. Note the phrase &quot;...in the church we believe...&quot; Rachel was not the one trying to whitewash in that interaction, she was reverting a Mormon IP who was erasing a big part of the racist history (premortal sin theory) and pushing the modern LDS POV. Feel free to hat this as &quot;extended discussion&quot; so it doesn't bog down the AN/I. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::AH! You are right that the IP edit was bad... but now RH's edit ''is even worse''. She ''removed'' the mention of Joseph Smith, I guess in deference to the sensibilities. This is also a misleading edit summary. This is not just a revert. This is an introduction of a whitewash of RH's own making! And you're still defending her? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::No, she most likely read the sentence as &quot;...Joseph Smith taught that dark skin was a sign of God's curse for premortal unrighteousness&quot; and tried to correct that. Joseph Smith never taught that. It was after Smith's death that people came up with the &quot;premortal unrighteousness&quot; garbage. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::No, Smith did it too: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/43200880]. I know it's popular to give him a pass. The LDS apologetic line. But, again, Wikipedia is ''not for apologetics''. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::The earliest mention I can find of that rationale is from Orson Hyde in 1844 or 1845. I just looked up the reference in the paper you linked. The reference was to Brodie's ''No Man Knows My History'' page 173-4, which I happen to have on my shelf. Brodie does indeed suggest that the idea originated with Smith, but she doesn't provide any evidence to back that up. Her only citation for that is to a 1845 speech/pamphlet by Orson Hyde. This may be part of why Brodie now has a reputation for going beyond what the actual evidence supports, and why her book is listed as &quot;additional considerations&quot; on the project page instead of &quot;generally reliable&quot;. Or maybe I'm missing something. Either way, Rachel Help's edit summary said she was summarizing the article, and that is indeed what the article says. If you think the article is incorrect, a discussion on the talk page would be the logical next step. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 23:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::::Are you really unable to see the issue here? &quot;Oh, the person who claims that Smith taught about this curse doesn't back it up because it was only found in a pamphlet by Orson Hyde.&quot; Forget it. At this point, you're running interference. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic-ban''' - This smacks to me of the same type of COI editing that led to the creation of [[WP:GS/CRYPTO]] and [[WP:ARBSCI|the SCI contentious topic]], and I get the sense that the scope of this will lead to [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management|COI]] including a CTOP of some sort. The long-term deception and obvious lack of clue as to what best-practices for a COI entails are both extremely problematic, and either on their own would have justified a topic-ban with or without a CTOP designation. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose'''. I am an atheist with a long-time interest in world religions who wrote a Good Article about the [[Laie Hawaii Temple]] in 2008. In the intervening years, I have never once encountered a problem from other LDS members on Wikipedia, only my fellow non-theists and atheists, one of which, [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Black]], destroyed my work and has now made it eligible for delisting.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;diff=1118395610&amp;oldid=1105336403] [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:?? That diff shows HEB removed the citations to one dubiously-reliable apologist source, he didn't even remove any content; saying he &quot;destroyed&quot; your work is a pretty groundless aspersion. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 03:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::He removed a reference to an older version of the material because he failed to look at the date of the source, thereby making it unsourced and eligible for delisting. Furthermore, he removed links that others had added, non-controversial links to BYU computer scientist Rick Satterfield, who had spent years collecting and formulating a database for LDS. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::It doesn't matter what version of the material was being cited when the underlying source for all versions is unreliable. Even if the author was a &quot;BYU computer scientist&quot;, which he obviously isn't, that would be irrelevant since exemptions to SPS require recognized academic subject-matter expertise. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 05:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I disagree. In 2004, when user Gerald Farinas originally added the external link to the article,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;oldid=4512140] it was in wide use in LDS articles. When I arrived to the article in 2007 and tagged the source as unreliable (at the time referred to synonymously as &quot;verify credibility&quot;, whose history has beeen now lost)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;diff=167113393&amp;oldid=166990503], another user started a discussion on the talk page in response to my tagging. They assured me that the source was reliable. I looked at it, and found that the &quot;about page&quot; said that Rick Satterfield created the site as a project for his computer science classes before getting his computer science degree in 2001. In the ensuing years it had become a go-to hobbyist site for statistics about LDS architecture, which is exactly how it was used in the article. It was not used to make religious claims, it was not used to make political claims, it was used only to make factual statements about architecture. In this regard, and per the discussion, I acknowledged that it met the exemption (this was 2007) and compromised by removing the tag, a tag that I originally added. So, to recap, I was the one who originally questioned the reliability, I was the one who discussed it on the talk page with another user who argued for its use, and I was the one who engaged in the art of compromise to allow the source to be used in a specific, narrow way. I was not, however, a drive-by editor like HEB, who just arrived to the article one day and removed the source and the content on a whim because I didn't like the words in the URL. Keep in mind, in the ensuing years at some point, long after I had left the article, the URL had changed from the neutral-titled &quot;ldschurchtemples.com&quot; to &quot;churchofjesuschristtemples.org&quot;. And I continue to maintain that the underlying source for all versions was ''not'' unreliable. And it's not irrelevant that Satterfield collected the data for his computer science classes. BYU has numerous, front-facing student sites today that are and continue to be reliable sources for Wikipedia. Like ldschurchtemples.com, which provided a unique resource in the past for obscure archeological data, I continue to draw upon research from [[Brigham Young University]] for articles I write. For example, I recently wrote [[Flathead Lake Biological Station]], which cites writer Abbey Buckham of Northern Arizona University, who wrote the most comprehensive history of the station that is currently online. Her work was published by the [[Charles Redd Center for Western Studies]] which is part of [[BYU Research Institutes]]. So no, I don't agree with you, and I will continue to draw upon BYU students, graduates, and their research for my articles. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::You seem to be ignoring my entreaties on your usertalkpage, so maybe I have to respond here.<br /> *:::::I think, as others are trying to explain to you, you are making a [[strawman argument]]. There is sincere and strong evidence that this group has been skewing dozens of pages on the Book of Mormon in a very particular way that is going to take a lot of work to clean up.<br /> *:::::This proposal for a TBAN is not an attempt to ban everything coming out of BYU. We aren't even asking to end the WiR/GLAM/Paid Editing program. In fact, what you ask at the end about Flathead Lake Biological Station is exactly the sort of thing I would hope that RH's students would have been working on instead of the sloppy and over-detailed exegesis they've been focusing on for the last months. Not everything that comes out of BYU is about LDS. <br /> *:::::Yeah, with a TBAN you're not going to get RH or her students to help you write about LDS temples. Sorry. But given the streams of awful I've been wading through in the past few days trying to make sense of what is going on at Book of Mormon pages, I think that this sort of collateral damage is likely more than worth it, sorry to say. Your happy editing on one article does not excuse the 100s of articles that are absolute messes. That said, this TBAN would make it ''more likely'' that you could benefit from BYU student editors on articles like Flathead Lake Biological Station. This is likely to be a win for you since those are far and away the more common articles I see you working on than the LDS temples. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::{{ping|ජපස}} If RH and the students were TBanned, would the students really be more likely to edit in other topic areas?<br /> *::::::[[User:Heidi Pusey BYU]]'s conflict of interest statement on her user page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Heidi_Pusey_BYU&amp;oldid=1210501729 currently reads] (emphases added):<br /> *:::::::{{tq|I am employed and '''paid''' by the Harold B. Lee Library to edit Wikipedia pages '''about the Book of Mormon ''on behalf of Brigham Young University.''''' I am a student employee of [[user:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] and '''I specialize in research for early Book of Mormon studies''' as well as literary studies of the book. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I am extensively familiar with the Book of Mormon but seek to edit with a neutral viewpoint.}}<br /> *::::::Heidi's employment appears to be specific to Book of Mormon pages. It is on behalf of BYU, which makes me wonder about the academic freedom questions raised elsewhere. Isn't this declaration inconsistent with Wikipedia goals like NPOV writing without an agenda? Further, if Heidi's specialty is in this topic area, would she be interested in paid non-Book of Mormon editing... and would BYU be interested in paying for it?<br /> *::::::I wonder whether a TBAN will actually produce the outcome you describe? [[Special:Contributions/1.141.198.161|1.141.198.161]] ([[User talk:1.141.198.161|talk]]) 00:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::From what I understand in brief discussion with RH, this was set by her in discussion with RH. This topic focus could be changed. But good to confirm with RH that this really is the case, for sure. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 10:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Hi. I am currently in the process of changing my students' pages they are editing to pages that are unrelated to the LDS church or BYU. I will be changing Heidi's assignment when I see her later today. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::{{ping|Rachel Helps (BYU)}} Thanks for that information, that sounds like a wise decision in the circumstances. Heidi has commented at her user talk page that she did not intend the phrase &quot;on behalf of Brigham Young University&quot; to be taken literally, which is good to hear / know. I can see how this phrase might be chosen by an employee without considering the implications, and Heidi has acted to change the wording. I suggest that you check for any similar phrasings because, in an environment of heightened attention and scrutiny, they can create an impression that is unhelpful. In fact, I encourage you to reflect carefully on how your subordinates' words on user pages might be interpreted by outsiders. I doubt that BYU would be entirely comfortable with a statement that every action of a student editor was made on its behalf, no matter how well intentioned the student or the statements. In my various positions working for Universities, I would not have presented my every action as on their behalf, and I suspect that you would not present yourself that way either.&lt;p&gt;On Heidi's comment that her employment was specific to Book of Mormon topics, is her position (prior to the changes you are about to implement) actually tied to working on that specific topic area? If so, did focus on a narrow (compared to the scope of your library and WP broadly) that is squarely within the area of COI not raise any concerns for you or anyone connected with WiR, etc? I ask because, in charting a course forwards, it can be helpful to understand what has happened to now and how it happened. From your perspective, were any concerns raised and adequately (or inadequately, in retrospect) addressed? What might have been done differently by WiR or WP or others to have avoided the present situation?&lt;P&gt;I'm willing to assume that there were good intentions throughout this process, but can't avoid feeling that something (or multiple things) should have brought these issues into focus long ago. It looks to me like a systemic problem, made worse by some instinctive / reactive responses where considered reflection was needed. Does this seem accurate / inaccurate / partially accurate, from your perspective? Any other thoughts? Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/1.141.198.161|1.141.198.161]] ([[User talk:1.141.198.161|talk]]) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::: Heidi's job title is Student Wikipedia Editor. When I hired this batch of students last fall, I did tell them that I wanted to start a project to work on Book of Mormon pages (an initiative started by me). However, I hired my students based on their writing experience, not based on any specific experience with Book of Mormon topics. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, so please ping me again if you have a follow-up question. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 22:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Satterfield does not have subject matter expertise as recognized by strong citations by academics in academic publications. Therefore his SPS ''is not reliable''. Everything else you've said is irrelevant, though I'll note that student projects simply hosted by the university are ''also'' never reliable as published academic work and I would hope you haven't been adding them as sources. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Just because you've never encountered any issues before doesn't mean Helps is innocent. Have you read anything in this thread and the corresponding thread?? [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 03:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:What does that have anything to do with the sanction being proposed here or the user it's being proposed against? I see virtually nothing in that !vote rationale that actually addresses such matters; the only thing that ''might'' come anywhere close is the vague anecdotal claim {{tq|I have never once encountered a problem from other LDS members on Wikipedia}}. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:First of all how do you know that I am a &quot;fellow non-theists and atheists&quot;? Second that source may look legitimate but its actually a non-expert self published source unaffiliated with the LDS Church, the LDS editors actually agreed that it was a source that should be removed/improved. I didn't destroy anything or change its eligibility, looking at other articles you've significantly authored (for example [[Claude AnShin Thomas]]) it looks like the issue may be with your sourcing practices and not mine. I apologize for causing you distress but I also have no idea what that would do with your vote unless you're voting in an AN/I discussion based solely on spiting another editor. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 03:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::You're mistaken again. My sourcing is entirely reliable, and is accurately reflected in the final GA review.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;oldid=231936007] As can be seen in that link, the sources you removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;diff=1118395610&amp;oldid=1105336403] were not the versions of the sources I originally added,[https://search.worldcat.org/title/367548072] however both sources support the same, accurate information. You neglected to actually ''read'' the article you edited, because if you had you would have noticed that the citation you removed said &quot;Retrieved 2007-07-17&quot;, which refers only [https://web.archive.org/web/20070308044728/http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/laie/ to this version supporting the material]. You removed the newer version instead, which had been revised. You then left a citation needed tag in its place. As of today, there is a more current database listing on the revised site.[https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/statistics/features/] You couldn't be bothered with any of this, of course. One wonders if your poor judgment here is reflective of your other baseless criticism, such as that over at Claude AnShin Thomas, which has no known problems either. One wonders how much this kind of bias infects the rest of this discussion. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::But churchofjesuschristtemples.com/&lt;wbr&gt;churchofjesuschristtemples.org is a non-expert self published source. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Opinions differ, and policies and guidelines dynamically change over time. When the article was written, those sources were acceptable, and the author was a computer scientist at BYU who had created the only site on the internet that collected and maintained statistical data about the temples. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::I don't think they ever were a computer scientist at BYU... I see a bachelor's degree in computer science from BYU but no teaching or research position. Today that source is not acceptable and I don't think that it was when the article was written either. Looking at the talk page it looks like the reliability was actually challenged all the way back in 2007 ([[Talk:Laie Hawaii Temple/Archive 1#Credibility of source]]). [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Yes, questioned by ''me''. Did you read the discussion? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 05:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::I did... Didn't see a consensus that the source was reliable. I'm actually confused as to how that source remained in the article after that discussion. I also double checked and he was never a computer scientist at BYU (and even if he was I don't see how that would contribute to him being a subject matter expert in this context). And again none of this explains your vote here, even if everything you say is completely true your vote makes no sense. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Yes, you are confused. '''I am the one who questioned the source in the first place and originally tagged it'''. As that discussion indicates, another editor arrived to discuss it, and I removed the tag. Should I have disagreed with myself? That seems to be what you are saying here. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::I must be confused, because this none of this substantiates &quot;destroyed my work and has now made it eligible for delisting&quot; nor does it substantiate that the author was a a computer scientist at BYU nor does it explain what any of this has to do with the larger discussion (besides possibly the author's BYU connection?). [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::::You are free to see my new comments up above that address your confusion. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::[[Ignoratio elenchi]]. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 17:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Saying that every problem you've encountered on Wikipedia has come from non-theists and atheists is quite a remarkable statement. How are you able to determine the religious affiliation of your fellow editors? And even in the unlikely event that it is true, what relevance does it have for this issue? The question at hand is about one particular editor, not all LDS members or all atheists. [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 05:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Ping|Viriditas}} woah, I just noticed that you're referring to me as &quot;Horse Eye's '''Black'''&quot; in both of the original comments here. What is that supposed to mean? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::It means my keyboard is broken [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::How does a broken keyboard result in [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Black]]? Its not a misspelling, its a pipe. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Looks like a copy and paste from a typo. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 19:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Ok sure. Thank you. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 19:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::You probably need to take a step back from this discussion if you're looking this hard for implied slights. [[User:Parabolist|Parabolist]] ([[User talk:Parabolist|talk]]) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' I would have suggested a warning, but in light of the extensive COIN discussion from 2020 that appears to have not resolved this issue, I think we'd just be back here sooner or later for another rodeo.[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 05:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Exactly, its not a new phenomena. They were warned in 2020, clearly warned by admin. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 13:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose.''' Generally concur with the comments by Awilley, Ocaasi, Pigsonthewing, Vanamonde93, and FyzixFighter. I do not see anything presented that rises to the level of requiring a topic ban, and I see plenty of evidence of the positive contributions this editor has made to Wikipedia. [[User:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;Gamaliel&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/small&gt; 13:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' - I find the general oppose reasonings to be particularly uncompelling and that it does not adequately address the evidence presented in this and the prior discussion. The attempt to present this discussion as a referendum on theist vs. non-theist editors completely misses the point of the evidence provided. The only oppose rationale thus far that strikes me as valid at all is Vanamond93's comment, but I ultimately agree more with jps's rejoinder to Vanamonde93's perspective. &lt;sub&gt;signed, &lt;/sub&gt;[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' However much good faith (no pun intended) can be ascribed, this a situation which needs to be addressed directly. Treating this as a generalised COI issue to be addressed via a review of policy/guidelines elsewhere will not address the specific instutional arrangement which is engendering systemic failures with regard to core tenets - neutrality, due, fringe and reliable, independent sourcing. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Strong support'''. The opposes all miss the point entirely; paid editing that directly touches mainspace is basically never acceptable. This is not a case where &quot;positive contributions&quot; matter, not at all. Even if done with the best of intentions, it completely distorts our processes; the fact always remains that someone whose paycheck is dependent on an organization is not going to make edits that might get them fired. Even the absolute best, most well-intentioned edits, otherwise policy-compliant in every way, will distort the balance of articles when made in a systematic way by large numbers of editors whose views are all distorted in the same way by the same financial incentive. Therefore, &quot;they've made positive contributions&quot; is never a defense against a [[WP:COI]] issue. It is simply never acceptable to seriously edit mainspace in areas where your employer has a strong perspective or vested interest. If this were any other organization, that would be obvious - would we accept the arguments above for an editor paid by Amazon or Microsoft or OpenAI or some cryptocurrency startup, who wanted to edit pages obviously relevant to those topics? From the Democratic and Republican parties, or from individual political think tanks who hire and send in numerous articulate, intelligent editors who share their views? How is this different? And how, exactly, could volunteer editors maintain neutrality in the face of that? [[Wikipedia:GLAM/Wikipedian in Residence]] isn't meant to be an exception to these rules - per [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_residence the description on Meta] {{tq|In this context, there is a custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution, but rather share the knowledge of their institution.}} Furthermore, look at the examples there - it's meant to be an uncontroversial role for museum curators and the like, not for a church to employ people making sweeping sorts of edits on topics related to their faith or for a political think-tank to employ someone making edits about their politics. I think that we might want to look at some of the related policies in order to tighten them up and make them more clear, if people are somehow confused about all this, but this particular example is so far over the line that an immediate topic-ban is obvious. EDIT: Support shifted to strong to emphasize how strongly I feel that none of the rationales people are presenting are policy-based and how important it is to establish that they carry no weight. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 15:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Aquillion, I agree in general with your take on this. COI and PE are often issues that result in editing that skews away from our principles, policies and guidelines. However, in this instance Rachel and her Posse (or crew) were never concerned about &quot;making edits that might get them fired.&quot; Take a look at this conversation here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)#Academic_freedom] (Section title &quot;Academic Freedom&quot;). Essentially, throughout the whole Q &amp; A it becomes clear that none of these editors are constrained by fear of an employer or policy. It doesn't take long to read. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 20:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> :::That makes no difference to me at all, for three reasons. First, [[WP:COI]] is unequivocal that the ''appearance'' of a COI is sufficient; it does not matter one iota how thoroughly someone is convinced (or can convince others) that they are capable of being impartial. It is a red line with no exceptions. Second, this is because influence can be subtle and sometimes not even obvious to those exercising it; words are cheap, actually making the people they paid to edit Wikipedia impartial is... impossible. Third, most importantly, even if someone manages to adhere rigorously to that freedom, and even if they are flawless immaculate saints incapable of ever considering who pays their paychecks, paid editing still allows the employer to &quot;stack the deck&quot; on particular subjects by hiring people to edit prolifically simply because they know what they believe and what areas they will edit in. This doesn't even have to be intentional; it's no different from the principle of [[WP:CANVASS]]ing - unless they're hiring people ''totally at random'', they're going to be stacking the deck based on who they hire and what pool they hire from. There are ''no'' situations where someone should be getting paid to make nontrivial mainspace edits on Wikipedia, or even to contribute to discussions without the extremely rigid restrictions placed on disclosed COIs (even those restrictions are truthfully too loose for me, but in this case no one even paid lip service to them.) This is ''actually important''. Pushing back against COIs is vital to keeping Wikipedia functional; most pages and topic areas only have a few dozen really active users, or a few hundred at most, and even they have no real hope of keeping up with editors whose entire job is to edit Wikipedia. If we didn't maintain a hard line, any topic area that was targeted with paid editing would be rapidly drowned in it, with every discussion and every effort at consensus-building dominated by whoever their employer decided to employ. There's no such thing as someone being a &quot;good egg&quot; as a paid editor, because the problem is the entire structure behind their editing and what it would mean for Wikipedia if allowed to proliferate. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 04:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks. I agree with your concerns about paid editing--we should get rid of it. I've never bought the argument that making it &quot;ok&quot; means that paid editors are more likely to divulge COI. Case in point here. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''', English Wikipedia has done a gang buster job, in the past to get individuals who could contribute positively, on this platform to chase them away. &lt;!-- In addition limiting what is considered a reliable source to ensure that certain points of view, and certain subjects, are presented with a certain bias based on what has been left to be allowed as sources. --&gt; The individual editor in question has done a great job with bringing individuals who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy to improving content on this encyclopedia. Yet, there is this effort to limit that effort. What does this say about our community, but to enforce the view that English Wikipedia is not neutral, is exclusionary, and doesn't want individuals who might not align a certain way onto this encyclopedia, especially if they contribute within spaces which certain alignments oppose.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B22234&quot;&gt;'''Right'''Cow&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background-color: #C2B280; color:#3C3B6E&quot;&gt;'''LeftCoast'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;Moo&lt;/span&gt;]]) 18:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{tq|who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy}} ... no doubt an unintended Freudian slip; but that's precisely the problem, institutional devotion here has created a systemic inability to edit according to our policies and guidelines. It's irrelevant what one's intention is; the cascading effect of the relationships have created a swathe of articles and edits which are non-compliant with our tenets. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 02:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::We don't have ''tenets'' on Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines. These were applied to the best of Rachel's, her colleagues', and students's ability most of the time. And actually, their efforts and goals were the opposite of institutional devotional editing. There may be some obscure Mormon religious-character-articles that don't have good coverage. But, that is an oversight that is happening in other areas of Wikipedia in a likewise fashion. And I have to say, I have not seen you involved in any of the recent discussions on LDS/''Book of Mormon'' talk pages. So rather than denigrate the hard work of other editors I recommend pitching in. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 19:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *:::This response exemplifies the problem. This is not about well-intentioned mistakes - this is about a systemic COI failure to ensure neutrality, reliable sourcing and due. Every editor has a right to be concerned about this issue, irrespective of their efforts towards the particular topic, precisely because of the far reaching effects beyond the topic. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 23:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose.''' What Gamaliel said. Also, I would like to support this Wikipedian in Residence, and acknowledge their contributions. [[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Would you also like to acknowledge the concerns raised below (now within a collapse) by BilledMammal, which were also posted on your talk page? [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 19:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Sure. Accepting or declining in-person meetings in the workplace is pretty standard in my world. By contrast, almost every single conversation in this online environment seems like nothing but trouble. I thought that meeting a person with shared interests and a public-facing job, in a public place might be a way to clear up misunderstandings. I did not know that suggesting people try talking things over in person is considered unacceptable here. Now that I think it over a little more, I suppose that if this is literally &quot;the encyclopedia that anyone can edit,&quot; gosh knows what sort of awful, terrible person might show up at a library. Perhaps someone would delete the earlier remark for me? I've always respected the LDS for their wholesome lifestyles (even if I'm too attached to coffee to ever become LDS myself), and wouldn't want to create difficulties for the folks at BYU.-- [[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 00:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' Rachel is a positive contributor. Sure there are missteps, but those can be worked through without going to the nuclear option. Similar to Rhododendrites, I would strongly urge Rachel to institute strict standards for the content she and her students produce and to keep a very close editorial eye on her students' edits, but overall I see her work as a ''net positive''. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 02:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Conditionally support a &lt;u&gt;time-limited&lt;/u&gt; topic ban''' provided that the topic ban is interpreted in such a way as not to preclude commonsensically non-church-related topics such as the [[Bakemono no e]] which according to a presentation here [https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&amp;article=7628&amp;context=facpub&amp;type=additional] she worked with. All university libraries have a lot of holdings, and there are many ways she could continue to be a productive WiR without getting into Mormon archaeology and stuff. I also think some sort of restrictions or advisories/warnings for her student helpers could be worth considering. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I had been seriously considering striking my vote for several potential reasons including RH’s cooperativeness, the issue of proportionality, and the fact that this could set a dangerous precedent based on certain statements by a few of the most aggressive supporters. However, given 1) the apparent interactions between Rachel Helps (wearing whichever hat) and other AML-related persons of interest and 2) the apparent inability on the part of the quality-control system to effectively handle the volume of contestable changes being made by the BYU group (which is by no means the latter’s fault per se, but there is still much room for improvement).<br /> *:At the same time, I am not completely convinced that a community-imposed topic ban is the best solution and I am interested in seeing more discussion. And possibly a “no consensus for now” close that allows RH and the BYU group time to further improve their practices, because I do believe there is a possible overlap between the desire of LDS scholars and The Encyclopedia as a whole in terms of documenting LDS topics more completely. And it does sound like a lot of the LDS content had been start-class poorly sourced and OR type stuff from novice editors, the same sort of stuff that you often see in Indian local articles and Judaism articles.<br /> *:However, I think the proposal about Thmazing is ripe for a close. The community, including yours truly, has a dim opinion of the behaviors that he’s engaged in, amply. And while I’m concerned about the AML situation I would like to see more evidence of any systematic collusion.<br /> *:[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 01:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I'm the one who [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Brigham_Young_University|opened the COIN in 2020]]. If Rachel would have simply agreed that she and her students would place a COI notice on article talk pages, I wouldn't be here. But she repeatedly resorted to arguing that it wasn't strictly required, so she wasn't going to comply with the request that she do so. Multiple other WiRs came in arguing that requiring her to do so would threaten the WiR system; they're here, too, opposing this. I hate to lose the BYU folks' contributions, which I believe are generally helpful, and which we'll probably lose if there's a Tban. But until Rachel agrees to disclose '''on article talk''', even though not required to, I'm a '''support''' for a topic ban from LDS articles for Rachel and her students. {{u|Rachel Helps (BYU)}}, please, just agree to disclose. It's such a small request. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :* At this point I'm happy to comply, the difference between the TOS and the guideline seems like a hill I don't feel like dying on right now. Just tell me how you want me to do it. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:I'm sincerely glad to hear it. Best practices, even if not required, is a good thing for someone who is a WiR and in education to try to follow. You and your students can disclose at article talk by adding the &lt;nowiki&gt;{{Connected contributor|User1=username}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; template into the headers. The first person to edit a particular article can create the banner and put their own username as User1, and others who follow along can just insert |User2=, etc. There's documentation for other parameters at [[Template:Connected_contributor]], but really I'm satisfied with a simple list of COI contributors. <br /> :*:If you'll agree to make that routine going forward for all edits to articles related to BYU/LDS by you and your students, broadly construed, I'll strike my support for a tban. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::@[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] This seems reasonable. I'm curious what the threshold would be for adding the template. I ask because I've often seen Rachel reverting vandalism or other unhelpful edits or just fixing a source here and there. A quick look at her contributions shows that there are over 900 articles where she's made only 1 or 2 edits. It should be possible to find the intersection of her edits with articles within the LDS wikiproject, but I would expect the list of articles to be at least several hundred long. Should there be some threshold for what constitutes a substantive edit, or would you prefer having her place the template even for minor edits? Or would a more narrow range of articles be reasonable, like articles specifically related to the BYU, LDS Church, BYU people, etc.? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::@[[User:Awilley|Awilley]], just off the top of my head: any edit that could reasonably be marked as minor -- typo fixes, grammar fixes, expanding or combining or renaming a reference -- doesn't need a COI tag. If there's content work, and it's related to BYU/LDS, tag it. Willing to be persuaded that this isn't the appropriate threshold, though! I wouldn't want to have to tag an article talk every time I edited something for the first time, that would double the work on many minor edits and maybe discourage me from making them. I don't want this to be onerous, as I do value the contributions these folks are making, and I appreciate BYU's willingness to fund a WiR to provide access to its records. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 20:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * [[User:Valereee|Valereee]], why not make it required? What harm would that do? It seems rather bizarre to make it a condition when it's not a requirement, especially for so qualified an editor as Rachel, who is a huge asset here. (We aren't making it a condition for other COI editors, many of whom have dubious motives, making the difference in treatment even more bizarre.) The solution is to make it required for all COI editors. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#0bf&quot;&gt;PING me&lt;/span&gt;]]''''') 17:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{ping|Valjean}} - To make this a &quot;requirement&quot; rather than currently what it is as a &quot;best practice,&quot; would require community consensus. No one person can make it a requirement. Someone would have to initiate an RFC. And there is probably good reason for this not be a requirement as deemed by the community. For me, the reason for &quot;strongly discouraged&quot; (or whatever) is probably to cover most of the circumstances, with some flexibility, in contrast to overbearing rigidity. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:As said in the opening of [[The Warriors (film)]]: Can you dig it? ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:: Hi Steve. I understand and largely agree about the proper procedure. What considerations might there be against making it a requirement? What harm would it do? -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#0bf&quot;&gt;PING me&lt;/span&gt;]]''''') 18:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I believe I indicated the potential harm. With the wording as it is, there is some flexibility rather than strong rigidity. The community seems to operate best with flexibility. In any case, this is veering off topic in this forum. You might want to open a discussion about this elsewhere. Maybe the Village Pump or the COI talk page or wherever else? Also, anyone feel free to hat this part of this ANI. ----[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Valjean|Valjean]], because we'll never get buy in from other WiRs. Unfortunately it's just that simple. <br /> *:The thing is, it doesn't need to be required in order for it to be best practices, and when multiple other editors are requesting you to do something that isn't strictly required in policy ''and only costs you three seconds of time'', why would you not ''want'' to comply with those requests? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I'm not sure where to respond here, but yes, I'm happy to comply and talk to other WiRs about best practices. I just told my students that we're going to include talk page connected contributor banners from today, and it will probably take a few days for everyone to start using them (one of my students is only working on Fridays this semester). I can do the pages we've worked on in the past--does anyone know if there is a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category? Or I can dedicate a few minutes each day working on it over the summer. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::{{tq|a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category}} <br /> *:::You could try a [[WP:BOTREQUEST]]. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::AWB is also an option where you can make semiautomated edits to pages based on an intersection of categories. Like pages in the LDS Wikiproject that you have edited. Ping me on me talk page if you want help. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 15:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' per Vanamonde93. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 18:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' per Vanamonde93 and Awilley [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 02:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban, broadly construed.While it's true that her userpage is a whole heap of disclosure, the real problem is her (undisclosed) willingness to encourage other's undisclosed COI. Per Fram and Levivich: in Effect. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 18:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per the reasoning of {{U|Levivich}} - which I find particularly alarming due to the walled-garden character of a lot of BYU articles. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Weak Oppose''' per Vanamode93. Even if the COI stuff is properly resolved, or Rachel Phelps is topic-banned, we still have a massive number of LDS topics with no critical sources. This does not necessarily mean that the articles will improve. As a religious editor myself, it can sometimes take me up to an hour to find a non-fringe scholarly source to support whatever perspective I want represented. This is frustrating, but I do not try to bend the rules if I cannot find a reliable source mainstream enough to support a pro-religious perspective. See [[WP:NOTTRUTH]] for more information. However, I am opposed to a topic-ban because in my experience, student editors tend to do such a terrible job following policy, that I cannot support a topic-ban without us at least doing something about the WikiEd program as a whole. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I suppose it's possible that some of the student employees being paid by the BYU Library to edit Wikipedia are also involved in WikiEd somehow through their regular classes, but this is the first time I've seen someone bring up WikiEd as a problem here. {{u|Scorpions1325}}, since it's important enough to inform your vote, could you explain what the connection is? [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 00:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Forgive me. I misspoke. I am saying that it is not wise to let people employed at universities or anywhere else edit here for pay if they are not well-versed on policy, which is the case of BYU's students. At [[WP:AFC]] I found myself removing [[WP:PRIMARY]] and non-[[WP:INDEPENDENT]] sources every day. Paid editors, disclosed or not, tend to cause time-consuming work. Being a Wikipedia editor is something that requires commitment. Sometimes, learning the ropes can take months. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 00:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I've read this over four times and no matter how I look at it, you seem to be arguing in favor of restrictions (or rather, that it would be &quot;not wise&quot; to oppose restrictions in this specific paid editor situation, where we agree that there are problems). But maybe that's just a sign that I should have shut up an hour ago and left this for the closer. Which I'll do now, with apologies for dragging this on longer. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 00:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::It's a yes, but only if situation. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 01:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Topic ban for Thmazing=== <br /> <br /> On the basis of [[User_talk:Thmazing#Conflict_of_interest|this discussion]], I think we need to topic ban [[User:Thmazing]] from pages related to [[Association of Mormon Letters]] broadly construed. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Editors may also consider a wider topic ban on [[Mormonism]]. Note the time of this post, editors commenting before '''04:13, 15 March 2024''' will not have seen this post. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 04:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' This user has a large number of COIs, and refuses to discuss them. They are still editing, but will no longer engage in questions regarding editing about themself and their friends. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood|talk]]) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. As &lt;ins&gt;he is&lt;/ins&gt; a former president of [[Association for Mormon Letters|AML]] and current Managing Editor of its journal [[Irreantum]], I see Thmazing as the &quot;highest-ranking&quot; editor in this COI group (that I know of), and thus the most culpable. Far more culpable than Rachel Helps, who is listed as AML's Discord Admin (and I believe is a current or past board member). Thmazing should have been the one to disclose, require the disclosure, or otherwise reign in, all this undisclosed COI editing coming from AML board members, staff, and other associated editors. A TBAN from AML is really too little IMO, I would ''at least'' TBAN from all of Mormonism (same scope as Rachel Helps) for the same reasons: prevent him from not only editing about AML but also about its &quot;product,&quot; which is Mormon literature, and thus by extension, Mormonism itself. Heck, due to his high ranking nature and his particularly obstructive involvement in this entire fiasco, I'd also just support a straight site ban. But support as certainly better than nothing. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;small&gt;This is phrased a little confusingly... until the end of that paragraph, I thought that you had declared ''yourself'' the current managing editor of Irreantum.--&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier&quot;&gt;[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])&lt;/small&gt; 19:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *::&lt;small&gt;That would have been a real plot twist! 😂 Thanks for pointing it out, I added a couple words to clarify. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 21:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *:What exactly do you mean by {{tqq|by extension, Mormonism itself}}? [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 02:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per sound analysis above. &lt;s&gt;I looked at his last article [[Draft:Mike Pekovich]], originally created in the mainspace: it is blatantly promotional (&quot;His work on woodcraft [...] has influenced thousands of woodworkers over decades&quot;) as much as badly sourced (two non-independent primary sources)&lt;/s&gt;. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;ins&gt;ADDENDUM&lt;/ins&gt;: I also support a wider '''topic ban from Mormonism''', broadly construed, per Levivich, starship.paint and Steve Quinn. Also based on my striked content I suspect there could be other COIs in the mix (in addition to some obvious [[WP:CIR]] issues). --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 12:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> **The draft you link to is problematic, but I don't see how it relates to the AML. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *** You're right, I had taken for granted that the subject was an LSD member. I've strikken the side comment, which is btw telling of this user's way of editing. --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 17:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ****If anything that speaks to a broader issue, perhaps include a ban on article creation? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' maybe they will miraculously recover from the [[WP:ANI flu|unfortunate illness which prevents their typing]], but hopefully they take their &quot;breathing&quot; time to learn [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thmazing&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212609155 how to not] {{Personal attack removed}}. In this particular case, however, Thmazing's obstructionist behaviour annoyed me enough to begin investigating in the first place, so perhaps we should thank him. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:AirshipJungleman29|AirshipJungleman29]]: I've removed the personal attack. Please remain civil when describing behaviour from other editors. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{reply|Femke}} That's bollocks, &lt;s&gt;mate&lt;/s&gt; colleague. We had our [[WP:DICK|own page called that very thing]] which ''still'' directs to a page on meta. So AsJm29 should have called Thamazing a jerk, I guess. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::And there is a reason the meta page is no longer has that title. More people considered this a personal attack. Neither words are conducive to resolving issues of COI editing and civility on Thmazing's part. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 20:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per the above comments. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', but per Levivich, would easily support more, as this is ridiculously lenient. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I agree that the past president of [[Association of Mormon Letters]] shouldn't be editing articles about that group, but I'd like to have all such conflicted editors able to make suggestions and {{tl|edit COI}} requests on the talk page. With niche subjects in particular, we need to balance our need for an accurate article against our desire to have the independent editors making the decisions about what to include. It's not ultimately helpful to the main goal if we TBAN anyone who actually knows anything about the subject. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:If they are the only people who know the things about a subject, that subject may not be worthy of encyclopedic coverage. It may have not gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and may not be suitable encyclopedic matter. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 23:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Strong support''' lack of candor and accountability, repeatedly citing their own off-wiki blog posts, even this topic ban is too lenient, it should be a topic ban from Mormonism at least. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' the topic ban described above per all the comments about COI and lack of candor. I also support a broader ban to include all LDS/Mormon topics per [[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]]. --&lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Futura&quot;&gt;[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' the subject obviously has skin in the game regarding AML and they fail to adhere to COI policy. I agree that the ban should include all LDS/Mormon topics. They do not understand how to edit according to policies and guidelines. Also, I am looking for evidence that they actually cited content in articles with their own blogposts. If this is true then that is totally unacceptable as one of the primary no-no's on Wikipedia. Anyone have any diffs about them citing article content with their blog posts? I read about it in the linked conversation but was unable to discern on which article(s) this happened. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **{{re|Steve Quinn}} - perhaps you can look at the articles [[Elias: An Epic of the Ages]] (most obvious, look here first), [[Adam and Eve in Mormonism]], and [[Brad Teare]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 03:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Starship.paint}} - So yes, it is true. Thmazing has been citing content with their blogposts. This is disconcerting. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 16:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *'''Support'''; Thmazing appears to be both more culpable and less able to recognize and fix problems with their editing. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 04:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed'''. As {{slink|User talk:Thmazing#Conflict of interest}} {{small|([[Special:Permalink/1213676930#Conflict_of_interest|permalink]])}} shows, the editor repeatedly cited their self-published blog posts (from [[Substack]], [[Blogspot]], and at least one personal website) in Mormonism-related articles, including articles not directly related to the [[Association for Mormon Letters]]. These are clear violations of the [[WP:PROMOTION|policy against promotion]] and the [[WP:REFSPAM|guideline against citation spam]]. New editors who do this are indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia as a routine matter; see the reports on the [[WP:UAA|username noticeboard]] for examples. The editor's use of deflection when asked about their promotional edits and conflict of interest (e.g. {{!xt|&quot;[[Special:Diff/1212451954|I know you just got out of arbitration yourself and so I can understand why you'd want to share the love, but I feel like the conversation we've had has already solved this problem.]]&quot;}}) is highly concerning and shows that they are not an appropriate fit for this topic area. —&amp;nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#536267;&quot;&gt;Newslinger&lt;/span&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:Newslinger#top|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;'' 04:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', per extensive discussion above and elsewhere. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 05:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', per evidence presented by others. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 12:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support site ban for high conflict-of-interest, topic-ban as second choice''' - Refer to my comments in re the Rachel Helps topic-ban above; they apply equally here, with the caveat that we have community banned editors for editing blatantly to further their organisation's goals on the grounds of irreconciliable conflict-of-interest. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * &lt;s&gt;'''Oppose'''. Generally concur with the comments by Awilley, Ocaasi, Pigsonthewing, Vanamonde93, and FyzixFighter. I do not see anything presented that rises to the level of requiring a topic ban, and I see plenty of evidence of the positive contributions this editor has made to Wikipedia. [[User:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;Gamaliel&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/small&gt; 22:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/s&gt;<br /> ::&lt;small&gt;{{ping|Gamaliel}} {{ping|Oliveleaf4}} I think you may have voted in the wrong section? This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, {{ping|Viriditas}} might want to re-evaluate the &quot;per Gamaliel&quot; vote. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 06:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :::&lt;small&gt;{{ping|Gamaliel}} {{ping|Oliveleaf4}} I also think you may have voted in the wrong section! This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, {{ping|Viriditas}} might want to re-evaluate the &quot;per Gamaliel&quot; vote. ---06:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :::{{ping|Awilley}} {{ping|Steve Quinn}} Thank you! You are correct, and I've moved my !vote accordingly. [[User:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;Gamaliel&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/small&gt; 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' per Gamaliel. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *&lt;s&gt;'''Oppose''' as per Gamaliel also. Telling the BYU Wikimedian in Residence not to edit on Mormonism? We don't want to go there, folks. If we need to work with them on some aspects of wiki policy, let's not harangue them online, let's arrange for an experienced person to meet up with them. I might have a chance to go out to Utah next year, and I'd be happy to sit down with them and edit.&lt;/s&gt; [[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 04:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Why don't we want to &quot;go there&quot;? What are you implying? The community has been trying to &quot;work with them&quot; on aspects of policy for years. It hasn't worked. Why are you so confident your in-person visit is going to be successful? Do you have a track record of success with such things? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 11:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It is creepy to offer to meet in real life with editors you don't know to help them avoid a potential topic ban. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood|talk]]) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{+1|color=green}} [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Fwiw this is a WiR at a university whom anyone can walk up to and not some editor editing off their couch at home so if anything the suggestion raises the opposite sort of sussiness. Anyway… [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 05:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::One word: safeguarding. One wants to interact with another Wikipedian one does so on Wikipedia or at an event where Wikipedians have *themselves* *chosen* to attend. We should not be treating casual contact amongst editors in RL with anything other than the most serious concern for unintended consequences. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 05:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Am attempting to support efforts by a WiR, not give them a bad time! (Have attempted to comment in the other section.)[[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 18:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' The evidence is clear here as well. Currently this editor is a net-negative to Wikipedia and cost us time and energy. I cannot understand this continual impulse to let folk get away with bad behaviour and breaking policy that are clearly understood and followed by the majority of editors. That was a long conversation that was held in 2020 by administration, it was very clearly stated. Combined with the analysis done recently, makes it clear as day. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 13:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:This is quite rude and suggests an egregious misreading of my editing history. Some cherrypicked flaws in my editing past do not a &quot;net-negative to Wikipedia&quot; make. Has anyone actually looked at my entire editing history or are you just believing what you're told?<br /> *:I appreciate the fellow above who admitted he had made erroneous assumptions about an article I had started but his errors were more numerous than the one he apologized for.<br /> *:I know this isn't the place for it, but I feel obliged to point out that what's happening here is largely an on-Wikipedia doxxing of people who, in good faith, made it possible to do so.<br /> *:(Also, I might add that the idea that I've only heard about Fram in one Discord server and that you can guess which one it is is charming. She has quite the reputation as I'm sure many of you know.)<br /> *:Anyway, carry on. If you could do it without the ad hominem attacks, however, I would appreciate it. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 22:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Thmazing}} No it isn't. I did look at your entire editing history and checked a whole bunch of it as I work on article reviewing, before I commented here. I read the discussion prior to this as well. The comment is probably is a bit harsh but you made the concious choice to ignore policy and your response hasn't been particularly positive. I work up at conflict of interest board also and I see the same kind of response by coi editors every time. I am sick to death of it dude. I want you to experience a moment of catharsis and undergo an epiphany, improve and stop breaking [[WP:COI]] and particularly [[WP:NPOV]]. I only state this because of your previous work. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 08:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' - Same general rationale as my !vote regarding Rachel Helps, but with Thmazing there appears to be even less mitigating circumstances as they have not engaged with this discussion in a remotely satisfactory fashion, whereas RH has at least attempted to make amends. &lt;sub&gt;signed, &lt;/sub&gt;[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban from Mormonism, per above. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' I'm here particularly because of the refusal to acknowledge the problem. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :'''Support''' I haven’t yet decided what I think about the proposal for Rachel Helps, but given the level of incivility and defensiveness Thmazing shows on their user talk, combined with their substantive behavior with content and CoI, I think a topic ban might be warranted. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 07:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed. Even on top of the obvious COI issue for the reasons explained in my reply regarding Helps above, their replies on their talk page about it are not acceptable and show both an unwillingness to assume good faith and a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] view of Wikipedia, which is particularly incompatible with COI editing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1190835734&amp;oldid=1190608956&amp;title=User_talk:Thmazing This] they thought better of and replaced, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1190838884&amp;oldid=1190835734&amp;title=User_talk:Thmazing the replacement] is no better. {{tq|I understand your feelings may be hurt and I don't want to pile on}} and {{tq| Wikipedia is not a sport where people should strive to win or lose and I apologize if I made you feel you needed to win}} are not acceptable ways to respond to a serious concern. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1212451954&amp;oldid=1212410244&amp;title=User_talk:Thmazing This] is in some ways even worse - I'm particularly concerned by {{tq|I think you might feel better about things if you report me. I mean—you're Fram! You have a reputation to maintain! (I was lurking on a Discord channel earlier today and you came up. &quot;What a coincidence!&quot; I said to myself)}} coupled with {{tq|I'm not sure how you all ended up here (perhaps you're on another Discord channel complaining about me?)}} - I'm not sure how to interpret those two sentences other than, well, 1. Thmazing believes that people coordinate Wikipedia edits on Discord, and that this is common and normal enough to immediately leap to that assumption when COI concerns come up, and 2. Thmazing themselves is in a Discord channel which was discussing Fram around that time. The logical conclusion, to me, seems to be that Thmazing leaped to that conclusion because that is, in fact, the nature of the discord channel referenced in the first sentence, and they assume that everyone else is doing the same thing because they're approaching Wikipedia as a battleground. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:In fairness, [[WP:FRAM|we did have a massive controversy which involved harassment and Fram]], and all that seemed to come from that is that Fram has a reputation.... for being a punching bag whenever he inserts himself in anything involving any sort of controversy and getting fucked over whenever his name comes up in conjunction with anything remotely near [[WP:HARASS]]-related content (though in this case I will defend his block as justified, just not as performed by [[WP:INVOLVED|Primefac]]). This is not to justify Fram's actions or exonerate Thmazing, whose actions smack of [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list|EEML]] or [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones|WTC]] just from a brief glance, and get just as ugly as them if scrutinised. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :'''Comment''' Thmazing has been creating a lot of redirects such as &quot;John grisham&quot; (note the capitalization) and seems to be unaware that these are superfluous (unless I’m very much mistaken) due to case insensitivity. Is there a way to bulk RfD like multiple AfDs? [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 10:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|RadioactiveBoulevardier}} - actually Thmazing is correct in this regard, so no deletions should occur. For example, our current TFA [[George Griffith]] versus [[George griffith]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 12:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::How so? If I put “George griffith” into the search bar and press the button (ignoring suggestions ofc), I get sent to the article. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 13:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I see, we did different ways, {{re|RadioactiveBoulevardier}}. I typed the URL with &quot;George_griffith&quot;. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_griffith] '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 13:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In any case, there’s a reason these redirects are not created systematically. Still, I suppose they’re cheap. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 13:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I'm not particularly interested in defending myself here even though a lot of what has been said is more game-of-telephone than evidence and would never hold up in a court of law. It also makes me sad how corrosive discussions can become. That said, I thought I might add a couple bits of information for consideration.<br /> <br /> 1) I was editing AML-related articles long before I was involved in the AML. I agree that's no excuse for failing to disclose COI when it became a thing, but honestly, it never really occurred to me. I was just doing what I'd been doing before.<br /> <br /> 2) Based on the specific edits that have been used as evidence against me, it seems like we're talking about maybe a dozen of my roughly 8000 total edits---or '''0.15%'''. Even if we quadruple my infractions, which seems a number higher than likely, it's less than half of one percent of my total edits. So some of the hyperbole about me being a threat to the very existence of Wikipedia is wild.<br /> <br /> 3) Something I've noticed in these discussions before is that a few facts can become monstrous through snowballing assumptions. I would encourage anyone who thinks #2 is a lie to please check my contribs for yourself. I genuinely consider myself a gnome and a fairy and you'll see that I turn Wikipedia green. In a wide variety of subjects.<br /> <br /> 4) This conversation makes me think Wikipedia needs to have a new conversation about what COI even means. We have some cowboys that go around enforcing, imo, absurdly broad standards. I'm not sure, by their logic, that I should be allowed to edit places or people within the United States, or with the arts of any sort, or possibly things that metabolize. I know you all think I'm exaggerating here. Good! I agree!<br /> <br /> I don't anticipating posting here again. I've found that a few people (not you, of course, ''other'' people) just want a fight, while I believe in a troll-free Wikipedia. I suppose if I hadn't identified myself, none of this would have been possible. But I'm not afraid to be identified. And I'm up for being called out on my errors. What I'm not cool with is people saying things like I'm a net-negative on Wikipedia. That's not the Wikipedia culture I know. And it's not representative of the work I've done here over the last 20 years (17 with this account). Thank you for reading. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 23:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::I know I said I didn't plan to butt in again, but about an hour after I posted, a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity and describing me and my evil ways and nefarious means. (I will not be providing a link.) But the thing that made me laugh was his primary argument that I have a financial motivation in all this and it made me wonder if that's what everyone here has been thinking? Finances have always been the way ''I'' think of COI and you won't find edits where I cross that line. See if you can see what these have in common:<br /> :::Money made editing Irreantum: $0<br /> :::Money made as president of AML: $0<br /> :::Money made editing Peculiar Pages: $0<br /> :::Money made editing Wikipedia: $0<br /> ::I suppose in my mind these are all part of my efforts to make the world better using the tools I have. Anyway, if that was the (unspoken) subcutaneous concern, I thought I should address it. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 00:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::When you say &quot;a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity&quot; you do realize all that information can be found on your userpage? [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 17:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The post at…that place makes some easily verifiable claims. Other sources indicate you wholly own Peculiar Pages and have a senior position at Irreantum, so the claim that no money explicitly changed hands is not only irrelevant, but indicative of the reasons why editors (including myself) think a topic ban might be helpful to the project.<br /> :::Like, unilaterally removing a notability tag with the diff summary you did? Going about it that way is horribly disruptive to processes and doing so with a CoI is unconscionable to anyone engaged in the NPP or deletion processes (as I am).<br /> :::And by the way, unlike Nihonjoe you by definition can’t be outed, at least not while you have links to your public-facing socials and your personal website on your website. That’s not outing, it’s [[muckraking]]. If you want to claim any sort of protection for your identity, blank your user page.<br /> :::Frankly, if I had a mop I’d have given you a 24-hour block for the particular flavor of calculated incivility you’ve shown multiple editors on your user talk.<br /> :::Through your repeatedly telling people things to the general effect of &quot;[[I am not a crook]]! Was it because of [insert personal attack] that you thought so?&quot; when you know as well as they and now we do what the diffs say, you’ve turned a not that big complaint into something that a pseudonymous WikiHater thought was worth posting about.<br /> :::In fact, it should have been dealt with sooner. An admin should come along and close this because the more people vote !support, the more I get unpleasant feelings related to having just reread ''[[To Kill a Mockingbird]]''<br /> :::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *{{re|Thmazing}} - first, money doesn’t have to be made ''while editing''. The very existence of the Wikipedia pages, in a promotional way, may generate money for the entities. That isn’t my biggest concern, though. That would be that within the last year '''you literally cited your own blog''', multiple times [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elias:_An_Epic_of_the_Ages&amp;oldid=1151435889] within the [[Elias: An Epic of the Ages]]. One month after that you declared that it was your blog [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thmazing&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1153382284]. Citing yourself is blindingly inappropriate. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I've copped to that and apologized and not touched the article since. I hope that these (rare) instances will lead to other editors improving the articles with sources they see as appropriate. But of course I'm not going back to them myself. I can't imagine a better way to get more people mad at me.<br /> *:Also, I hope if I'm not responding quickly there aren't more accusations of me avoiding the conversation. This is a dreadfully busy moment for me in almost every way. Plus, most of the commentary hasn't really been to me, more at me. Thank you, @[[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]] for being so civil. (And I know you understand busy!) [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 05:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Oh, hey---serious question:<br /> *:Considering how often I could have cited myself, I rarely have. Usually I use some other source because it seems like the right thing to do. Those few exceptions are for information I didn't think was available elsewhere. I appreciate people don't appreciate the exception and I'm suitably cowed, but that gets to my question.<br /> *:There's been effort to have scientists and historians and others bring their expertise to Wikipedia. And I have to imagine, especially with a scientist bringing new information into the world, if they do so they have little choice but to cite themselves. Although I've generally avoided citing myself (as the rarity of instances proves) I've always thought that this drive to get wild-haired scientists to bring their work to the public via Wikipedia suggested a backside-covering precedent. I wonder how this understanding of the intersection between expertise and COI may have changed? [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 05:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Scientists do not need to cite themselves to contribute their expertise. Science topics generally disallow primary sources (research articles), so adding info sourced to one's own research publications isn't compliant with PAGs anyway. Issues would really only arise when editing a ''very'' narrow subject, when the editor is so prolific writing review papers that all the most up-to-date consensus info is cited to them, or when the editor has a huge number of collaborators and can't avoid citing one of them. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 06:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{re|Thmazing}} - I am afraid your response and past actions show what seems to me a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines. By citing your own self-published blog {{tq|for information I didn't think was available elsewhere}}, you are violating [[WP:COI]], [[WP:SPS]] (part of [[WP:V]]) and also [[WP:DUE]] (part of [[WP:NPOV]]). It is my opinion that any topic that desperately needs your blog as a source probably does not meet [[WP:GNG]] for an article on Wikipedia, and any article that meets WP:GNG does not need your blog. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 00:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::That's not quite what I said. All the articles are worthy of existing sans me. I only cited myself for ''specific details'' I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page. I now understand I should not have done that. Lesson learned. If my goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia, such edits would be greater than one one-thousandth of my total edits. I mean---I've written a lot of stuff. I've written about thousands of books and hundreds of movies and plenty of other stuff. If I were the sly ne'er-do-well described in this discussion, you could find hundreds more examples of self-citation to harp on. Since that's not that case, I would greatly appreciate a bit of [[WP:AGF]]. I'm trying to be a good citizen. I believe deeply in the value and importance of Wikipedia and my edit history proves I have added to that value. I'm not touching the articles I've been accused of COI on, even when it's absurd and I have stuff to add. For instance, I had collected a bunch of more recent sources on [[Brad Teare]] but I've only posted them to the talk page, even though I can't imagine a reason why I shouldn't be able to edit that page. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{tqq|I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page.}} That's what [[WP:NPOV]] says ''not'' to do: include details that aren't in secondary sources that you personally think are valuable to someone visiting the page. If the only person who wrote about a specific detail is you, then you're not the person who should be adding that detail to the Wikipedia article. What you did there was use Wikipedia to promote your own viewpoint--to promote details nobody else thought were important enough to publish. That ''is'' &quot;sly ne're-do-well.&quot; That's not being a good citizen, that's putting your head in the sand and pretending that bias and COI don't apply to you. That you don't understand or accept this, is why we have COI rules: people with COI have biases that prevent them from viewing something objectively; in particular, COI comes with a bias that makes everyone think their COI doesn't come with a bias, or the bias doesn't matter. It's inherent, it's why COI rules exist in the first place. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{re|Thmazing}} - you've asked for {{tq|a bit of WP:AGF}}, I assure you that's exactly what I have given to you. I've never called you a {{tq|sly ne'er-do-well}}, neither have I said that you have a {{tq|goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia}}. I simply think that you do not know (yet) if you should, or should not, add certain information to an article, per [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:SPS]], which you should thoroughly review. That is evident from your response: {{tq|I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page.}} '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 07:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' for disruption and ignoring NPOV. &lt;small&gt;If Thmazing thinks Fram's comment is unclear[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thmazing&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212609155] or that the draft linked above is NPOV, Fram's command of English, or at least the formal English in encyclopedias, may be better.&lt;/small&gt; It seems like a sarcastic comment to me, but either way there's been enough egregious behaviour that the camel was crushed long before the Belgian comment. [[User:Novo Tape|Sincerely, Novo Tape]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Novo Tape|My Talk Page]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Also, tagging is still editing. 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [[User:Novo Tape|Sincerely, Novo Tape]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Novo Tape|My Talk Page]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed''': Thmazing says that their COI editing is a very low percentage of their Wikipedia edits — 0.15%, according to their completely made-up estimate. If that's the case, and it's not a big deal to avoid all the pages where COI is likely, then a topic ban should be easy to comply with. In general, I'm unimpressed with Thmazing's statements — if they're still calling the COI concerns &quot;absurd&quot; after all this conversation, then they're not getting the point. If they really want to avoid a topic ban, being less defensive and dismissive would help. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 23:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:The conversation with Fram (linked above by Novo Tape) shows that Thmazing prefers deflecting away from the issue of declaring COI by essentially verbally assaulting Fram. {{redact}} Being snarky doesn't work. {{redact}} One more thing, this is not social website where we host links from personal blogs or links from other trivial venues. Thmazing, try doing some reading to learn about editing on Wikipedia. I suggest you start with reading [[WP:N]] and then follow the links from there. But, candidly, I don't see that as happening. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed''': Note that this is an ongoing issue, Thmazing continues to join in discussions without disclosing relevant conflicts of interest [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Motley_Vision&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214597917] [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{redact}} ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' broadly construed. Not merely the absolutely ''blatant'' COI, but their refusal to acknowledge it, let alone address it, means that the community must do it for them. They chose... poorly. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 18:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Canvassing concerns===<br /> :{{userlinks|BoyNamedTzu}}<br /> :{{userlinks|Awilley}}<br /> I am concerned that there has been canvassing involved in discussions related to Rachel Helps (BYU). In January 2024 there was a case here at AN/I involving myself and Rachel Helps (BYU). Both BoyNamedTzu and Awilley broke long no-edit stretches (21 November 2023-8 January 2024 and 9 December 2023-7 January 2024 respectively) to take positions strongly in support of Rachel Helps (BYU). Neither disclosed a conflict of interest. The same thing happened again with this VP/M-AN/I thread, both broke long no-edit stretches (8 January 2024-12 March 2024 and 17 February 2024-13 March 2024) to take positions strongly in support of Rachel Helps (BYU). BoyNamedTzu did not disclosed a COI, Awilley only disclosed after being asked. In between 8 January 2024 and 13 March 2024 BoyNamedTzu made no edits and Awilley made only four. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :As I mentioned above, I was alerted to the existence of these threads by pings or mentions because I had participated in a previous discussion about you and Rachel Helps. <br /> :*January 9th AN/I thread: That thread was actually about topic banning or admonishing ''you'' for hounding Helps. You say I took a strong position, but I didn't even !vote. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194089340#Admonishment_proposal Here's] the only comment I made in that thread (replying inline to another user to gently correct what I saw as a misrepresentation). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1193974962 Here's] the comment that mentioned me in that discussion. <br /> :*February-March VP/M thread: I got what looks like a more deliberate ping to that thread in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1213362422 this] comment. You will undoubtedly find that suspicious because it was the same user who pinged me to the earlier thread. In any case, there seemed to be a lot of misunderstandings and accusations flying around, so I made a similarly meandering comment trying to clear up a few issues and replied to one user. Unfortunately I can't provide diffs to my two posts because they were caught up in an oversight, but if you scroll up from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;oldid=1213635752#A_personal_analysis_and_proposal] you'll find it. <br /> :*March 13 AN/I: I got pinged to the above thread by its creator in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1213529641 this diff.] You can see my response above where I wrote, &quot;in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor.&quot; I try to say something like that whenever I !vote on AN/I threads related to religion because I've recused myself from taking admin actions in that topic area. <br /> :I didn't get any emails or off-wiki communication about these threads, and I'm not on any email lists or text threads or discord servers related to Wikipedia. From a search of my inbox, the last Wikipedia related email I received was in September 2023 from a user asking for details on how I created a certain .gif animation. As for why I chose to comment in the above threads: I have a soft spot when it comes to seeing gnomes getting attacked and sucked into wiki-drama. <br /> :Speaking of pings and notifications, it looks like the &quot;userlinks&quot; templates you used above do not automatically generate pings, so I got no notification that you had opened this thread. You might want to consider officially notifying {{ping|BoyNamedTzu}}. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The community appears to have now endorsed my concerns around Help. I am disturbed that you are only now disclosing your BYU COI despite participating in a number of discussions about the BYU wikipedia editing program. Also, given what we now know clearly not a gnome and never was. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I would also note that since pinging you to that first discussion [Hydrangeans] has disclosed a series of COIs. In hindsight that appears to be on-wiki canvassing. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Then the canvassing issue you have is with [Hydrangeans], for the first two discussions, not Awilley. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I don't agree with that. I was just writing that I'm disappointed in Awilley. In the Jan 9th thread, that's one BYU alum pinging another BYU alum for backup in a thread involving BYU's WiR, and ''none of the three of them'' disclosed it. In the VPM, ''again'' a BYU alum pings another BYU alum, again accusing HEB of &quot;hounding&quot; the BYU WiR, and again, neither of the BYU alums disclose their connection. This is all in an effort to shut down HEB when ''HEB was right all along about the COI'', in fact it's a much bigger and broader COI issue, we now know, than just involving the BYU WiR. This was super deceitful. I understod when I read &quot;I'm commenting here as an involved editor,&quot; and I thought, ''ah ha, that's why''. This is very not kosher, you should ''all'' know better than to participate in ''discussions about COI by your alma mater'' without disclosing that it's your alma mater. In hindsight, we now know, that almost all of the people defending the BYU WiR from COI allegations were also BYU people (or AML people, or both). This was all highly deceptive, which is extra disappoint when it all comes from a Christian church (yeah I said it). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 02:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I would say that this is an issue of lack of disclosure of Awilley's part, which is, the more I think about it, pretty disturbing, for the reasons you mentioned. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You're right, with that fact pattern laid out Awilley's conduct looks like harassment. They selectively participated in discussions about topics they had a COI with at a time in which they were not generally active on wikipedia in order to confront or inhibit the work of another editor (me). That would be unbecoming of any editor, from an admin it really begs the question of whether they should remain an admin. It is par for the course for disruptive editors to cry &quot;Harassment!&quot; while engaging in harassment, but I rarely see an admin do it and never without consequences. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 02:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> :::::{{tq|you should all know better than to participate in discussions about COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it's your alma mater.}} We talked thoroughly on my userpage why the [[WP:COI|conflict of interest policy]] left me with the impression that it asked about current relationships and not terminated ones, and I apologized for that, both to you personally and in the Village Pump thread. This thread is the first that I learned Awilley had any connection to BYU. I pinged Awilley, along with Drmies and Mackensen, because they had participated in a past ANI thread about HEB and I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again. There are ways of communicating about COI other than by violating the [[WP:HA|harassment and privacy policies]]. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 02:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::If you pinged people because of their past interactions with me and not their past interactions with Rachel on a discussion purely about Rachel's conduct that is not appropriate. Especially if you did it because &quot;I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again&quot; that would be canvassing with a specific goal in mind, all three are admins, were you trying to get me blocked? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 02:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I get that at the time, you didn't know Awilley was a BYU alum. But Awilley knew. I now count at least half a dozen editors who have some affiliation with BYU/AML -- almost all of them current or former employees -- who engaged in discussions about undisclosed BYU/AML COI editing without disclosing their affiliation. If all of them were part of one single conspiracy, that would be bad. But if they all each independently decided to surreptitiously influence the COI investigation without disclosing their own COI, that's even worse. That's like: what the heck are they teaching at BYU, that there are so many BYU folks who don't seem to grasp basic ethics -- and not a matter of the wording of Wikipedia policies, or even ethics tied to any religion or culture, but cross-cultural basic ethics, like that if you are going to act as a &quot;judge,&quot; &quot;juror,&quot; or &quot;witness,&quot; you'd better disclose your connection to the &quot;defendant.&quot; That's so basic. Everyone involved in these discussions about BYU/AML COI who has any connection past or present with BYU or AML should disclose that, or else stay out of these discussions. And it seems like every day I'm learning of someone else who has been involved, has the connection, but didn't disclose. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 02:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::@Levivich, up until today I didn't know that [Hydrangeans] was a BYU alumnus. And frankly knowing it now doesn't really change anything for me. She's just an editor with whom I cross paths with occasionally. There's only one Wikipedia editor I've ever knowingly met in real life. We went to lunch together and had a nice talk. Maybe he was a BYU alumnus too; I don't actually know. And it doesn't matter. Editors on Wikipedia should be judged by their words and actions, not the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 05:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Yeah, judged for actions like choosing to participate in multiple discussions about undisclosed COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it was your alma mater (though I appreciate that you finally did). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Nobody is being judged by the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended... They are being judged by their words and actions *alone*. Throwing out these red herrings and insinuations of bigotry against good faith editors is not constructive. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Indeed, and my concern at the time was that HEB pushed too hard, evening when not gaining support from other editors for their views (still feel that way, but it's not relevant here). This situation is different, and I feel seriously misled by Nihonjoe's failure to disclose their COI. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 00:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I will happily acknowledge that Rachel is my friend and the person who recruited me to Wikipedia and taught me how to edit. When I have seen her being relentlessly bullied by other editors, I have defended her. She has never asked me to do this. She has never reuqested that i participate, in any way, in any discussion about her work. She has never canvassed me or anybody else that I know about in order to solicit responses or participation. But the grenades that you and others have thrown her way have a real life impact on an actual human being that I care about, and that often propels me to action. I am conversant enough with Wikipedia conventions to find my way here without being canvassed.<br /> :I will soon be deactivating my account and leaving Wikipedia for good. I have no desire to continue to edit, and I will pledge to make no more edits to any pages. [[User:BoyNamedTzu|BoyNamedTzu]] ([[User talk:BoyNamedTzu|talk]]) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::And did you see it on the discord? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No. I did not see it on the Discord, which I have not participated in for months. I saw it in my real-life interactions with my friend. [[User:BoyNamedTzu|BoyNamedTzu]] ([[User talk:BoyNamedTzu|talk]]) 20:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::For what its worth I hope you stick around, in the future please either avoid such crossovers between your personal life and wikipedia or disclose them. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Further canvassing and meatpuppetry concerns====<br /> {{hat|This was apparently instigated by a joe job}}<br /> {{userlinks|Luke Olson (BYU)}} created an account for the purpose of !voting against a topic ban. In a discussion on their talk page, they revealed there is a discord channel where BYU editors are discussing and are opposed to this topic ban - I am concerned that other !votes may have been canvassed by that channel.<br /> <br /> In particular, I'm concerned about {{userlinks|Oliveleaf4}}, who returned after a two month hiatus and after a few hours of editing elsewhere arrived to vote against this proposal - their first ever participation at ANI.<br /> <br /> I note Awilley has already been raised above, but I'm also concerned about them; they deny being a member of this discord channel, but there is clearly some connection as Luke Olson pinged them when restoring their !vote, saying {{tq|I'm going to ping [[User:Awilley]] so he sees if someone deletes my message again.}}<br /> <br /> In general, I think this is evidence that stronger and broader action is required, perhaps similar to what was used against the Church of Scientology. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I wasn't around for any Scientology saga, but I think if broader action is required, it would likely be geared towards reducing time wasted by college students with the most poriferous opsec I've ever seen, rather than what I presume was a real operation by serious people. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 04:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :what ''did'' end up happening with scientology anyways? [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 04:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Well, there was [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology|this]], @[[User:Vghfr|Vghfr]]. [[Special:Contributions/57.140.16.57|57.140.16.57]] ([[User talk:57.140.16.57|talk]]) 13:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214295281 Diff]''' of the quote BilledMammal is referring to, for convenience. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 04:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I don't know why Luke Olson singled me out. I've asked [[User_talk:Luke_Olson_(BYU)#Curious_why_you_pinged_me|here]] on their talk page. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Most likely because you're a member of WikiProject LDS. I guess he thought that you'd back him up because you had involvement in LDS related topics [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *If any more single purpose/meatpuppet accounts show up, just tag with {{green|&lt;nowiki&gt;{{spa}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;}} directly after their sig. The closer should be an admin, and they should be able to properly weight any SPA comments. [[User:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;Dennis Brown&lt;/b&gt;]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;2&amp;cent;&lt;/b&gt;]] 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I added the &quot;not a ballot&quot; notice to the top. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 12:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:ජපස|ජපස]], @[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]], @[[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]], @[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] and others, fwiw CU data indicates that account is a Joe job. Seems like it was created to derail the discussion and cause drama for entertainment. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Glad y'all put a stop to it. This really makes [[WP:AGF]] hard, doesn't it? Now I have to reset my priors because it did not occur to me that this could have been a joe job. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{hab}}<br /> <br /> Assuming I'm no longer under under investigation for [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Awilley&amp;page=Brigham_Young_University&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max= being an agent of BYU], may I suggest that if there is truly an appetite for having an open and honest discussion about off-wiki canvassing, it might be healthy to acknowledge the real elephant in the room. The thing that I think [[User:Horse Eye's Back]] referred to as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213530736 the &quot;invisible baseball&quot;]. Above [[User:Aquillion]] above criticized Thmazing for questioning how Fram, &lt;del&gt;HEB, and company&lt;/del&gt;&lt;u&gt;and a couple other editors&lt;/u&gt; spontaneously ended up on his talk page. It seems that was a valid question after all. In that light it's a bit ironic that we have editors tracking down Oppose voters to interrogate them on how ''they'' heard about this discussion, what their alma mater is, and whether they're members of a Discord group. {{pb}}I also can't help but wonder if some part of the frustration on display above may be displaced anger for a different user who is currently out of reach of AN/I. I'd hate to see Rachel Helps and Thamazing become convenient scapegoats for Nihonjoe. I'm not asking anybody to change their votes, but I do think it would be healthy to reconsider the [[McCarthyism|BYU editor under every rock]] approach. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 03:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I don't think it was a valid question at all. I asserted, and continue to assert, that the way in which Thamazing reacted there shows a starkly [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] approach to Wikipedia. And it seems a bit silly to bring up the fact that Nihonjoe is before ArbCom as if that is something people concerned about COIs might ''object'' to. It seems clear to me that this will (and should) end up before ArbCom as well - the problem is systematic and comparable to eg. [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology]]; it is unlikely to be settled here. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 04:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :FWIW, I started watching Thmazing's talk page back in January after I submitted evidence on AML COIs to ArbCom. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 06:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It's rather hard to look at Nihonjoe's COI contributions and ''not'' notice the constant intersection with both Thmazing and the BYU editors. For example [[Annie Poon]] was created by Thmazing, with later important edits by Nihonjoe and Rachel Helps (BYU). Oh, Rachel Helps even sourced the article to two different non-[[WP:RS]] sources written by Thmazing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annie_Poon&amp;diff=733735545&amp;oldid=715763069]. Stellar work promoting AML editors in an article about an AML Award winning artist, not problematic COI editing at all. Same at [[Steven L. Peck]], created by Thmazing, expanded by Rachel Helps (BYU) with addition of a source written by Thmazing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_L._Peck&amp;diff=760551193&amp;oldid=696493939] (and e.g. a source written by Michael Austin, which whom she has a COI as well) , of course again a winner of an AML Award (as are Thmazing, Rachel Helps, Michael Austin). On other pages edited by Nihonjoe, I encountered Thmazing adding his own publications[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Wells_%28author%29&amp;diff=449048632&amp;oldid=445839510]. I have to say, Rachel Helps is rather fond of quoting Thmazing, she used him as a reference twice in [[List of Mormon cartoonists]] as well, next to of course the AML Awards. But Thmazing doesn't really need her help, he is perfectly capable of ading his own self-published work[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nephi_Anderson&amp;diff=713827919&amp;oldid=712611908], again on a page edited by Rachel Helps and Nihonjoe as well. But it is a good reference, because that work won, you guessed it, an AML Award. <br /> :Oh look, [[Dendō]]! Created by Rachel Helps, about an AML Award winning book where the Library that pays Rachel Helps owns the original artwork, and where Helps again uses Thmazing as a reference (among other not quite independent references as well). It's a walled garden which becomes very obvious once one looks at more and more articles edited by the same people referencing each other by name, each others publications, the organisations they're in, and so on... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''It seems that was a valid question after all.''' Please explain what you mean by this. I would also note that if you want &quot;to acknowledge the real elephant in the room&quot; it would be helpful to actually name the elephant... In plain English what is the concern? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Re: &quot;It seems that was a valid question after all.&quot; I was referring to the off-wiki blog post/doxing that Thamazing mentioned above and questioning whether that might have been part of the reason a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep. The earlier blog post and related on-wiki fallout was what I was referring to as the elephant in the room. I think that's about as plain as I can be without having this post redacted. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Is &quot;a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep&quot; an accurate summary of the facts? I showed up on Thmazings talk page in December 2023‎. The off-wiki blog post was made on January 18th 2024. Fram didn't show up until 6 March 2024‎, JoelleJay on the 7th, and AirshipJungleman29 on the 8th. To me that looks like JoelleJay and AirshipJungleman29 followed Fram to the page but it doesn't look like Fram was following the &quot;bad site&quot; closely. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yeah, I saw Fram's edits to the page come up on my watchlist and was curious. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how AJ29 arrived too. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::No actually, I was following you; I believe you had said something on Jimmy Wales' talk page (EDIT: yes, it was [[User talk:Jimbo Wales#French Wikipedia's new trans MOS|this thread]] which I participated in) and I absent-mindedly had a look at your recent contributions. Couple of days later I was having a look at WPO (I believe for the Nihonjoe saga), saw that thread, and thought &quot;huh&quot;. Used what I could of that thread when opening the VPM subsection after being irritated by Thmazing. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Based on these facts I would ask that you strike &quot;HEB&quot; from &quot;questioning how Fram, HEB, and company spontaneously ended up on his talk page.&quot; if you don't choose to strike the whole thing. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 22:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Although you joined the others in posting on March 7, I'll strike &quot;HEB&quot; as you requested because, as you pointed out, you had posted on Thmazing's talk page in December 2023. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::And what about those who posted on the 9th? Are they part of this clique you're alleging the existence of or is the 8th some sort of magic cutoff? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't mean to defend the blog in any way, but doesn't that editor make their real life identity abundantly clear, hence the conflict of interest? [[User:XeCyranium|XeCyranium]] ([[User talk:XeCyranium|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Correct. Thmazing made like zero effort to hide his identity, which made the COI obvious. And to be fair, I have seen some evidence that Thmazing was trying to declare COI even before he was confronted. See for instance [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irreantum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1178161024 this October 2023 edit] with the edit summary, ''&quot;conflict alert: just cited myself&quot;.'' (Still not great to cite yourself though, even if the information was mundane.) &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::So, Awilley, you claim that insinuations that I appeared at Thmazing's talk page due to some off-wiki canvassing is &quot;It seems that was a valid question after all.&quot; I guess you have some evidence for this? As far as I can reconstruct, I noticed Thmazing because of the AML and the AML Awards, which I was looking at because of the many links between them and Nihonjoe's COI articles; and because he also turned up at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 26]], which I looked at when I delved a bit deeper in Rachel Helps' edits (again after I noticed the BYU, AML, ... edits and the collaborations with Nihonjoe on GA review, edit-a-thon, ... ). I then noticed the older discussion about his COI issues, so I started looking at his edits more closely then. But feel free to post any evidence you have of any off-wiki places I was contacted or where I contacted others or ... If you don't have any, perhaps strike the accusation and don't repeat such bogus claims in the future. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 11:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Fram: I'm not trying to claim or insinuate anything. I became interested in the possibility of off-wiki collaboration when I was singled out by the &quot;joe job&quot; sock, so I did some digging and then posted the above. I don't find fault in any of your actions that you described above, and I really wouldn't care even if you ''had'' learned about Nihonjoe and the other editors on the other site. How you find the information matters much less than what you do with it. You'll have to forgive me for not being immediately familiar with all the facts. When I first commented on the Village Pump thread this month I didn't realize there was an Arbcom case afoot and Nihonjoe wasn't even on my radar, so I've been kind of piecing things together since then. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Once you look at the timeline of things, you can see that this didn't start with WPO, WPO only confirmed what people had already been saying on-wiki for ''years''. To recap:<br /> :* the now-familiar [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University|2020 COIN]]<br /> :* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1115#Another user is persistently complaining about me|2022 ANI]] started by Rachel Helps against HEB, where she writes &quot;I have invited Horse Eye's Back to bring their concerns to COIN. I would prefer that to the constant accusations that I should not be editing certain pages.&quot; This is ironic in hindsight, as these concerns had already been brought to COIN two years earlier. AFAICS, nobody in the 2022 ANI thread mentioned the 2020 COIN. The only person in the 2022 ANI discussion who was also in the 2020 COIN is... Rachel Helps. I find it not very honest of her to say &quot;take it to COIN&quot; without disclosing that this had already been done. BTW, who jumps in to defend Rachel in the 2022 ANI? Awilley.<br /> :* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Horse Eye's Back's battleground behavior|January 2024 ANI]] against HEB (for things including but not limited to the BYU/AML COI), in which Rachel Helps writes &quot;HEB has been harassing me since last year (see my talk page archive) and the students who work for me(see 1 and 2). He threatened to nominate us for a topic ban on editing pages about the Book of Mormon...&quot; (this is the one mentioned above where [Hydrangeans] pinged Awilley to the discussion) Dozens of editors participated here.<br /> :*:BTW just to toot my own horn here, I said there and then, on Jan 8, that &quot;It seems ''wildly'' obvious that 'something is afoot,' and I don't think it's limited to this thread...&quot; That there was widespread undisclosed COI editing was obvious by Jan 8. Subsequent disclosers have since validated my suspicions.<br /> :* The &quot;Let's talk about LDS editors&quot; WPO forum thread was started Jan 18. After all of the above.<br /> :* The WPO blogs were posted in Feb and March (neither one about Rachel Helps, but related)<br /> :The timeline refutes any suggestion that WPO is what brought attention to this matter. Rather, WPO laid bare the evidence that supported what was already being discussed on-wiki. We know from people's statements that editors submitted evidence to Arbcom privately in December and January. Wikipedia didn't follow WPO, WPO followed Wikipedia. People weren't canvassed from WPO to Wikipedia, it was the other way around. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm pretty damn sure that the reason WPO wrote about it was ''because'' nothing was done on-wiki. Which happens pretty regularly: if Wikipedia doesn't take care of its own problems on-wiki, the rest of the world will notice and call Wikipedia out for it whenever the problems are serious enough for the rest of the world to care. Spreading misinformation in Mormonism, the Holocaust, Israel/Palestine, Iran, etc. are examples of things the real world will care about. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Given the extensive ongoing issues and the lack of recalcitrance maybe we need to start talking about sanctions for Awilley. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you for the timeline, Levivich. That is very helpful. I remember that 2022 ANI...I think that's why I kept getting pinged back to subsequent threads on the same issue. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Right, so when you're in a hole, stop digging. This isn't McCarthyism, which you literally linked to. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 08:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Jesus this is a mess,<br /> ::::does anyone want me to contact an admin [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 02:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{ping|Maestrofin}} The admins are most likely fully aware. This forum is entitled &quot;Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.&quot; ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Do you think we should have an Request For Comment [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 06:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Several admins have participated in this thread, including Awilley above. An RfC might be needed subsequently, but not right now; you are welcome to comment on this discussion {{u|Maestrofin}}. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I suspect that {{Ping|Ocaasi}} was canvassed to this discussion per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ocaasi]. Despite being an admin Ocassi had not commented on this noticeboard since September 2015 and was not in general active on wikipedia when they came here to make a very strong comment. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Based on their user page, there are several other highly plausible explanations than outright canvassing…honestly this is getting a little too Inquisition-y for my liking and while it may well result in discoveries that a do-no-harm editor like me would never have chanced upon, ArbCom has a nasty reputation for being a little indiscriminate with its remedies. Just so you’re clear on the risks/rewards. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 01:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: There's a line between a witch hunt and hunting witches... But yes, I take your point. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Well, you ''were'' pretty much accusing the founder of [[WP:LIBRARY]] of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy not limited to LDS editors…lol<br /> :::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I think it's legitimate to point out that some GLAM higher-ups are circling WiR wagons in this dispute. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{cn}}{{clarify}} [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I join you in soliciting additional evidence of same. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Horse Eye, respectfully, how are you defining &quot;active&quot;? The link you provided shows activity every month from October 23, 2023 to March 2024. And if we go back to the next oldest 100 edits there is activity every month from May 12, 2023. And this is starting to feel a little creepy, imho. It may be best not to go down this road unless there is some sort of definitive evidence, imho. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 02:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : I'm defining active as &quot;could reasonable be expected to have found this discussion through their normal editing.&quot; If you can come up with a way they got here let me know, IMHO their appearing here is a little creepy and I'd like some context. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::This discussion is already so complex that it's going to be hard for anyone to close it. Quibbling over a single participant's possible canvassing is adding more complexity. Even if this is true, it's not important. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 16:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'd disagree. If an admin were canvassed and still !voted (I have no opinions on whether or not they were), it would be a serious [[WP:ADMINCOND]] issue, potentially warranting a formal warning. It's certainly important if true. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 18:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Agreed but…''prima facie'' evidence much? Canvassing has a specific definition. Being hypothetically informed of a WiR getting in trouble, coming over to see what’s up, and then deciding on one’s own initiative to respond in a knee-jerk way is, unless I’m very much mistaken, not canvassing.<br /> ::::Anyway, if the movement were as politics-ridden as was implied, then he in turn would, purely theoretically, probably be able to canvass a goodly number of experienced uninvolved editors who are overwhelmingly grateful to him for their free access to more things than even those enrolled at most top universities get.<br /> ::::Separately, I sense that Awilley’s vehemence is probably related to the tone taken by jps and others. Even if mainstream consensus and anti-religion PoV intersect on points of fact (like that the society depicted in the BoM is, ya know, completely fictitious and Joseph Smith was quite literally pulling it out of his hat) that doesn’t give editors a blank check to exceed or breach guidelines (any of them). [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Meh, even if it was canvassing, this is just one vote amongst many. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Closing time?===<br /> There have been no new comments in the main threads for a couple of days, so is it time for an uninvolved admin to close before the archiving bot gets trigger happy? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :This should absolutely get the attention of a closer. I look forward to reading it. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::My reading of the main thread is that it's a tricky close because of so many overlapping issues. On the one hand, there's a clear consensus that the user messed up in editing topics with a COI without adequately disclosing the COI. But there's no evidence that her editing was disruptive (quite the opposite). There's evidence that her student editors weren't doing a great job with NPOV and were too &quot;in-world&quot; on Mormonism-related topics. But she seems to be taking steps to address that as well, starting by having them only edit in sandbox for now. There are some users who seem to suggest that all paid editing should be banned, but AFAIK that argument doesn't have the force of policy behind it. There seems to be a numerical majority favoring a topic ban, but the editor is a clear net-positive on Wikipedia and shows a genuine interest in following the rules. In this thread she openly admitted fault, and then she went way beyond what is expected by listing all possible conflicts she could think of on her userpage. (See also the conversation with above with Valeree about which talk pages require a COI template.) The WiR thing is another complication that I think most people (including me) don't fully understand. And it seems the biggest COI violations (like the creation of [[The ARCH-HIVE]]) were unpaid—done on her on time from her personal account. This all makes for a thread that different admins could reasonably close in different ways. {{pb}}My suggestion would be to wait a day or two (I don't know if Rachel edits on Sundays) and see if people might be interested in finding a middle path...something between &quot;topic ban from Mormonism broadly construed&quot; and &quot;no action&quot;. There might be some solution that would satisfy more people and solve the problem too, perhaps something along the lines of &quot;Rachel Helps agrees to use the {{tl|Connected contributor}} template on all articles in the LDS Wikiproject to which she makes substantive edits, and will not directly edit articles about BYU, its current staff, or its library. She agrees to follow the advice at [[WP:COIEDIT]] for subjects she has a close connection with, including using the {{tl|edit COI}} template on the talk page. All article creations, even those from her personal account, must go through the [[WP:Articles for Creation]] process.&quot; Some guidance for what to do with her students would also be helpful. {{pb}}Is there any interest in this? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 17:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;small&gt;(involved here, in case anybody hasn't read the above thread)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :A 2007 close that led to an arbcom case above [[Special:Diff/140818119]] suggests that this discussion is gonna be difficult to close definitively…[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 18:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}I don't understand why people are opposed to a topic ban from Mormonism broadly construed even as they admit there were problems. What is the added ''benefit'' of these accounts being able to move around the pages about Mormonism? I think there is rather ''broad consensus'' that encouraging them to move towards new topics would be ideal. Wouldn't a topic ban do that? What I don't understand is why the &quot;middle ground&quot; is sought at all. If you think she and her students should be editing Mormonism pages, then she should be allowed to do so. If you do not, then why the worry about the topic ban? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:ජපස|jps]] My experience in many contentious (especially religious) topics around Wikipedia has been that there are often two major groups of editors in opposition with one another. One group usually has some affiliation with the topic that gives them three things: 1, motivation to edit, 2, above average knowledge about the subject matter, and 3, a non-neutral point of view. (1 &amp; 2 are good things, 3 is a bad thing.) These users are usually opposed by another group of users who are 1, motivated by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to counter the POV of the first group, and that, 2, have relatively little knowledge of the subject matter. It is &lt;u&gt;good&lt;/u&gt; to have some friction between these groups of editors, since Wikipedia needs motivated editors, people with deep knowledge about the subjects, and a commitment to follow its PAGs. Sometimes you will find a smaller third group of editors between these two opposing groups. These editors may some affiliation with the subject matter with the corresponding POV problem, but they have decided that when they log into Wikipedia, they are going to put Wikipedia first. They have a deep knowledge of the subject, but they recognize their bias and they take steps to mitigate that. If improving Wikipedia is the goal, these editors are a precious resource. The main reason I'm defending Rachel Helps is because I see her as being part of this third group. Does that answer your question? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You think being Mormon gives a person an above-average knowledge of Mormonism? I think it's the opposite. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Strike your comments. That is very disrespectful. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 01:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Agreed: this is a completely unacceptable PA by Levivich, and not even attached to an actual point they're trying to make. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 04:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::How is Rachel ''not'' a member of group 1? She has motivation to edit, above average knowledge of the subject (such that one might have as a member of the church), and a non-neutral point of view. You are also a member of group 1, no? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I suppose if you're technical about it, a Venn diagram would show that group 3 is largely a subset of group 1. My own relationship with Mormonism is complicated and something I prefer not to discuss on-wiki, but I have tried my best try my best to be a good member of group 3. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I think the controversy here is one over whether it is possible to be more or less in the service of NPOV. I would prefer that we simply admit that people with a ''close'' relationship with a subject will necessarily be biased. It is our job as editors to try as best as we can to put that bias aside and attempt to follow Wikipedia's consensus [[WP:PAG]]s to achieve [[WP:NPOV]]. To the extent that I think the BYU contingent has been unable to do that and to the extent it has been in the service of the particular bias which is more-or-less apparent at first glance from the consideration of their approaches in articles on the Book of Mormon is the extent to which I have concerns over [[WP:PAID]], [[WP:COI]], etc. in these areas. So while your complicated relationship with Mormonism is a concern, you (as far as I know) are not being paid to edit Wikipedia by an organization with an iron in that fire. Here is the bone of contention. This is why I am having a hard time seeing how this is amenable to compromise between &quot;just stay away&quot; and &quot;there's nothing wrong with it&quot;. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Isn't it the case that at this point, only the community can determine if a compromise is possible? I mean, the community has already reached a consensus on its preferred outcome. And admins are not likely to thwart the community's decision, imho. Also, since we are already here, wherever &quot;here&quot; is, we might as well move forward ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In other words, Rachel can appeal in six months or whatever the time frame is. Time in between now and an appeal can be a benefit because it is a chance to show a proven track record. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 22:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{tq|which is more-or-less apparent at first glance}} Except it isn't more or less apparent. The worst of those Book of Mormon topic articles were created decades ago, in the early 2000s, by completely different accounts with nothing to do with Rachel Helps (BYU) and were in far sorrier states before the BYU-paid editors actually added citations to sources other than the Book of Mormon. (To quote Ghosts of Europa, {{tq|Second Nephi and Ammonihah are in much better shape than, say, Jason, a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid.}} [for clarity, Ammonihah was not expanded by a BYU-paid editor; that's an article I expanded]) {{pb}}I'm aware of JPS having complaints. Yet some of these complaints have ranged from the genuinely inaccurate (I urge JPS to at some point accept the academic assessment of Joseph Smith as having been racist in a slightly different manner than has been insisted with repeated linking to a 30-year-old ''JWHA Journal'' article—and saying that isn't apologetics unless Max Perry Mueller's ''Race and the Making of the Mormon People'' (University of North Carolina Press, 2017) is Mormon apologetics, which would be a strange characterization for an academic book written by a non-Mormon about Mormon racism and white saviorism)—to the demandingly excessive, like at [[Talk:Ammonihah]] where JPS calls a non-Mormon literature professor a {{tq|lunatic charlatan}} and repeatedly insists the article is incomprehensible because it doesn't provide an apologetics-style anthropology of background elements in the story like supposed Nephite ecclesioilogy.{{pb}}My bone of contention is that JPS's catastrophic description of the Mormon studies topic area that Rachel Helps (BYU) and the student employees have contributed to doesn't hold up in all cases and only holds up in a couple. My bone of contention is that speaking as a trans girl who was formerly a BYU student with a BYU student job (unrelated to the Wikimedian-in-residence business; I never met Rachel Helps (BYU) at BYU and instead met her and primarily got to know her via Wikipedia), this {{tq|BYU contingent}} as JPS calls them never made me feel ashamed or like I was less than them, whereas the users most strongly insisting that Rachel Helps (BYU)'s contributions are catastrophically damaging have proceeded with a tear-down tone that's left me feeling paralyzed about editing completely unrelated things on Wikipedia. I cannot stress this enough when it's so bizarre. I ''came out as trans at BYU'', and the behavior that has been on display here at Wikipedia in the midst of this whole &quot;thing&quot; has hurt ''more'' and inflicted ''more'' shame than I experienced back then. There's been [[WP:OUTING|attempts at outing and stalking]], there's been bizarre additions to articles like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=1213942114&amp;oldid=1212611600 throwing {{tq|judge of ???}} (actually with the question marks) in body text] because apparently that was the best way to insist that article text I wrote wasn't clear enough about the intricate geopolitics of a Nephite society that NPOV means we're not supposed to be treating as nearly so real (JPS's train of thought on Book of Mormon topics more than once has resembled FARMS-style apologists much more than the 21st-century academic-critical field), I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213912940 been told my best effort to summarize available scholarship has constituted {{tq|stupid games}}]. At BYU, I didn't develop a fear I was being stalked. I didn't get talked about over the pulpit or in publicly-viewable forums. No BYU personnel ever [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick&amp;diff=1214009259&amp;oldid=1213938770 followed me to an unrelated article to loom over my shoulder].{{pb}}I don't know what's up about Nihonjoe and ArbCom, and I don't know why the heck Thmazing has been so devil may care in tone and has been making articles cited so predominantly to blog posts. Let the sanctions on ''them'' fall as they must. But to apply the same broad brush more widely and without nuance or differentiation strikes me as reminiscent of the kind of thinking at which the [[Wikipedia:List_of_cabals#Mormon_Smokescreen_Cabal|Mormon Smokescreen Cabal]] joke was supposed to poke fun. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 23:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{Ping|ජපස}}, you've certainly been around long enough to know that {{tq|???}} is poor wikivoice. A couple questions: Can you point to consensus regarding the WSJ not covering climate change accurately? [[WP:WSJ]] makes no mention of it. Are you following [Hydrangeans] around and/or intentionally scanning their contributions for errors? I'm struggling to find an explanation for these edits besides you intentionally being harsh on [Hydrangeans]'s edits, although please provide one if there is. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 00:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Oh, it's well known that the WSJ is a problem when it comes to climate change denial: [https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/Online/22952/Wall-Street-Journal-opinion-editors-are-attacked].<br /> :::::::I am not &quot;following&quot; [Hydrangeans] around. I did look at some of the articles she had last contributed to and did see this terrible &quot;hockey stick controversy&quot; WSJ article added in [[Ross McKitrick]]. This was not, to my knowledge, anything she added to the article. I do not find anything problematic about her work on that article.<br /> :::::::I think the lack of [[WP:AGF]] extended towards me from [Hydrangeans] is sad, but as you can see from our interactions on her talkpage, not surprising. I ''am'' leveling harsh critique on certain Wikipedia contributions she has made, but they aren't unforgivable sins by any means. Yes, I found the article on Ammonihah and most of the rest of the Book of Mormon pages to be pretty bad and needing a lot of cleanup. I will not apologize for being a disruptive force in those places. I think there is a lot more work to be done up to and including three question marks!<br /> :::::::[[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 01:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Who are we discussing about again is it Rachel helps or her students Or all, <br /> ::::::::Because this is a big mess [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 03:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::I don't take issue with deleting that ''Wall Street Journal'' reference on the Ross McKitrick article. I'm sorry that I wasn't paying enough attention to delete it myself; my attention was taken up by belatedly implementing the results of a talk page discussion. What I take issue with are the looming and a tone that others [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=1214739500&amp;oldid=1214681976 others have] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214576198 talked] to JPS about (the two linked diffs are written by someone who agrees with JPS on content, about a different article JPS was participating in). I take issue with someone who says he {{tq|will not apologize for being a disruptive force}} instead of wanting to be a constructive force. I can accept we disagree about the utility of literary criticism as a secondary source about texts (although I find [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmmonihah&amp;diff=1213917154&amp;oldid=1213917026 the {{tq|lunatic charlatan}} invocation a perplexing characterization, especially as apparently applied to even completely secular scholarship]), and I can accept we disagree about what makes good content in an Ammonihah article or what have you. I can accept being wrong about that, and I can accept those articles significantly changing. What I don't think I'm obliged to accept is an apparent priding of oneself on contributing [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptively]] rather than constructively, or behavior like going {{tq|LOL}} (actual quotation, multiple times) at other editors' [[WP:AGF|good faith]] interactions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmmonihah&amp;diff=1213909195&amp;oldid=1213909094 at Talk:Ammonihah], at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215406823 Talk:Massacre of the Innocents]). The presumption of good faith is a core value on Wikipedia of course—and so is the recognition that [[WP:BRIE|being right isn't enough]]. A templated dove doesn't oblige me to roll over and just take the {{tq|LOL}}s and {{tq|Whachagonnado}}s and pretend like that's restrained, polite talking. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 05:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please feel free to disagree strenuously with me, as you have been. You can even request that I reword things, if you like. I'm not saying I necessarily will agree to reword things, but I'm happy to discuss these matters on my talkpage. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::I didn't realize the WSJ's issue with climate change (though I am aware of [[WP:RSOPINION]]). Either way, thanks for answering my question about climate change. <br /> ::::::::On second thought, I think the {{tq|???}}, while not perfect, isn't worth relitigating this whole debate. I welcome a close and don't need any further answers to my questions. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thats an opinion piece... And the [[Editorial board at The Wall Street Journal]] is definitely known for bad takes on climate change. Note that [Hydrangeans] has a history of following around other editors (including to completely unrelated topics) and &quot;looming&quot; over their shoulder so their complaints are a bit much all things considered. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::My own feeling, like I said above, is that this sort of paid editing (paid editing that doesn't follow [[WP:PAID]] and [[WP:COI]], and a WIR program that doesn't follow the guidelines for those organization) is a hard red line. I'm not remotely convinced that the people in question knew more about the topic area or were in whatever respect more policy-compliant compared to the average editor, but either way it ''doesn't matter'', for the reasons I outlined above - this is an actually serious problem which, as a precedent, would have implications far beyond this specific dispute. I'm also deeply unimpressed by an argument that we should make a special exception for someone just because some people feel [[WP:YANI|they are irreplaceable]] - that is not how Wikipedia works or has ever worked. Based on that I'm unwilling to accept anything but broad topic-bans, and I expect this to go to ArbCom if necessary in order to get them - this has been discussed repeatedly, devouring massive amounts of editor time and energy, for ''four years''. If it isn't ended in an extremely conclusive manner here, then the community has failed to resolve it and a broader ArbCom case is the only way to go. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 03:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I think your third group is just the first group from its own POV. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It would probably help if a request for closing was not immediately followed by relitigation of the above debate and related events from the parties who are most unlikely to change their minds. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Hi, I'm not sure where to respond or if it's appropriate to respond. I'm open to helping to &quot;fix&quot; edits that me and my students have made if we can agree on what is appropriate for Wikipedia (including removing research). I'm open to a topic-ban. I'm open to a topic ban on just Book of Mormon pages (and BYU stuff?), since that seems to be the place where most of our edits have been criticized. I think our edits have been constructive in Mormon studies and Mormon history topics. I'm trying to be flexible here. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 18:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :That's great to hear, and will probably inform any closer's decision. But listen: since you're the one who's getting paid to edit Wikipedia, you should be the one proposing specific fixes and to-do items for yourself based on the extensive feedback you've already received over the past several years (from many unpaid, volunteer editors who could have been doing other things instead, I should add). In specific content terms, what are some of the specific edits you're planning to &quot;fix&quot;? What articles, what sections, what changes to your prior edits, specifically? Even just a few will help convey a sense of what you think is wrong with your prior edits, and how you will correct them. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::There are a lot of complaints about me personally, my job, and my edits here. One of the ones that I think is the most legitimate is the argument that we are using too much &quot;in-universe&quot; explanation for the books of the Book of Mormon. I think we could add more context to clarify on individual pages what a book of the Book of Mormon is. I'm watching the edits on BoM pages. It's difficult for me to look past [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=1214181462&amp;oldid=1213564636 jps's inflammatory language] asking for clarification on issues where I or other people used ambiguous language to summarize theology that was ambiguous in the text that we summarized (but at least he is articulating his complaints to the extent of making edits). My plan is to watch how other editors resolve these edits to try to figure out what is the most objectionable part about our edits. Was it how we wrote the narrative sections? Is there a better way to introduce analysis of the Book of Mormon by members who are also Biblical or literary scholars, if that is appropriate to include on Wikipedia? Those are the kinds of questions I am looking for answers to. My current plan is to give myself and my students a break from editing Book of Mormon pages for the rest of the semester (here that's until the end of April), which I hope will give time for some consensus to develop and for one or two pages to get to a standard that is acceptable to the community, which I could then imitate. If my team returned to editing Book of Mormon pages, it would be either me, or me and one other student, to make the pace of editing slower to wait for review from other editors. And it would be great if I could find an on-wiki mentor who is not associated with BYU or the LDS Church to go to with my editing questions. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 21:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I suspect this is one of those ANI discussions where each participant leaves with a lower opinion of every other participant, but for different reasons. That said, probably the best content-related argument against the topic ban (e.g. from Vanamonde) is that you are the editor who is most capable of fixing some of the content problems that have been identified in the topic affected by the ban. If that were true, then topic banning you would impede the process of fixing the content, making things worse overall. But from what you've said here for the first time (I think), it seems like your actual plan is to wait for other editors to (figure out how to) fix content in that topic area anyway. Not you, not now. Given this new information you've provided, that &quot;best content-related argument against&quot;, aka &quot;per Vanamonde&quot;, becomes much less persuasive, I think. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 04:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Rachel Helps (BYU)}} I have to agree with {{U|Indignant Flamingo}} above. I opposed a TBAN because I believe you're among the few editors with the time ''and'' the inclination ''and'' the ability to help clean up some of the problems with articles related to Mormonism that you and your students have worked on, which in my view largely have to do with using sources too close to their subject and language that doesn't distinguish articles of faith from accepted fact. I opposed a TBAN despite the serious concerns many colleagues raised above, because I felt you would be willing to help rectify these issues. If you would rather take a break from the topic, though, I struggle to see why I, and others, should advocate for your continued ability to edit about it. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 20:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::: {{ping|Vanamonde93}} and {{ping|Indignant Flamingo}}: Thank you for these question. I have been thinking a lot about what I have done wrong. It has been difficult for me to sift through feedback on my editing (and I have felt paralyzed by my own anxiety), but this conversation has helped me to narrow down what is important, and empowered me to have an opinion on how I think we could repair some of our work. With the Book of Mormon pages specifically, I think I got into too much of a binary mode about whether or not a source was &quot;reliable.&quot; But for scholarship in Book of Mormon studies, especially from the 1990s or 2000s, sometimes it is more complicated than &quot;this is a reliable source.&quot; Something I understood implicitly was that I shouldn't use Wikipedia's voice to summarize opinions about the Book of Mormon as a historical or archeological source--at the very least these should be consolidated into a section on apologetics, or, like you and others have suggested, excluded entirely. However, my students did not understand this implicitly like I did. They were doing what I told them--to summarize what a given source said about a topic and cite it in-line--when I should have instructed them to look more carefully at the implicit bias in scholarship, especially sources like Brant Gardner, which have some valuable analysis, but also work off of the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text. If we were to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, cleanup of archeological/historical arguments on pages we have edited would be my first priority. However, my students have experienced emotional damage from my incompetence. I would let them choose whether or not to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, with an option to continue their projects that are less connected with Mormons and the LDS Church. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Indignant Flamingo asked for an example. [[Laban (Book of Mormon)]] contains a paragraph about the brass plates under &quot;Interpretations&quot;. It is tricky because it mixes apologetic arguments with literary ones. I would remove this analysis, or introduce it differently: &quot;Brant Gardner, writing under the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text, has argued that the brass plates were a symbol of political authority and recordkeeping in the society of Book of Mormon people (Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites).&quot; I would remove the Stephen Ricks info. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Rachel, I'm so sorry this is making you feel so much anxiety. FWIW, I do not believe you have edited in bad faith, and I doubt I'm alone. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I’m not very happy about this either and in my opinion this should be spun off from the AML issues with Nihonjoe and Thmazing unless and until the inquisitorially minded editors find clearer linkages.<br /> ::::::I’m not sure how this would best be handled, but I would be very wary of any permanent remedies being applied at this point and will slightly adjust my vote accordingly.<br /> ::::::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::A clearer link than the three of them all being current/former board members of AML? What clearer link can there be than all three of their names appearing on the AML about us page? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Well, why don’t you just ask her? She’s been very cooperative so far. And anyway, while the same person wearing two hats is obviously going to rub off both ways, sanctioning Rachel Helps (BYU) would include the whole BYU outfit, and I don’t believe the standard of evidence has yet been met to say that the BYU outfit has demonstrably colluded with Nihonjoe or Thmazing. If such a thing happened, it’ll probably come out over at ArbCom.<br /> ::::::::The reason I’m now flip-flopping uncertainly is that I perceive jps as dragging their apparently long history of content disputes into this venue, and, along with others, making statements that could be reasonably interpreted as implying support of non-neutral handling of religion more generally, while HEB is making unsubstantiated allegations that faintly ooze a touch of Chekism.<br /> ::::::::Meanwhile, Fram and some others have notably tapered off, most likely because they intuit that some more wheels are turning at ArbCom and/or elsewhere and further participation in the mud bath party here is worse than useless for anyone who wants to doggedly pursue the actual application of remedies.<br /> ::::::::ANI is probably no longer an appropriate venue and pretty soon I think I’m gonna go make a formal closure request. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::There are already requests at [[WP:ANRFC]] and [[WP:AN]]. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 19:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Why don't I just ask her what? I don't have any questions. There is, in fact, evidence that Rachel Helps (BYU) &quot;demonstrably colluded&quot; with Nihonjoe and Thmazing, and others. Some of the evidence has been redacted so I can't discuss it, but there's plenty of public evidence still on this page, VPM and the arbcom evidence page -- the evidence my support votes are based on. Look, bottom line: COI concerns have been raised for years about Rachel Helps (BYU). The people who pushed back the hardest against those COI concerns fall into three groups: BYU people, AML people, WiR people. I don't know if you're aware but arbcom already considered expanding the scope of its Nihonjoe case to include Rachel Helps/BYU/AML and voted against doing so. I think ANI is still the appropriate venue for this. This will be closed eventually, it might take some time as it's a long thread, and probably the best thing we can all do, including myself, is to stop making it longer, unless we're bringing evidence of something new. Otherwise, all the evidence and the votes seem to be in. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::@[[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]]; thank you, that is somewhat reassuring. I think you should seriously consider, though, keeping your students off of topics closely intertwined with Mormonism for the foreseeable future, assuming the lot of them do not emerge from this situation with TBANs. It's quite evident from this discussion that there have been problems with the mormonism-related content they have produced. I could speculate as to why, but I won't; I'll just say that dispassionately describing faith and belief in any system is difficult, and is not the sort of task an undergraduate may be up to. I say this to save you and your students further distress, as well as to protect our content. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 21:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have not looked at your Mormon studies/history related edits in any more detail than what was required for the post at VPM and at the start of this section. I have no doubt that many, perhaps even the majority, of you and your students edits on those topics were constructive. But that is to not see the wood for the trees.<br /> :For me, COI editing is comparable to (in some ways) to [[WP:SPI|sockpuppet editing]]—let me explain. It is a question of trust. Yes, a sockpuppet can contribute productively, in improving articles, taking part in processes, getting Wikipedia to function. But it is Wikipedia policy to block all sockpuppets on sight and to put all their edits up for [[WP:BANREVERT|immediate reversion]]. Why? Because once you mislead others to that extent, the trust is gone. And that the trust, or lack of, is fundamental, because good conduct is of equal importance to good content (and I say this as someone who focuses on the latter and occasionally fails at the former).<br /> :It is the same for COI editing. After I have seen your lack of disclosures with, e.g. the account named BoyNamedTzu &lt;small&gt;(I do not know what is public and what is not, but I know that you and I and Primefac and BoyNamedTzu and most of the people in this thread and everyone on The Site That Must Not Be Named know)&lt;/small&gt; how can there be trust? Especially for a person who has held a position which by rights should indicate you are above suspicion. To find that you were actively pushing back against the basic COI suggestions as far back as 2018, and you might as well throw that trust into a shoddily-built submersible and send it down to the wreck of the Titanic.<br /> :The closer may decide that there are significant issues with your Book of Mormon editing, and that's more important. If that's the close, fair enough, I don't really mind—I know you have asked above and on WPO how to improve that aspect. But I want to be clear: I opened this section because I did not think [[WP:CIVILITY|you treated your fellow editors with adequate respect and consideration]], not because I felt you were harming articles. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 02:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{Reply|AirshipJungleman29}} earlier than that, 2016 at least [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amgisseman(BYU)/Archive_1&amp;oldid=854327236#COI]. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Inappropriate removal of NPOV tag by JayBeeEll ==<br /> <br /> {{ping|S Marshall}} closed a controversial RFC today at [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], see [[Talk:Tim Hunt#RfC: 2015 remarks]]. Whilst acknowledging there appeared to be a consensus, he reminded editors that consensus can't over-rule [[:meta:Founding principles|founding principles]], the [[WP:5P2|second pillar]], and [[WP:NPOV|core content policy]] and quoting the amplification on his talk page these ''cannot be overruled by any talk page consensus however strong''. He later emphasised this on his own talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213538308&amp;oldid=1213534477] in response to a query [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213522530&amp;oldid=1213355874].<br /> <br /> Judging by that query, it appears that the key point in the closure was being ignored; namely [[WP:PROPORTION]]. Shortly thereafter, and before any reply, an edit was made to [[Tim Hunt]] which appeared to ignore the closure[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213521275&amp;oldid=1208829572]. Noting the history of edit warring at the article, I chose to add a &lt;nowiki&gt;{{npov}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; tag and start a talk page discussion. I felt that any revert of a bold edit would result in an edit war and had no intention to revert war.<br /> <br /> My tag was removed by JayBeeEll [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213538744&amp;oldid=1213533989] with the edit summary &quot;Don't be silly&quot;, I restored the tag and it was once again removed by JayBeeEll [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213539288] with the edit summary &quot;Yes sure let's see how this turns out&quot;, which appears to be an intention to revert war. The comment in the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213539531&amp;oldid=1213535026] in response to my concerns and the unnecessary 3RR warning on my talk page appears to confirm [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWee_Curry_Monster&amp;diff=1213539690&amp;oldid=1212590941] that.<br /> <br /> On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies. As such I would suggest that the tag should remain until the closure is fully addressed. On a side note, I remain concerned about the toxic nature of any discussion in that talk page presently. Reluctantly bringing it here for further review. Please note I will not be available for a couple of days due to personal commitments. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 17:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The behavior displayed by WCM is very similar to the behavior that led to [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Tendentious_editing_by_Thomas_Basboll|this]] only one month ago; it is disappointing that he has not been able to accommodate himself to the fact that his view is a minority, both relative to WP editors and to the views represented in reliable sources. At least he stopped after a single round of edit-warring about the ridiculous tagging. As with Thomas B, my hope is that this can be settled by a change of behavior, without the need for any sanctions. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::I've no wish to comment on this ridiculous tag edit war, and I'd prefer to limit my involvement with the page to closing that one RfC, but I do want to say tempers are extremely frayed in this topic area and there's definitely scope for an uninvolved sysop to step in and restore order. Please.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 18:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::It would be a ridiculous edit war, were it not for the fact I refused to edit war over this. The fact remains that removing the tags in the way JayBeeEll did is counter to accepted policy. I would acknowledge {{ping|S Marshall}}'s comment that this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. I have been asking for that for weeks, the reference to the removal of Thomas Basboll, is exactly the point I wish to make. If editors are convinced they're right and there are enough of them make a fuss, they can remove what they see as an obstruction by lobbying loudly here. The edit war that editor attempted to start, and its clear that was his intention, was a repeat of the same tactics used previously. I have made no attempt to filibuster I simply tried to bring external opinion but that's pretty unlikely given the toxic nature of editing at present. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::The editing situation got much less toxic when you stopped participating for a few days; maybe you should try that again? Certainly it would be good for an uninvolved admin to tell you the same thing everyone else on this thread has said. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Point to anything I've said that contributes to a toxic atmosphere. As for comments contributing to a toxic atmosphere[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213538744&amp;oldid=1213533989] {{tq|&quot;Don't be silly}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213539288] {{tq|&quot;Yes sure let's see how this turns out&quot;}} whilst edit warring to remove tags that encourage outside input. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{tq|On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies.}}<br /> :That's an extremely uncharitable reading of the closure, apparently because you just don't like the results. The close was finding that the RfC consensus narrowly found for inclusion, with a warning to follow guiding principles of the Wiki while doing so. ''That's it''. The rest of it is you projecting onto the closure and making vague, hand-wavy assertions that the close is against policy.<br /> :Since you won't be available for a couple days anyway, I suggest you wait and see what proposed edits come from the RfC before making any further comments. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I at no point said the close was against policy, I actually think given the toxic atmosphere he was entering {{ping|S Marshall}} made a very good closure of that malformed RFC. The reminder that local consensus can't trump core policy seems to have fallen on deaf ears it seems. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[[WP:CON]] has by definition got to be aligned with the [[WP:PAG]]s since it embodies &quot;a process of compromise &lt;u&gt;while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines&lt;/u&gt;&quot;. So if @[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]]'s close is &quot;very good&quot;, it follows it must have correctly divined consensus, which you now need to accept. If however, you think the close has arrived at a problematic [[WP:LOCALCON]] you need to initiate a close review. Shit or get off the pot. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 11:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Precisely this. WCM, you can't have it both ways: you can't claim the close &quot;trumps core policy&quot;, while acknowledging it was a good close. The close in fact emphasizes that any proposed changes have to adhere to core policy. It seems you're claiming that the finding of inclusion ''inherently'' violates policy, so which is it? — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::At no point did I say the close trumps policy, that's your strawman. The closer clearly refers to core policies and makes it plain that they can't be overridden by a local consensus. He also singled out that I and others couldn't be ignored because we were making {{tq|well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy}} further adding {{tq|While editors are implementing option 1 and option 2A, they should have regard to core content policy, and specifically [[WP:PROPORTION]]}}. It's clear from this comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213522530&amp;oldid=1213355874] there is no intention to implement the full intention of the close {{tq|The view of myself, and I assume a lot of participants, is that [[WP:PROPORTION]] isn't terribly relevant}}. There is [[WP:TAG]] team of editors are acting in concert and per {{ping|S Marshall}}'s comment this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 17:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::''sigh'' I tried, but if you're intent on digging a [[First law of holes|hole]], I can't stop you. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :If you aren't available for the next couple of days, why the hell are you opening an ANI thread? &quot;Reluctantly bringing it here&quot; yeah right. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * WCM's editing regarding the Tim Hunt article has been as tendentious as Basboll's in staunchly refusing to [[Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_&quot;get_the_point&quot;|get the point]] regarding the fact that their viewpoint is a minority and continuing to [[WP:DEADHORSE|beat a dead horse]] and engage in [[WP:WIKILAWYERING]] in an attempt to fillibuster discussions regarding the issue, rather than just moving on. I would '''support a topic or page ban''' from Tim Hunt if WCM does not desist with his aggressive rejection of the talkpage consensus. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Given that WCM has continued his disruption regarding the article, I firmly support a topic ban now. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I haven't done any editing that would remotely be described as disruptive. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1215468029&amp;oldid=1215465703] Any editing I do is immediately reverted, this was clearly constructive. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 12:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Absolutely astonishing. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''support topic ban''' due the editor's apparent unwillingness to drop the stick and refusal to get the point of the RfC. I commented at the ANI thread where Thomas B was topic banned. Given the RfC I moved on and have not touched the article or the RfC. The level of name-calling on display at that article over an ancient ten-day kerfuffle in the bro-sphere easily matched the most acrimonious mutual accusations of genocide I have witnessed on Wikipedia. EE squared. I had never heard of Tim Hunt. He seems nice? But if the episode in question is included in the article -- and there seems no question that RS has covered it in immense detail - then the article should dispassionately state that Tim Hunt said what he said. This editor's contention that it should not (because the poor man nearly committed suicide over this) utterly lacks a grounding in policy, and no evidence was ever presented of this assertion either. It betrays an emotional investment in this incident that baffles me, frankly. I would hesitate to participate on the talk page due to this editor's past level of vitriol, and the time sink it again likely would become. I am not following this thread. If anyone has questions about what I just said, please ping me. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 12:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204016425] {{tq|I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood. Most do.}} in your on words your motives are to expose another misogynist. I am quite astounded that you'd openly mock someone driven near to suicide. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I check back at this article after taking a break from it and find the RfC has been closed, consensus established and the article fixed accordingly. Great: the journey is over, the plane has landed, and the engines are turned off .... But oddly the whining sound continues as there's one editor who [[WP:IDHT|seemingly can't move on]]. If this continues sanctions may be appropriate. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 08:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Note that the other problem editor in this mix, who was page banned from [[Tim Hunt]], has now started beating the dead horse at BLPN.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214799114] [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 07:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215140427 reported] this straight to the ban-implementing administrator this time, as this is an obvious attempt at [[WP:GAMING]], [[WP:STICK]], [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. I will remember to prefer broader topic bans next time. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Given lack of response I guess this was the wrong venue. I won't be trying to get Thomas B sanctioned for this in particular any further, but should we post some sort of final warning to [[User talk:Thomas B]]? [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:... and today [[User:Thomas B]] still continues to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215520494 post] about Tim Hunt on BLPN. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomas_B&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214802498 This] earlier comment &quot;{{tq|I won't be participating '''too actively'''}}&quot; (bolding mine) indicates that the user is going to continue to disrupt. So we have to upgrade Thomas B's page ban to a topic ban ''at a minimum''. But given this user's stubborn, prolonged refusal to cease disruption, an additional block from the whole Wikipedia for a few months is needed as a deterrent, in my view. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 18:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::And now the BLPN discussion forum-shopped by Thomas B resulted in yet another editor getting [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NewImpartial - BLP discussion touching GENSEX|dragged to ANI]]. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 13:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I've started a new ANI thread to expand Thomas B's sanctions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Thomas_B_forum-shopping,_circumventing_page_ban,_refusing_to_drop_the_stick]. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban, [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] and other issues. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 11:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' - Does this topic fall under GenSex? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:The overall Tim Hunt article wouldn't but the section on the controversy would fall under a GENSEX topic ban, as they are &quot;broadly construed&quot;. (So would this thread, I believe.) [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban''' for Wee Curry Monster. WCM had numerous opportunities to change course. All this has been sinking our time for over a month already. Since the editor is not willing to drop the stick, a sufficiently broad sanction is the only remaining solution. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban'''. Please somebody make it stop. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban''' per the really excruciating refusal to drop the stick or adjust behavior in any way. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' Pretty shameful episode for WP and ANI. [[WP:CIR]], and the lack of such competence is what created this mess. It's very clear that some editors pushed content, got an editor banned from the article, and opined in the RfC without first bothering to read the sources. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 18:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{ping|fiveby}} Your latest contribution on the talk-page is a bit cryptic, and invoking CIR here is bizarre, but I'm quite sure that if you were to participate in the constructive content discussions (i.e., the ones that don't involve WCM or Thomas B) the result would be positive. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I try and limit my participation to finding and providing sources for other editors, how is it constructive and why would i participate when the remaining editors, those who survived ANI, are those which have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to read those sources? I'll try and explain my 'cryptic' comment on the talk page. It was just a suggestion to WCM that what he is doing might be futile. You cannot force editors to read sources. An editor familiar with the reading may have reverted that content, but would never have called it &quot;disingenuous&quot; in the edit summary. As far as [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-kokomo-tribune-but-i-cant-fix-stup/34981880/ &quot;can't fix stupid&quot;] goes, tho it is couched in terms of the content generated by conflict rather than collaboration, did not my choice to use that particular phrase make my opinion clear enough? [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::There is a reason that WCM's edits to the article get reverted but your edits a couple weeks ago did not, and it's not about the unwillingness of people to read sources. I mean obviously if you change your mind but decide that what you have to add is a bunch of comments about other editors not reading the sources then I don't think that will go great. But ''almost'' everyone who has contributed in the discussions on the talk-page has shown a willingness to listen to others as part of developing a consensus. Anyhow, don't mind me, do what you want! --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban'''. This is just blatant [[WP:STICK]] and [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. The consensus in the RFC was clear. The consensus on talk about how to implement the RFC is reasonably clear. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1213533575&amp;oldid=1213481488&amp;title=Talk:Tim_Hunt comments] after the RFC were full of aspersions and battlefield behavior, ending with {{tq|Feel free to disabuse me of the presumption that having &quot;won&quot; and righted a great wrong to expose the terribly sexist misognynist that you don't intend to do that.}} --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban'''. WCM has been popping up at literally anywhere on Wikipedia this is being discussed to re-litigate a view of the RFC that literally nobody else holds. The RFC close even mentions him showing up at the close request I made to pressure whoever was going to close it. Even after the close he's totally failed to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], and thus unfortunately we've got to force the issue with a topic ban. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Comment ===<br /> <br /> [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Wee+Curry+Monster&amp;page=Tim_Hunt&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max=] My contribution history on [[Tim Hunt]]. 100% of it reverted. 0.7% of all contributions on the article.<br /> <br /> Note 2 tags added 13 March 2024. 25 March 2024 - series of edits adding context and information in [[WP:RS]] per [[WP:NPOV]].<br /> <br /> That is all of my contributions.<br /> <br /> [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Wee+Curry+Monster&amp;page=Talk%3ATim_Hunt&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max=] My contribution history on [[Talk:Tim Hunt]].<br /> <br /> Note:<br /> 13 March 2024 - comment on NPOV tags, 17 March 2024 - Further comment, 25 March 2024 - Comment on revert of my contribution.<br /> <br /> In the last month, I've made 3 comments in talk, 2 contributions to the article in total. Hardly the actions of someone who can't drop the stick.<br /> <br /> I note editors have simply alleged misconduct, largely unsupported by diffs. Addressing the talk quote taken out of context by Aquillion. This is a response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213522530&amp;oldid=1213355874], where the editors responsible for the RFC indicate they do not feel the need to respond to the closer's comments. Reference to misoginy is not mine but for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204016425] {{tq|he's just another misogynist}}.<br /> <br /> I am mentioned in the close simply because as noted {{tq|Wee Curry Monster at WP:CR, and others here, have put forth some well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy.}} I have not as claimed disputed the RFC, feel free to add a diff showing where I did but my exact comment was {{tq|a very good closure of that malformed RFC}}. I have commented, because as noted by the closer, I have raised relevant objections to what is proposed. Reference to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] isn't relevant here but [[WP:IDONTHEARTHAT]] certainly is.<br /> <br /> [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]? I haven't raised the topic in any forums. Check my contribution history. This is the one and only time I've gone to a board, in response to an attempt to bait me into an edit war so the connection to the article is tangential. My comments at [[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37#Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks]] were simply to alert any closer to what they were walking into. <br /> <br /> A number of editors have commented that the text isn't neutral and doesn't reflect what neutral sources say on the topic. This is a violation of our [[WP:BLP]] policy. I did in fact seek advice on this from {{U|Drmies}} at [[User talk:Drmies/Archive 147#Question on BLP]]. Which appears to confirm my concerns were well founded.<br /> <br /> Fiveby appears to have given up on commenting because he recognises its futile and I agree its futile. So having raised the issue, I think its time for me to simply walk away. I'm taking this off my watch list, mainly for the good of my own mental health and taking a wikibreak. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:AndyFielding]] - failure to address community concerns ==<br /> <br /> Longterm disruptive removals of birth place/date from Early life sections (examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._J._Novak&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1152634988 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna_Paquin&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1160004138 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_Poulter&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1164808003 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rainn_Wilson&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1199183562 4]). User never responds to talk page warnings (or any talk page comments at all) --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 15:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :This editor began editing in 2007, has made ~17k edits, the vast majority of which are almost certainly good, and has never been blocked. Since the start of his editing he has been using talk pages and has around 1300 edits in talk spaces. On [[Special:Diff/833988692|3 April 2018]] he wrote on his user page: {{tqq|If you disagree with any of my changes, or have questions about them, please don't hesitate to contact me}}.{{pb}}Very disappointingly, on [[Special:Diff/967772956|15 July 2020]], he changed this to {{tqq|I'm afraid I don't have time to engage in debates about my changes. If you disagree with some, undo them if you must— ...}} Since then, he has not stopped being communicative, and has, for example, made more edits to talk pages in 2022 then in all of the previous years combined.{{pb}}So this editor definitely talks in general, but consciously refuses to engage when editors inform him that some of his edits are wrong. Which is not collaborative. AndyFielding should commit to engage in consensus building, and that he understands that receiving feedback from other editors and participating in ocassional disputes does not have to be a &quot;debate&quot; every time. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :See also this announcement on the editor's talk page: {{Talk quote block|text={{fake heading|sub=3|Attention to reversals, feedback, etc.}}I'm sorry I don't have more time to attend to this page. If you feel compelled to undo any of my edits, it's your prerogative—although for the most part, only factual oversights should need correction, as my primary focus is on simpler language. (In reference works, “less is more”.){{br}}As a career writer and copy editor, I'm reasonably confident my contributions benefit WP's readers. Thus I'll continue to follow founder Jimmy Wales's injunction to [[Wikipedia:Be_bold|be bold]]. As he said: “If you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough.”{{br}}Cheers, A.|by=AndyFielding|ts=01:50, 9 January 2019|oldid=877500650}}—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> The core issue here seems to be a content issue. Have they been reverting at all to enforce their preferred version? A quick look at the diffs above shows several constructive changes mixed in with the clearly controversial birth date removals, which they're saying is based on redundancy grounds. Is he just doing step one of [[WP:BRD]], and then simply conceding any subsequent discussion? They do have several edits to article talk pages recently, but at first glance nearly all of those appear to be [[WP:FORUM]] discussions rather than anything editing related. So clearly they have time to be engaging in consensus building and simply choose not to, which ain't great even if it's unclear whether that's actually disrupting anything. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 18:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :On 29 November &lt;big&gt;''2022''&lt;/big&gt;, [[User:FMSky|FMSky]] writes the following to [[User:AndyFielding|AndyFielding]] ([[special:diff/1124561606|diff]], emphasis added):<br /> <br /> ::{{Talk quote block|text=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reese_Witherspoon&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1109721746&lt;br&gt;stop making these kinds of '''idiotic''' edits. the point of having the full name/birth date there is that you can put a source behind it --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 09:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)}} <br /> <br /> :Prior to that, FMSky's added an inappropriate {{tl|uw-vandalism2}} warning issued on 3 October 2022, with an added {{tq|''STOP REMOVING BIRTH NAMES/BIRTH DATES okay??''}} ([[special:diff/1113796103|diff]]), but I now see that it all started on Sept 24, with an identical message as the Nov one, except supplant ''idiotic'' with &quot;nonsensical&quot; and a different url cited ([[special:diff/1112035011|diff]]). And now, here we are: March 2024.<br /> <br /> :What I don't understand, so maybe FMSky can explain this, is the problem with removing the full birth date and names from the body when that info is already mentioned in the lead (AndyFielding's 'redundancy,' 'simplicity,' etc.)? What makes these {{tq|''disruptive removals''}}? Because a reference could be added to a lead, especially as a single footnote as opposed to a normal ref (i.e. so as to prevent the littering the lead with refs). But as much as I disapprove of how FMSky conducted themselves here, AndyFielding stonewalling the issue and continuing to do so for additional pages, even if not reverting anything, might not be ideal. But how intensive and extensive is it? Who knows. And it's not like there's a rule, for or against, such removals. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 08:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Maybe read what other users have posted on his talk page instead of analysing a post by me made 2 years ago. The better question is why do you think its fine to have a sentence that reads &quot;{{tq|Poulter was born{{Dummy reference}}{{Dummy reference|2}}{{Dummy reference|3}}{{Dummy reference|4}}}}&quot;. Also tagging {{ping|Soetermans}} who also left a number of talk page messages on the user's page [[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 11:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[[User:FMSky|FMSky]], I will analyze and review what I see fit and in the manner and pace I see fit. And I find your own misconduct is pertinent. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Ok, thanks for feedback on my behaviour 2 years. Now, whats actually relevant: Why do you think its fine to have a sentence that reads &quot;{{tq|Poulter was born{{Dummy reference}}{{Dummy reference|2}}{{Dummy reference|3}}{{Dummy reference|4}}}}&quot; and what do you think about the comments by other users on his page? --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 11:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::[[User:FMSky|FMSky]], I have no opinion on that, but you need to take it down a notch, or I will block you from this noticeboard. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Yes my bad, I wont post in this thread any further. I feel uncomfortable being on this page anyway (that was originally the reason why I didnt made a report earlier) --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 12:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::That might be best for now. Your reports generally tend to be subpar (lacking context and depth), I'm sorry to say. And same for the history of your interactions with the user whom you've reported. Certainly room for improvement. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Hi {{u|El_C}}, perhaps other people disagree about repeating a date of birth and that's fine. This is a collaborative effort and we try to find a consensus. But as I read [[WP:LEAD]], it is the summation of the article. Any information there should be in the article as well. We try to keep references out of the lead too ([[WP:REFLEAD]]). So it makes perfect sense to mention a date of birth in the lead ''and'' mention it in an early life section, if there is one. AndyFielding has been asked repeatedly to stop and hasn't communicated a bit about the issue. But after so many talk page messages and formal warnings, you can't feign ignorance and leave edit summaries like:<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniella_Pineda&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212952166 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity, WP style (surname except to avoid ambiguity), omitting redundant detail (birth date in lede)&quot;]<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Tucci&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212892529 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity (birth date in lede)]<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lily_Collins&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213830000 &quot;I don't know what it is about celebrity articles that induces so many WP writers to redundantly repeat these details from the lede. Fan overenthusiasm, I'm guessing. (Also, &quot;redundantly repeat&quot; is probably itself redundant—so let's face it, you can't win.) Anyone with reference experience would agree, though: It's sloppy. I just wish we didn't have to fix it one article at a time. 🤷‍♂️&quot;] from three days ago. Fan enthusiasm, really?<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Gosling&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213827719 &quot;I don't know why people do this so often in celebrity bios, but it's redundant and, frankly, seems like fawning. 🤷‍♂️&quot;], from two days ago. First fan enthusiasm, now it's 'fawning' to mention a date of birth?<br /> :So in my eyes, AndyFielding isn't just not aware of consensus, but willfully ignores it, with subtle jabs in their edit summaries. No replies on talk pages, but still going on little rants? That, combined with not communicating, sounds like disruptive behaviour to me. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I don't consider all aspects of the MOS to be mandatory, including this, but from your evidence, it does increasingly appear as a [[WP:POINT]] exercize. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Bit off topic, I was checking their edits if they've done the same. They recently made some smart-assed comments on talk pages. To an honest question, asked nearly seven years ago, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lock_%27n%27_Chase&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214144966 they responded] with &quot;Yes, tricky isn't it? Personally, I won't post videogame records unless they've been verified by space aliens.&quot; Kinda uncivil, unnecessary regardless. In a 10 year old discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Germanic_Reich&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214145396 they replied] &quot;Gee! I'll have some of whatever you were having&quot;, an inappropriate response.<br /> :::The last reply ''on their own talk page'' was in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyFielding&amp;diff=927091593&amp;oldid=927091413 November 2019]. They won't to communicate there or here - but years old discussions not a problem? [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 21:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Hi {{u|El_C}}, did you see my previous message? To be clear, those were after FMSky's note on their talk page. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Understood, {{u|Soetermans}}. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 07:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Another inappropriate edit summary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek:_Enterprise&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214614065 &quot; reckon this is what the writer meant, as &quot;conservatively modest&quot; would mean he was bashful about wearing more individualistic clothing. (By sheer coincidence, many conservatives are morons too, but that's beyond the scope of this comment.)&quot;] [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 20:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benedict_Wong&amp;diff=1214808189&amp;oldid=1214808155 More of the same]. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Take some sort of action'''. Maybe FMSky could have been more polite, but they're 100% correct on the merits. The lede is meant to be a summary of the body, so repetition between the lede and the body is ''expected'' and ''valid''. A check of some random diffs leaves me unimpressed with AndyFielding's copyediting - they appear to be, at best, enforcing a style preference on text that should honor the main contributor's style preference, and at worst making actively bad changes and being a net negative. There have been studies on this: readers do not read articles like they're novels and carefully remember every bit of information from before, but rather bounce around from section to section. So for an example other than removing birth dates from the body, despite his edit summary saying that &quot;most [readers] aren't amnesiacs—pronouns are fine&quot;, no, actually, using a last name again for clarity often makes a sentence read much simpler and work better as an excerpt, without requiring consulting earlier as to who exactly is being referred to. This could be resolved very simply by AndyFielding simply resolving and agreeing to not do things like this, but if he's going to refuse to engage or to communicate despite being reported at ANI five days ago, then a sanction is all we have. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Again: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zawe_Ashton&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214958054 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity, style, omitting redundant detail (in lede)]. I'd also like to point out that I've reverted those edits. {{u|AndyFielding}} can't feign missing notifications like this. It is disruptive. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 10:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Upgrade to ban'''. This is the dumbest and most avoidable reason for a ban, but AndyFielding seems to be of the opinion that talking with other editors is a trap or is too stressful or beneath his notice. Who knows. But simply 100% refusing to engage with legitimate concerns of other editors is not how this works. I placed a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndyFielding&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215004537 direct request] on his talk page to say something, anything, to acknowledge he is actually reading what other editors say. He's ignored it and continued to edit instead. To be sure, some of AndyFielding's copyediting seems fine, and it would be a shame to ban an editor over something so minor, but... come on. No complaint about instantly accepting any unblock request that simply promises to communicate, but communication is not optional on a collaborative project. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 16:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Block instead'''. A long-term, constant stream of bad edits mixed with a larger volume of good edits coming from an otherwise respected and trusted editor is more damaging than your daily vandal. AndyFielding's mission statement when he turned back on the idea of consensus (copied above) is against the philosophy of Wikipedia, and he has stayed on this non-collaborative track ever since. He must have understood what this would lead to and that this moment would come. It doesn't matter that most of his edits are fine when the bad edits will be repeated and there is nothing anyone can do about it but follow him around and detect and revert each one of them. And no one wants to do that and no one should be expected to do that. Alternatively, he could actually even keep not discussing as long as he remembers not to repeat the types of edits that are disputed, and for that he would at least need to read requests on his talk page not to repeat certain things and not repeat them—regardless if he thinks that the request is wrong. If he wants to prove that those particular edits are right, he would have to engage. It should be extremely easy for AndyFielding to be unblocked based on this. He can commit to respond to feedback on his talk page at least a little bit and commit not to do things that others ask him not to do without participating in dispute resolution. Therefore, an indefinite block is entirely preventative and is the only thing that can make this editor realign.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 20:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:no admin hasn’t taken any action yet [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 06:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Another odd edit summary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=District_Municipality_of_Muskoka&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215321136 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity (e.g., contrary to the apparent notion that WP readers are amnesiacs and must be continually reminded what the topic is—LOL)&quot;]. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::That's a fantastic edit with a fine edit summary. Fixing repetitive references to the subject, fixing &quot;located in&quot;, removing unprofessional wording like &quot;from generation to generation&quot;, and other needed copyediting is obviously something that this editor excels at. The problem are the bad edits, not the good edits like this one. The summary is humorous and sufficiently accurately describes the edit. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I find it odd and unnecessary to suggest &quot;contrary to the apparent notion that WP readers are amnesiacs&quot;, but maybe that's just me. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I wouldn't say it's just you. I'd say that's [[WP:UNCIVIL|uncivil]] language on AndyFielding's part. There's no need to {{tq|LOL}} at other editors' best efforts. Pointy word choice about language and style is especially troubling, since some editors are contributing with English proficiencies that are sufficient for encyclopedic language but may fall short of the high-level prose AndyFielding believes they're implementing. Improving on language isn't wrong, but [[WP:BRIE|being right isn't enough]] to justify talking down to other editors through snippy summaries and flatly ignoring collaborative feedback. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 08:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Harvey&amp;diff=1215459940&amp;oldid=1215099122 Behaviour continues]. Now the reference isn't used to source ''when'' Harvey was born, but ''that he was born''. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Someone who removes text so that the only thing left is &quot;XY was born&quot;, and does so in hundrets of articles, should be blocked per [[WP:CIR]] --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 08:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' something, whether a block or ban, or at least a formal sanction of some sort. SnowFire and Soetermans sum up well what's in the linked diffs, and the behavior continuing even with the ANI notice demonstrates how a block or ban would be preventative, as behavior will continue otherwise. Copyediting and editing for concision isn't irreplaceable. Articles will be legible in AndyFieldings's absence—and may well be more legible. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyFielding&amp;diff=1215004537&amp;oldid=1214027386 SnowFire's description of AndyFieldings's approach as constituting {{tq|code golf}} is apt]. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 08:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::And the beat [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mira_Murati&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215811451 goes on]. When is it enough to perform some kind of action? [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Could anyone do anything by any chance? 😃 --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 02:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have drafted a polite &quot;Final warning&quot; message for {{u|AndyFielding}} but I am wondering if tolerating an idiosyncratic editor might be worthwhile. The problem for me is that AndyFielding is producing good edits and it's possible that cleaning up after him might be the way to go. For example, [[Special:Diff/1215998066|this diff]] has a glitch presumably from the visual editor (search for &quot;&lt;code&gt;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&lt;/code&gt;&quot;). That glitch needs to be fixed. Would similarly cleaning up the pointy edits that remove the birth date from the article body be best for the encyclopedia? Any thoughts? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If an editor needs a minder stalking their contribution history forever, there's a problem. As I wrote above, this is the dumbest and most avoidable reason for a block ever - all AndyFielding has to do is literally just acknowledge the feedback and tone down the concision-above-all-else edits to a point that's a mere disagreement on style rather than clearly over the line. It could be done in seconds and by simply doing ''less'' work in his edits. But he isn't doing that no matter how much people have asked him to. There is a solution that doesn't involve a block and doesn't involve expecting other volunteers to clean up after him - it's just him communicating and discussing his edits, or at least just stopping the problematic behavior if he truly can't handle discussions. But if he isn't going to do that... [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 05:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Likewise, I am not proposing an indef block or a ban, but I would like to see this behaviour to stop. This discussion was started nearly two weeks ago. There have been talk page messages, direct mentions (for good measure, {{u|AndyFielding}}, please stop this and maybe reply?) and their removal of date births in early life sections have been reverted. AndyFielding has been notified repeatedly. [[WP:COMMUNICATION|Communication is required]]. Instead, they have a habit of commenting through edit summaries, like I've shown before and which continues still (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holiday_Hell&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215642671 &quot;Let's just assume from now on that, unless there's some obvious ambiguity, &quot;it&quot;, &quot;he&quot;, &quot;she&quot; or &quot;they&quot; refers by default to the article's subject. This will save us all a lot of trouble and save WP untold storage and bandwidth fees. Don't thank me.&quot;] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montegrossi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215817242 &quot;Imagine, we could use this concise format on all WP town articles. Imagine. I imagine many things like this&quot;]). Maybe it's a [[WP:CIR|competence]] issue or just a plain [[WP:IDHT|refusal to want to listen]]. Isn't a temporary edit block an option? They edit frequently, on a near daily basis. A block, say 48 hours or even a week, to prevent this disruptive editing and force them to change their attitude? If the block's over and they changed their ways there is still a competent editor, if they can continue a more drastic step can be taken. Thoughts? [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I admit I'm not very optimistic about how effective a 48-hour block will be—ignoring so much feedback over such a long period of time suggests entrenchment—but it does make sense to start with a temporary sanction and only escalate if really necessary. No need for the project to act on my lack of optimism when we could lead out with a generous attitude toward AndyFielding. All that to say, I '''support''' a temporary edit block as the step to take at this time. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 08:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Could try an escalating scheme. 31h, 72h, week, month, three months, six months, indef. with each block at least a week to a month apart (in spite of the undesirable edits reoccurring) to be able to see if the editing has changed. The [[WP:PREVENTATIVE]] grounds is that the shortest block should be tried first, then the second-shortest etc. instead of immediately indef, or 48h -&gt; indef. Instead of stalking his contributions and cleaning up after him, any editor could identify one (one is enough) undesirable edit of the type identified in this discussion, and ask any admin to implement the next block in the scheme, which that admin should do.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 09:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Please ban Fabrickator from interacting with me. ==<br /> <br /> [Edit: I have copyedited this post in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.] <br /> <br /> I'm not the only user that thinks Fabricator should be banned from interacting with me. In fact, I got the idea from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204671092 this] comment by Asparagusus on my talk page. <br /> <br /> Also, Graham Beards implied [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graham_Beards&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197633758 here] that Fabrickator and I should stop interacting with each other, which I agreed with, and Fabrickator did not agree with.<br /> <br /> I believe Fabrickator has been guilty of hounding me on Wikipedia, and has been incivil about it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196740157 Here] he sarcastically referred to an edit of mine that he disapproved of as &quot;brilliant&quot;. Something went wrong with the formatting (I think Fabrickator caused this somehow, but I'm not sure), but who said what and when is still fairly clear, I think. <br /> <br /> Fabrickator has persisted in communicating with me despite my requests that he leave me alone, and has also repeatedly ignored my questions about why he so interested in me, and in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204670096 one case], cryptically said, &quot;I'm not going to directly respond to your question.&quot; when I politely asked, yet again, why he was so interested in me.<br /> <br /> Fabrickator has reverted several good edits of mine, seemingly after following me to an article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathology&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1182405204 Here] is just one such reversion. It is notable, because firstly, it was re-reverted by Graham Beards, and secondly, Fabrickator did his reversion quietly. He did not tell me what he had done, which is remarkable, given how much irrelevant material he has posted on my talk page . I only found out he had done it much later, after Graham Beards had unreverted it. Thirdly, it is *clearly* a remarkably incompetent and fairly harmful reversion.<br /> <br /> So Fabrickator has not just been wasting *my* time, and a few other editors who have kindly taken some interest in this matter, such as Graham Beards and Asparagusus, but, more importantly, has directly harmed Wikipedia and Wikipedia's readers.<br /> <br /> I think Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, while I am not banned from interacting with him. Having said that, I would be content (delighted, in fact) with a two-way ban, if it is permanent. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 20:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :A few points here. If you want someone to stop posting on your talk page, you should make a clear request. This also means do not ask the editor any questions or otherwise talk about them on your talk page. Such a request should be respected with the exception of essential notices etc per [[WP:USERTALKSTOP]]. If [[User:Fabrickator]] had continued to continued to post on your talk page despite you asked them to stop, I think we would now be at the stage where they received a final warning before an indefinite block. I think your requests were a lot less clear than they should have been. Still I'll warn them. As for your iban proposal, that is a lot more involved and we'd need to see evidence of something more than simply posting on your talk page when you asked them to stop. If they're indefinitely blocked there's no need for an iban. A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 22:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::In [[User_talk:Polar_Apposite#sigmoid_colon_redux]], I offered to abide by an informal 60-day interaction ban. That was on February 8. I asked him to clarify whether he accepted that, he did not &quot;formally&quot; respond to that, but he did acknowledge it, and stated that he was interested in either a temporary or permanent ban. I did not ask for further clarification (the intent being to ''avoid'' interaction). So for about the last 35 days, I have refrained from any interaction with Polar (obviously, aside from this interaction, which I presume that I am obliged to respond to).<br /> ::I viewed this informal approach as having certain advantages:<br /> ::* Save administrators from having to become involved in adjudicating the dispute.<br /> ::* Also save them the trouble of officially tracking the ban, assuming it were to have been granted.<br /> ::If I were to have violated that ban, the voluntary ban would likely be viewed as a &quot;confession of fault&quot;.<br /> ::* There is neither an official determination of fault, nor an admission of fault'<br /> ::* Upon successful completion of this voluntary ban, future requests for a ban should not be based on events that happened prior to the voluntary ban.<br /> ::For the last 35 days, I have avoided any interaction with Polar. OTOH, in spite of Polar's seemingly implied commitment to avoid any interaction with me and 35 days without any interaction, he now submits this IBAN request. I request that it be denied, on the basis of this informal interaction ban. <br /> ::We should be very careful about the restriction of mere communication between users, recognizing in particular that the imposition of a ban places the banned party at a greatly heightened risk as well as creating what can be a problematic situation if (by some coincidence) they both happen to be &quot;participating&quot; in editing or commenting on the same article.<br /> ::Respectfully, [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 22:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 22:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::In point of fact, I had avoided communicating with you for 35 days. FWIW, though, you cannot reasonably avoid criticism by insisting that criticism of you (by myself and/or by somebody else) is not permitted. In any case, the appropriate place for such a discussion would be on one of the participant's own talk pages. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 23:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::If you avoided communicating with me for 35 days, and didn't revert any good edits of mine during that time, I thank you for that. But I want to *never* hear from you again, and *know* that I will never hear from you again, The only way that is possible is with a permanent interaction ban. In my opinion you should be blocked indefinitely (from Wikipedia), but I won't ask for that. You should be very grateful to if you only get a permanent one-way interaction ban. As I see it, you have nearly always wasted my time with your comments, and your reverts of my good edits is even worse, especially since you quietly followed me around Wikipedia reverting good edits of mine without even telling me. And in my humble opinion you have been uncivil while at it. It discouraged me from editing Wikipedia.<br /> :::::And you have, yet again, avoided answering my very reasonable and polite question. So I will repeat it. Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 02:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]], this is very stale. The most recent diff you provide is over a month old. <br /> :An admin should close this. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm glad you've brought this up. I've been busy with some things in real life for the last month or so, that's all. As you can see, I have almost no edits to Wikipedia during the last month. I have in a sense, been away from Wikipedia, to some extent, for the last month. <br /> ::I don't think there's any reason to believe that the situation has changed during the last month. Whether it's &quot;stale&quot; is not a real issue. In fact, the fact that I have been away actually reduces the significance of the fact that Fabricator has not posted on my user page during the last month or so. I don't know whether he has quietly reverted some more good edits of mine. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 02:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] we're supposed to [[WP:AGF]], not [[WP:ABF]]. If you had evidence of them reverted good edits of yours recently then you ought to provide evidence not state that you don't evidence that they haven't done it. The fact that you haven't provided any recent evidence of anything speaks very heavily to this being stale. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I think this is stale as well, but if the consensus is that this is not he the case, I think any interaction ban, if necessary, ought to be two-way. Fabrickator has done a poor job reading the tea leaves and should have backed off even if the request to stay off the talk was not explicit, but Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally. They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly ''announcing'' that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like &quot;harmful&quot; and &quot;incompetent&quot; needlessly in conversations.<br /> :In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 04:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Agreed. I really can't see this going anywhere. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Well I would ask that the implicit agreement of the &quot;voluntary iban&quot; (which was effectively &quot;completed&quot; by virtue of this incident being opened) should be abided by, i.e. that there shouldn't be an iban. It's not that I anticipate a desire to interact with Polar, but it will be counter-productive to have to think about this every time I edit an article or participate in some discussion. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Simply put, it's clear that Polar Apposite does not want you to post on their Talk page. You should abide by that. However, that does not mean you must avoid them on article Talk pages, and conversely Polar Apposite can't just ignore you on article Talk pages when you bring up an issue.<br /> ::::''If'' things escalate, we can start considering a two-way iban, but for now this should suffice. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :[Edit: I have copyedited this post (like I did with the OP a few hours ago) in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.] <br /> :I'll reply to myself to avoid &quot;bludgeoning&quot; anyone :)<br /> :331dot [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214161032 told me] on my talk page that, &quot;It's not bludgeoning to civilly respond to arguments/posts made in and of itself; it might be if, say, if you had a snarky response to every comment about you. I would make a single, calm comment responding to claims made about you. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)&quot;.<br /> :Accordingly, I will respond to everyone's posts in a single (hopefully calm, ha ha) comment.<br /> :I don't know whether Fabrickator should be blocked from Wikipedia, because I don't know how valuable his other contributions have been. Looking at his contributions for the first time (I was not interested until now) just now, in search of reversions of my edits, I see that he has made a lot of edits purportedly fixing broken links, which sounds good. Why stop him from doing that, if it is good work? Banning him from interacting with me would not affect, I would have thought, his ability to fix broken links. His work in general may be valuable. All I am sure of is that his interactions with me have been a huge waste of time, and quite harmful at times.<br /> :I'd like to clarify that I don't think it was ever my intention to tell Fabrickator not to post on my talk page, as that would give him an excuse to continue reverting good edits of mine without proper discussion or even notification. Also, doing so could be seen as uncivil according to the summary of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Keep_off_my_talk_page this] Wikipedia page which says, <br /> :&quot;This page in a nutshell: Editors can request that other editors keep off their user talk page. However, such demands may be considered uncivil. Disobeying such a request may or may not result in sanctions, depending on the circumstances.&quot; <br /> :I didn't want him to never post on my page, just to stop wasting my time with useless posts that seemed aimed at socializing with me, possibly trying to befriend me (we have never been friends, BTW), or to harass me, or possibly some &quot;frenemy&quot;-style mixture of the two. When I asked him why he wanted to communicate with me, and what he found so interesting about me, I really was sincerely interested in learning why. He has always chosen not to answer my question.<br /> :@[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] I thought you might want more examples of bad reversions of my work by Fabricator (I found three more) when you wrote, <br /> :&quot;A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough.&quot; <br /> :Here goes. The egregious pathology article reversion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathology&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1182405204], was not the only bad reversion of one of my edits. Another example would be @[[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] 's reversion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo_Koy&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194372531 here] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo_Koy&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194340489 this other good edit of mine] to the Jo Koy article. Notice how there's no &quot;reverted&quot; tag on my edit, making it harder for me or anyone else to notice that my edit had been reverted. His edit summary says, &quot;revert of 14:10 and 14:41 edits of 8 January 2024: both &quot;Filipino&quot; and &quot;Filipina&quot; are acceptable forms when used with &quot;mother&quot;; remove extraneous space at end of line&quot;. Wikipedia rules say that only positively harmful edits should be reverted, and so this justification makes no sense, because it acknowledges that my edit was harmless at worst. Secondly, even if both forms are acceptable (debatable, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jo_Koy#%22Filipina_mother%22_vs_%22Filipino_mother%22. my comments] on the article talk page, that doesn't mean that they are equally suited to an encyclopedia article, so, again, the edit summary is nonsensical. I argued on the talk page that &quot;Filipina&quot; is foreign or slang, or at least has that vibe about it, and therefore &quot;Filipino&quot; is more encyclopedic. I also argued that &quot;Filipina&quot; is confusing, because then what does &quot;Filipino&quot; mean? Does it refer only to males? English doesn't have this final a vs final o male/female system. But Fabrickator has not addressed any of these objections to his reversion. I have no objection to his deletion of the whitespace character I added to allow a dummy edit (an accepted technique on Wikipedia which Fabrickator seems not to have heard of, leading to his taking me to task for this elsewhere, wasting everyone's time yet again). OTOH, there was no need for him to do that, as it was harmless. If he wanted to do it, I think he should have quietly deleted the white-space in a separate edit, and marked his edit as minor, instead of making a fuss about it.<br /> :To sum up, Fabrickator has done four reversions of my edits that I know about, having looked through all his contributions in the last seven months: 1. the egregious, bizarre, and outrageous, pathology article reversion, 2. the absurd and absurdly defended Jo Koy article reversion, 3. the useless (albeit harmless) and timewasting fuss-laden reversion of a whitespace character, also in the Jo Koy article, and 4. the absurd reversion of my edit adding a citation needed tag and substituting a failed verification tag [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interdental_consonant&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1193331577 here]. Fabrickator's reversion was later unreverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interdental_consonant&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1193331860 here] by Nardog, with an edit summary saying, &quot;Reverted 1 edit by Fabrickator (talk): CN is correct, it's not cited to any source&quot;. To sum up, Fabrickator's four reversions of edits of mine comprise one outrageous one, one absurd one, one bad one, and one theoretically harmless one but accompanied by a lot of time-wasting fuss based on his not knowing what a dummy edit is and his not simply asking my why I added the white-space before berating me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196740157 here] (in quite an uncivil way, I might add. He calls the whitespace character an &quot;extraneous space&quot;.<br /> :Out of four reversions, zero were useful, two were unreverted by other editors, three were harmful, and one was quite harmful indeed. And he followed me to all those articles, it seems, in order to do what he did. And his subsequent discussion has been either zero, ignoring me, or useless and uncivil. He seems to think he is competent to overrule me without discussion, but I think he is wrong about this. I saw that some of his copyedits to the work of some other editors were good, so he should probably continue copyediting, but overzealously trying to correct *me* has led to his getting out of his depth, perhaps. That seems a charitable way of looking at this, and assumes good faith. Let him try his luck with someone else, as long as it doesn't become hounding and incivility, as I would suggest has been my experience with Fabrickator.<br /> :@[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] You wrote,&quot;Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally&quot; First, whether I have a history of &quot;bludgeoning conversations&quot; at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it? Second, could be specific about what I actually did wrong at those pages? &quot;Flooding&quot; is a bit vague. What I did in the latter case *could* be seen as simply making my case in a very thorough way, with appropriate attention to detail. As for the former, I thought I was allowed to ask as many questions as I wanted. It seems I was wrong about that, but since no one had told me about that rule, &quot;flooding&quot; seems a bit over the top, no pun intended. A giant puddle of tea come to mind :)<br /> :You wrote, &quot;They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly announcing that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like &quot;harmful&quot; and &quot;incompetent&quot; needlessly in conversations.&quot; Again, how about being specific? I think I am allowed to use &quot;harmful&quot; and &quot;incompetent&quot; needlessly on Wikipedia, am I not? And you have made no mention of any of the rude things Fabrickator has said to me. That's interesting, isn't it? You don't look very impartial right now.<br /> :You wrote, &quot;In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud.&quot; Again, are you able to be specific? What specifically did I say (you have no excuse for not being specific, as everything is there in black and white) that warrants a reprimand (light or not) to remind me that &quot;every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud&quot;? When did I ever say anything that indicates that I think that? Genuinely curious now.<br /> :@&lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; I'm actually primarily concerned about his reversions of my good edits. Out of a total of four that I could find, zero were useful, three were harmful, two were undone by other editors, and one was egregious. All of them were bizarre, and the result of following me around Wikipedia. And there was no proper discussion or notification to me. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::When people are griping about you bludgeoning discussion, posting massive, badly-formatted walls of text only vindicates those concerns. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I did what I was told to do. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'd be glad to try improve the format. What specifically did you not like about it? [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 20:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thanks for the constructive feedback. The links should have been inside words, and I put them all inside words just now. Was that what you had in mind? What else, if anything made call it &quot;badly-formatted&quot;? Cheers. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 01:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm certainly not going to read all of that. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I wasn't going to speak up in favor of any administrator(s) taking action regarding either you or Fabrickator, but as you continue to [[WP:BLUDGEON]] while ignoring [[WP:AGF]], I'm starting to wonder if you're willing to collaborate with people who disagree with you. It's really unhelpful when you post a giant wall of text, especially when a huge chunk of it is an off-topic wall of text in which you explain that you have your own guidelines that somehow override Wikipedia's at [[MOS:PHIL]]. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 04:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|First, whether I have a history of &quot;bludgeoning conversations&quot; at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it?}}<br /> ::I'm going to single this out, because the rest of that wall of text is just rambling. Yes, it does have bearing because it can indicate that the problem isn't Fabrickator, it's the fact you keep throwing these lengthy diatriabes up instead of concisely making your points. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 20:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I am just appending this comment at the bottom, I'll remind people that (if you're not subscribed to this specific discussion), it's hard to see the edits that have been made at various places in the text. You might want to look at the &quot;diffs&quot; if it matters to you<br /> :::Second, I will note that Polar has stated that he never asked me not to post to his &quot;talk&quot; page, so the fact that I made posts to his &quot;talk&quot; page is not ''per se'' an issue.<br /> :::Third, as Polar has pointed out, the Wiki software doesn't allow you to add an edit summary without making some kind of change. If you try to do this, it just silently discards the edit summary provided, so inserting a space character is just a way to get around this behavior. This was something I had been unaware of, so my criticism that he added an extraneous space was unwarranted, and I apologize for that. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 15:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Apology accepted, but I still want a permanent interaction ban, ideally one way. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 12:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I don't think it's you that should be accepting apologies or demanding things, especially not a one-way interaction ban. You really need to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] on this before it turns into a boomerang in the form of a motion from an uninvolved editor. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Okay, another minor point. The interaction ban had been proposed by [[User:Graham Beards]] in January (though it's in Graham's talk page archives for 2023 ... see [[User talk:Graham_Beards/Archives/2023#Please advise me regarding dealing with Fabrickator.]]). As is clear from this discussion, I do not go along with this proposal. I interpreted this as Graham's attempt to gracefully bow out of the dispute, but I mention it here just because I want to set the record straight. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks for being so reasonable. I think you might want to consider at least acknowledging that you were wrong in thinking that he was bowing out, and maybe apologize to him (optionally). [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You need to stop this, right now. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]], no one, I mean NO ONE, is going to read that wall of text you posted. And they are unlikely to participate in this discussion. And the one thing I remember when I was a regular here at ANI years ago is that you will never get an IBan or TopicBan without considerable community support which you don't have here and are unlikely to receive given these diatribes. You can't just request an IBan and magically have an admin impose it. It has to have support from your fellow editors which isn't going to happen. So, I suggest like most of us, you avoid editors you don't get along with or use Dispute Resolution if that is an appropriate forum for your disagreement. It also seems like this is not a current, intractible dispute but something that has bothered you in the past which makes it even more unlikely that any admin wandering through here will take action. Just my 2 cents. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;&quot;&gt;[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;&quot;&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm appending this to the end, like Fabrickator did with his comment. I'm also omitting all pings. Hoping not to be accused of &quot;bludgeoning&quot;.<br /> *:Although it is true that &quot;I've been busy with some things in real life&quot;, as I said above, it's also true that I was quite discouraged by the hostility that I've experienced on Wikpedia, and that my fellow editors seemed not to care about what Fabrickator (and some other editors, but that's another matter) had done to me. That's maybe *why* I busied myself with real life matters for a month or so. So calling the matter &quot;stale&quot; because I took a month break is not appropriate, I think.<br /> *:Did I do something wrong that can't be said out loud? Why are so many people being so hostile to me? I feel like people don't care or even would be glad to see stop copyediting Wikipedia.<br /> *:Why should Fabrickator continue to get away with wasting my time and worse, reverting my good edits, just because I got in trouble long ago as a newbie, in an unrelated matter? How long am I supposed to be punished for that? Didn't I pay my debt to Wikipedia by being blocked, so to speak?<br /> *:And anyway, shouldn't we be prioritizing the project? Good edits are good edits, regardless of who does them, or even why, right? And there's also the time wasted by third parties who undo Fabrickator's reversions of my good edits, which has happened in two out of the four cases. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 12:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::You've not provided any additional evidence or reasoning with this comment. What is the point of this? You've just repeated yourself. Stop now before this becomes a motion about you. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I was told [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214804087&lt;nowiki&gt; here]: &quot;Shorter is always better. If you feel that you have something new which will positively contribute to a discussion, you should do so. If you have been warned against excessively posting, though, consider whether you &lt;/nowiki&gt;''need'' to post it.&quot;<br /> *:::What I posted was shorter. I felt that I had something new that would be a positive contribution. I considered whether I needed to post it (and concluded that I did). I did exactly what I was I told to do. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 13:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::No, you really didn't. You posted another evidence-free diatribe. This is becoming disruptive. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 16:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Here is a [[Special:diff/1197560620/1197786525|pertinent portion]] of the discussion with Graham Beards, in which I described Graham's proposal as a way of &quot;graciously bowing out&quot; of the dispute. Fairly shortly after posting this message, I received a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&amp;user=User%3AGraham+Beards&amp;page=User%3AFabrickator&amp;wpdate=&amp;tagfilter=&amp;wpfilters%5B%5D=thanks&amp;wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist thanks from Graham]. It would be pretty juvenile to go around parading the fact of having received a &quot;thanks&quot; from somebody, but it is significant here because it seriously contrasts with Polar's interpretation of the situation. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 20:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]]... Before this thread gets closed down, I feel &quot;inspired&quot; to come back to the discussion you and I were having several weeks ago regarding the [[Special:Permalink/1203193236#Length of sigmoid colon in the diagram is not 35-40 cm. |length of the sigmoid colon]].<br /> ::I realize this is very much a sore spot for you, but I felt it showed that you had a blind spot with regard to editing Wikipedia. In this discussion, you expressed doubt about information in the article indicating the length of the sigmoid colon was 35-40 cm., based on your belief that this length was not plausible. The question I asked you was how you would advise an editor asking you this same question, but that had seemed to get you all riled up.<br /> ::I'm here now, and I'm again asking this question. Seriously, if it's not apparent which Wikipedia principle(s) should inform you on how to resolve this concern, then that casts doubt as to whether your continued editing of WP is appropriate. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 06:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'd drop this attempt at discussion. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You wrote, &quot;I don't think it's you that should be accepting apologies [...]&quot;. Did I actually get blamed for accepting an apology? That would be Kafkaesque&quot;. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 15:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::It often takes two to tango. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 23:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::A lot of editors here like to speak in riddles, I see. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::That's not a riddle. It's a [https://www.google.com/search?q=it+takes+two+to+tango+meaning&amp;rlz=1C1SQJL_enAU1053AU1053&amp;oq=it+takes+two+to+tango&amp;gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgBEAAYgAQyCQgAEEUYORiABDIHCAEQABiABDIHCAIQLhiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCjEyMTgxajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8 common saying where I'm from]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Nevertheless, it does kind of ''sound like'' a riddle. I like riddles! [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 19:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Monarchy of Canada ==<br /> <br /> I propose that [[User:Miesianiacal]] be topic banned from [[monarchy of Canada]], either broadly or more narrowly from the base article. It shouldn't require a minimum of two RfCs ([[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Meaning of reside]] and [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?]]) to insert the simple, obvious and uncontentious fact that the Canadian monarch lives in the UK. Yet, we are forced to endure [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] of debates[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213869997], [[WP:DISRUPTSIGNS|disruptive cite tagging]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213576471][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213574889][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211996854] and [[WP:POINT]]y [[tendentious editing]] from this single editor every time any other editor tries to edit an article [[WP:OWN|owned]] by Miesianiacal, who is responsible for more than 75% of edits to the page.[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Monarchy_of_Canada] The article is a farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research perpetuating a ridiculous myth that the King of Canada is Canadian. It will only improve when the influence of this editor is removed. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 21:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> - I would just like to add that, as we can see [[Monarchy of Canada#Consensus|here]], there seems to have been a productive consensus arrived at, and this without any negative behaviour that I can see. I will not pretend to be aware or delved into the material prior to my own involvement, so will not judge specific behaviour of individual editors for which I'm not aware, I only note that from my point of view, it seems that the Talk process worked and is working, and all in a respectful and positive way at Monarchy of Canada Talk and Main Space. Again, maybe there had been a bit of a breakdown warranting something, not sure, I'm only speaking to what I've seen since myself becoming a member of the discussion at that Talk page. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 16:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::If there is a consensus in that article it has been arrived at during Miesianiacal's current absence (and during his temporary ban from editing the article). [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Okay thankyou. What was his main point that was not valid? Which I mean, what part of what he was advocating for is not reflected in the current consensus? I'm having a hard time figuring out what exact statement was meriting a block. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :There seems to be two allegations here. There's bludgeoning etc at [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?]]. This has diffs and looking at the thread seems to have a basis. But the second half of the post broadens out to a [[WP:OWN]] accusation and being responsible for &quot;a farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research&quot;, but there are no diffs for that. The former (for a longstanding editor) deserves a warning. The latter needs more evidence to be actioned to a full TBAN or even a PBAN. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Not long ago, this editor searched out articles with royal-sounding names, and then added that these article were ''named after royalty''. I reverted most of the edits, as they were unsourced and probably not true, but not without pushback. You can see one of the discussions at [[Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty?]]. --[[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|DeCausa}} It took me ages to track down, but I recently removed 3 bits of original research not found in the citations from the article, and they were all added by Miesianiacal or his previous account: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213654233 Removed citation] added by Miesianiacal's old account: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=220192125]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213654233 Removed citation] added by Miesianiacal's old account: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=232790056]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213654776 Removed unverified claim] added by Miesianiacal: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=317637578]. I've only really looked at the first two paragraphs of the Residences section, so there could be more elsewhere. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Those edits are from 14/15 years ago. I don't think they would or could be used to support action now. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::The 'age' of an edit does not necessarily matter, given that there's always the possibility of erroneous information remaining in an article for years to come. &lt;span style=&quot;font:'Pristina'&quot;&gt;[[user:Keivan.f|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #1E7HDC&quot;&gt;Keivan.f&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font:'Pristina'&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:Keivan.f|&lt;span style=&quot;color: purple&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 23:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Is this editor not already block from [[Monarchy of Canada]] articles? &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight:bold;color:darkblue&quot;&gt;[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]&lt;/span&gt;🍁 04:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::He was banned on March 13 for two weeks. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{reply to|DeCausa}} The named after royalty edits were just a few months ago. There's a long-standing issue of problematic editing wrt the monarchy. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 18:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I don't really understand what's meant by &quot;The named after royalty edits were just a few months ago&quot;. All I was saying is that edits from 14/15 years won't be taken into account. I dont think that's much in doubt. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 20:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Magnolia677's post preceding post included &quot;Not long ago, this editor searched out articles with royal-sounding names, and then added that these article were ''named after royalty'' &quot;. That's why I wrote {{tq|There's a long-standing issue of problematic editing wrt the monarchy.}} [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::I did not add &quot;[this was] named after royalty&quot; to any articles, unless with a reliable source. What Magnolia677 is referring to is my adding to articles on places listed at [[Royal eponyms in Canada]] a link to that article in the &quot;See also&quot; section, a number of which were removed and I didn't dispute the deletion. I think [[Victoria Park Collegiate Institute]] is the only article on which I argued for reinsertion and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Park_Collegiate_Institute&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1172829023 found cited info] to support the connection to [[Royal eponyms in Canada]]. It was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Park_Collegiate_Institute&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1172849549 deleted] two and a half hours later and that's the way it's remained ever since. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 02:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support sanctions''', if not an article or topic ban then a revert restriction or talk page interaction ban. I don't think a warning will be adequate. This is essentially the same issue that I raised at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive467#User:Miesianiacal reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: No violation)]] and that was raised at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III]]. Miesianiacal gets away with his behaviour because he acts within the letter of the rules while ignoring their spirit; he knows how to [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|game the system]]. When challenged, he goes on the attack instead of addressing his own behaviour: for example accusing me of harassment even though I was required to notify him[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1152176368] or refusing to listen when challenged on civility: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1151467664][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1151694138]. Before [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III|IncidentArchive1127]] there were multiple requests for comment at Charles III, which closed against him; he then went to third opinion, which was rejected, and then to the dispute resolution noticeboard, which was rejected (diffs are all at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III|IncidentArchive1127]]). So, he went forum-shopping to the administrators' noticeboard with a cherry-picked selection of edits that were better than his own behaviour. That is his typical operating style: delay, dismiss, attack, and never surrender. The tactic is to pursue endless circular debate, blame everyone else, and refuse to listen to or accept any counter-argument or advice. The same thing that happened at Charles III is happening at Monarchy of Canada: we are forced to go through multiple requests for comment to make the simplest change (with the result that editors wonder what we're doing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214219395]). Once the discussion starts, we then suffer through his sabotage of the debate, such as refusing to accept sources that disprove his argument, for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214382428] backtracking from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213733542]. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> I believe there are also [[WP:OWN]] issues at [[Monarchism in Canada]] and [[Republicanism in Canada]], particularly the former. Miesianiacal has strenuously objected to updating the articles to include references to opinion polls taken in the past two years that show there is greater support for removing the monarchy than there is for retaining it. (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchism_in_Canada&amp;diff=1214387299&amp;oldid=1214075662]) and [[Republicanism in Canada]] (see [[Talk:Republicanism in Canada]]). At present the polls cited in Monarchism in Canada are at least 15 years old.<br /> <br /> In Republicanism in Canada he claimed this wording was not neutral: &quot;&quot;Polls conducted on the subject of abolition of the Canadian Crown in 2022 and 2023, following the accession of Charles III, suggested that a majority of Canadians think there should be a referendum on the future of the monarchy and that more Canadians favour becoming a republic than do retaining the monarchy&quot; (he reverted similar wording in the monarchism article.) Instead, he wrote this wording which mentions only that polling occurred without any reference to the polling result. His &quot;neutral&quot; wording was:&quot;[[Debate on the monarchy in Canada#Polls|Polls have been conducted]] on the subject of abolition of the Canadian Crown.&quot;[[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 17:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :What, if any, administrative or community action would you support? [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' - the ban could be reconsidered at a later point but at present the editor shows no capacity to negotiate or seek or accept compromise, or collaborate, let alone accept a consensus view he disagrees with. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]){{pb<br /> }}'''Supplemental''' - there are still plenty of pages regarding the monarchy in the UK and other [[Commonwealth realm]]s that Miesianiacal would be able to edit. If he can demonstrate a collaborative approach on those pages, then the Canadian monarchy topic ban can be revisited. Alternatively, if his approach does not change, the topic ban could spread to cover all articles regarding the British and Commonwealth monarchy (for lack of a better term). In any case, this topic ban wouldn't be the end of the road and he would have avenues where he could prove himself. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 16:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> * I read [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?]] and my brain attempted to leave my skull. I have ''never'' seen such a nonsensical collection of distorted logic, and yes, a narrow article ban should be considered for at least one editor (the one mentioned in the lead here). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban for Miesianiacal from the Canadian monarchy, broadly construed. If this type of behavior migrates to other topic areas, broader restrictions may be required. This is classic POV pushing. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Do not support''' There are a multitude of pieces including several articles and different conversations in this accusation, however, I did read one (the question of residency), and I am not comfortable with the idea of sanctioning a long-time editor with considerable expertise in the area simply for being firm on a specific point on a Talk page which would seem to me to undermine the point of the Talk page in the first place, and in the spirit of lively debate with a minimum standard of decorum, as that's how we elucidate (ideally) the best way forward in good-faith, as opposed to single-editor dictatorship or mob-rule, both of which are to be strenuously avoided. {{pb<br /> }}Second, the article states that Charles III lives in the UK last I checked, so I'm not quite sure what the core issue is. Clearly no one is currently standing in the way of portraying that fact.{{pb<br /> }}In this case's Talk Page, there is a valid logical argument to made on the important distinction on the separation of office from an individual person. A slightly humorous example would be that, just because the current Prime Minister is Justin Trudeau, the official residence of the Prime Minister is 24 Sussex, and Justin Trudeau is also the coach of the little league team the Ottawa Cubs, that does ''not'' mean that the official residence of the Coach of the Ottawa Cubs is 24 Sussex, nor even that Justin Trudeau even lives at 24 Sussex. So, in this case, the monarch of the UK is, from Canada's point of view, a foreign head of state. The King of Canada does not have any official residences in the UK, but the King of Canada does have official residences in Canada. Where Charles III sleeps at night, or where the King of the UK as a foreign head of state lives has no bearing on the status or the location of a Canadian official residence. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that was the sticking point or the point that was trying to me made, and as I said, I think such a point is valid as is the logic behind it. And so the consensus I believe that is reflected in the article, or should be, is that the King of Canada has official residences in Canada, and that Charles III himself predominantly lives in the UK. No one should be censured for contributing to that consensus. {{pb<br /> }}Is it a little bit arcane and pedantic? Yes. But that is often the nature of deep-dive discussions of certain topics, particularly ones swirling around constitutional politics. {{pb<br /> }}As there was a bit of a swirl of allegations, please feel free to be more specific if you feel I've missed the most salient or fundamental issue under discussion here. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 18:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I take it all are aware these are called &quot;Canada’s Official Residences&quot; would be best if terms are not madeup. Would help things alot I think. &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight:bold;color:darkblue&quot;&gt;[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]&lt;/span&gt;🍁 18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' topic ban per Cullen328. The bludgeoning has to stop. Look, I understand the kind of pedantry that surrounds the issue. My first few years on this project were almost solely devoted to peerage matters. But this is too much. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 19:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support some sort of action if''' Miesianical doesn't strongly commit to accepting feedback and accepting consensus does not always line up with his personal slant. On one hand, Miesianiacal has contributed a lot of content on royalty in Canada, which is mostly good, and deserves some shout-outs for that. And... I get it. There are some articles on Wiki where having a &quot;guard dog&quot; editor hazing new edits closely can actually be a good thing (medical articles most famously, perhaps). If Miesianiacal was providing &quot;stewardship&quot; that occasionally was a tad tendentious, I get it. However... I'm not sure that's really the case here, and rather Miesianiacal himself is the issue, inserting POV slants in articles that do not accord with the sources, which makes any OWNership concerns much more pressing. So yes, this is ANI not a content board, but it's relevant, so let's look at Miesianiacal's grasp of content. Take a look at this old revision of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchies_in_the_Americas&amp;oldid=258665472 Monarchies in the Americas] for example: it distinguishes &quot;American monarchies&quot; from &quot;Foreign monarchies&quot; as if there was some sort of substantive difference between the King of Denmark ruling Greenland from afar and Charles III ruling Jamaica from afar. Which, strictly speaking, there is a difference of course, but a wildly overblown one that is hardly section-heading level worthy. Or take the line &quot;Most pre-Columbian cultures of the Americas developed and flourished for centuries under monarchical systems of government.&quot; Totally bonkers and unsourced, and tying the &quot;flourishing&quot; to the monarchial system of government. More generally, we simply ''do not know'' the details of the government system of &quot;most pre-Columbian cultures.&quot; It's just wild speculation. That's just the start of the problems with the old article. (I'm picking on it specifically because it was at GAR a bit ago and I took a look into it, where it was wildly overplaying certain &quot;monarchies&quot; and their level of support, like treating Arucania &amp; Patagonia as if it were a real state and not a fantasy.) I'd argue that all of the provincial level &quot;Monarchies of XYZ&quot; are problematic for example, with the possible exception of [[Monarchy in Quebec]] (although... I'd really want to triple-check all the sources talking about just how much the Quebecois loved their monarch back in the day as being valid and not Anglophone Canada wishful thinking.) Take a look at [[Monarchy in Alberta]], for example, which should probably be reformulated into something else as it's a lot of talking about nothing in particular. A very small number of people turned out for some event honoring the Queen? Stop the presses. Okay, back to conduct: Miesianical being a Canadian monarchist isn't a ''problem'', exactly. But going against their wishes is really not worth it due to the risk of bludgeoning talk page conversations or edit wars (the one time I did, on something I considered a slam dunk on sourcing grounds, felt like pulling teeth, but also happened ages ago at this point, so not worth rehashing). If Miesianiacal can just seriously commit to toning it down a bit and being willing to take the L when others disagree, then no need to do anything other than verify he's keeping the commitment. But otherwise, yeah, maybe time for a topic ban. (And per above, if a topic ban happened, I'd strongly encourage Miesianiacal not to continue the exact same behavior at other Commonwealth monarchies- going around to give the same treatment to Monarchy of The Bahamas subarticles would not really solve the problems here.) [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Upgrade to support topic ban, broadly construed'''. Miesianical's response below is that actually, there is no problem and everyone is getting upset over nothing, because there's no proof of anything. I guess all the editors here taking exception to his collaboration style don't count as proof either? If he doesn't think there's a problem, then he can't fix it, so we are left with this. It's really not that hard to commit to accepting feedback, but he isn't even bothering to try. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:I ''literally'' said that I'm open to accepting I've done wrong. But, since my analysis of the evidence (spelled out below) doesn't show me how I bludgeoned or abused tags, I'm ''asking'' (like, three times now) for clarification, so I can see what I might currently be missing or reevaluate what I see. Telling me &quot;you did bad&quot; tells me nothing about what exactly I did that was bad and, therefore, gives me no idea of how I'm supposed to modify my behaviour. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 20:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:* {{ping|Miesianiacal}} I believe you that was your intent. But intentions don't matter. Just as I'm sure you thought you were making a peace offering good faith, you have to believe everyone else that what ''actually comes across'' in your posts below is a desire to continue axe-grinding and bludgeoning with DrKay. As if that was the only problem, which it isn't, nor is it even the most important problem - it's your interaction with other editors in general.<br /> **:* You mentioned below that you need to work on brevity. I can't speak for others, but for me, I'd have been willing to change my vote to avoid a formal sanction with just three sentences or so. Something like &quot;While I stand by my edits, I understand that consensus will sometimes be against me. I'll discuss these matters on the talk page rather than revert war, keep it to just a few paragraphs or so on the talk page, and let the matter drop if it seems like a one-against-many situation.&quot; And then actually do that. Something to keep in mind for your future editing. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 20:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Perhaps I'm misunderstanding AN/I, then. It appears to me it sometimes, as in this instance, acts as a quasi-court. Someone's laid a charge against me. Unrelated, some misrepresented, incidents from months or years ago have been dragged in. To my mind, ''that'', collectively, is ''all'' I'll be judged on, if I don't mount some kind of defence. Yet, at the same time, I don't want to be adamantly defens''ive''--I want to say I don't see the charges as valid, here's why, but, I still accept they could be valid and I'm open to hearing--no, literally asking to hear--how so. Up to now, I would've thought something like your suggested statement would've been taken as a kind of flippant disregard of everyone's criticisms and ''that'' would be used against me. But, what you've said has made me question my interpretation of this as a trial.<br /> :::::Alright. Well, I have no idea how long something like this goes on for. But, I hope there's time for me to reconsider my main response; I mean, what I've already written is there and, well, the consequences will be the consequences. But, my feelings and opinions aren't immutable. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 21:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Also support some sort of action''' if Miesianical doesn't make efforts to be more collaborative. I haven't had any run-ins with them in quite some time because, frankly, I have very limited interest in monarchy. However my past interactions with them are very much in line with what others have said here - a tendency toward [[WP:OWN]], bludgeoning on talk page and walking right to the edge of [[WP:3RR]]. If they're still up to these antics nearly a decade on then I'd say they should be invited to consider making some changes to their editing behaviour. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' from anything to do with the Canadian monarchy &amp; perhaps the monarchies of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms (past &amp; current) broadly construed. Indeed, ''two'' RFCs shouldn't have been required at [[Monarchy of Canada]], but I didn't know what else to do to stop the disruption. Also see [[Talk:British royal family#RfC on lede|this RfC at British royal family]], from about a year ago. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban per [[user:Cullen]]. Off the top of my head I don't remember noticing this editor's work in other areas, but certainly the Canadian area is an issue. I don't believe this editor's bludgeoning is made in good faith. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 18:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' - As mentioned, my experience at [[Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty?]] and similar articles was not positive. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 20:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' - The response by Miesianical below speaks for itself. In the RFC I asked for Miesianical to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK|drop the stick]] and the response was baffling. Hopefully the editor learns something from this discussion so the behavior doesn't spread elsewhere. - [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 20:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' on Canadian monarchy and perhaps on the Commonwealth monarchy per above. Clearly a widespread and longstanding complex of issues. Especially the apparent suppression of information regarding support for republicanism in Canada, that's the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Enough of the bias, I'll support the topic ban. [[User:JM2023|JM]] ([[User talk:JM2023|talk]]) 03:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' on all Commonwealth monarchies. I feel like a more &quot;broadly construed&quot; topic ban would be best suited here, because of how inter-connected everything is. Charles, the King of Canada, is ''legally'' distinct from Charles, the King of the UK, but I fear a &quot;Canada only&quot; topic ban would lead Miesianiacal to bring their issues to other pages like [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom]], [[Monarchy of Australia]], etc... under the guise of the fact that they are ''technically'' not discussing the &quot;Canadian royal family&quot; anymore. &lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;Canuck&lt;/span&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;89&lt;/span&gt; [[User talk:Canuckian89|(Converse with me)]] or visit [[User:Canuckian89|my user page]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; &lt;small&gt;09:04, March 26, 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> As the person who started this is pointing specifically to [[Monarchy of Canada]] and disputing something is not a crime (if it were, all those here referencing the disputes they were engaged in with me on other articles over many months through the past would be guilty of it, as well), I'm only going to address matters at [[Monarchy of Canada]]; for now, anyway. Alone, I can only deal with one thing at a time.<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213869997 This] is not ''proof'' of bludgeoning. It's one person's opinion and one can see, preceding the person's remark, they asserted, &quot;you've said your piece,&quot; when I hadn't actually said any piece, I'd [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213733542 asked a question]: &quot;So, what now?&quot; That's an invitation to move forward toward a resolution. Indeed, in the preamble to that question, I ''acknowledged'' [https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2022/10/falqs-canada-and-the-monarchy/ the source] DrKay provided and the fact it supported the statement, &quot;the Canadian monarch lives in the United Kingdom&quot;. I even made the point of the question clear: &quot;there are now two takes on this: 'the monarch is represented by viceroys in Canada because he lives in the UK' and 'the monarch is represented by viceroys in Canada because he is monarch of 14 other countries and his principal residence is in the UK', each supported by one RS.&quot; That very evidenlty ''accepts'' DrKay's source, as it sought to find a way to deal with two sources--DrKay's one and [https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pch/documents/services/royal-symbols-titles/crnMpls-eng.pdf this one]--saying two not necessarily mutually exclusive, but, different things. DrKay chose never to answer the question, thereby exacerbating dispute, rather than working toward a resolution.<br /> <br /> That continues in the same vein:<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213624979 This] is a question<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214382428 This] is agreeing with someone<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214398286 This] isn't pushing anything; it's a comment on DrKay's misunderstanding of the dispute ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214166029 he thinks] I (and at least one other) want to have the article say the monarch lives in Canada, when I never, ever (and I mean ever) did)<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214382671 This] is again agreeing with someone<br /> * [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Discussion|This]] is a civil attempt to get a reverting editor to explain his edits and/or desired edits<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214384628 This] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214396977 this] were part of an agreeable discussion<br /> <br /> And that's the sum total of my contributions to the RfC, aside from my own answer to it. If anyone can explain how that meets the definition of &quot;bludeoning&quot;, I'm truly fascinated to read it.<br /> <br /> I haven't been blocked from [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada]]. So, my absence from the discussion is only because I haven't been on Wikipedia over the past few days and correlation does not imply causation.<br /> <br /> There was more than a week between the placement of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211996854 This] tag (which was quickly thereafter [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Park_Collegiate_Institute&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1172849549 moved by me] to make clear I was ''not'' challenging the claim that the monarch resides in the UK) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213574889 these] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213576471 tags]. The latter two are two completely different tags addressing two different variations of an edited sentence. Tagging disputed material is not a crime and I clearly brought up at talk the issues the tags were flagging, exactly as one is supposed to do. Again, how that's &quot;disruptive cite tagging&quot; (even the spirit thereof) requires further explanation, including how DrKay placing numerous tags on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211858095 4 March] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211912250 5 March], employing his usual tactic of &quot;discussion by edit summary&quot;, is not.<br /> <br /> There's no proof given of &quot;WP:POINTy tendentious editing&quot;. There's no proof given of my making such edits &quot;every time any other editor tries to edit [the] article&quot;. There's no proof given of the article being a &quot;farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research perpetuating a ridiculous myth.&quot;<br /> <br /> And &quot;[this proves] how nasty and desperate you are&quot; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214420204], from DrKay on [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada]], is an overt personal attack, which a continuation of the earlier attacks from him that both crossed and didn't quite cross [[WP:NPA]]: &quot;Don't play stupid, you know damn well what's meant&quot; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1143261256]; “you are ruining more than one article on my watchlist” [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKay&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1143265674]; &quot;you don't assume good faith [...] Treat them like shit you've scraped off the bottom of your shoe and they will likely respond by blanking your messages to them and asking you not to message anymore. Please do not message me anymore&quot; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1143291211]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKay&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1152036372 this] accusation of bad faith; [[User talk:Miesianiacal/August 2022-March 2024#Accuracy of edit summaries|this]] unconstructive attempt at besmirchment; etc. There are certainly zero examples of my expressing anything to DrKay that violates WP:NPA.<br /> <br /> Again, eludication on the matters of bludgeoning and abusive cite tagging would be helpful so I can have clear understanding of the rules so I can follow them properly, if, indeed, I haven't been, so far. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 02:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :To sum up, &quot;I did nothing wrong. It's all DrKay's fault.&quot; This is a version of what I said above: blaming others and refusing to accept you've done anything wrong. You claim here that there is no evidence of bludgeoning, but then in your final link here (&quot;[[User talk:Miesianiacal/August 2022-March 2024#Accuracy of edit summaries|this]] unconstructive attempt at besmirchment&quot;) you link to a discussion where there are 13 diffs showing you making the same comment 13 times, which you claim is not bludgeoning. DrKay's behaviour is far from laudable but then you shouldn't have goaded them should you? [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 08:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I asked above for clarification on how my interactions at [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada]] constituted bludgeoning and my use of tags on [[Monarchy in Canada]] was abusive cite tagging. That is altogether different from &quot;it's all DrKay's fault&quot;. (DrKay's personal insults being my fault is an opinion I'll ignore.) DrKay making two accusations of bludgeoning against me doesn't prove I ever engaged in bludgeoning; and I need to point out here, because mention of it is absent from your remark: in response to his first accusation back in May 2023, I presented DrKay with the proof that I didn't actually &quot;[make] the same argument over and over, to different people&quot; (it was just a weeks-long and wide-ranging dispute involving many different people and some requests outside it for new people to join and possibly help break impasses). After that, he dropped the argument.<br /> ::DrKay might be at fault here; given he's violated WP:NPA numerous times to make his hatred of me clear and half of his OP at the top is unsubstantiated, negative opinion, he may possibly have revealed that his motivation is personal. He might ''not'' be at fault. It might be that he I and are ''both'' at fault, in our own ways. Even if, hypothetically, for now, DrKay did start this for the wrong reasons, that wouldn't mean I didn't actually do some of what he's accused me of. Hence, I'm requesting edification, preferrably from neutral, dispassionate parties who'll consider ''all'' the evidence in its proper contexts. Because, as I explained above, I personally, right now, don't see how the evidence backs up the charges (particularly the bludgeoning one). --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::One thing I would dispassionately recommend is to work on being more concise. These text walls contribute in part, though not in whole, to the sense of bludgeoning. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Well, I feel hung between a need to be thorough and to be concise. But, brevity is a challenge for me here and off Wikipedia; I'm working on it for reasons that exist outside of this realm. However, the walls of text contributing to a sense of bludgeoning on talk pages is a new perspective to me and interesting; I can get it. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 17:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> My edit on 4 March: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211858095], tags a self-published vanity project, an anthology of fictional works, and an official Canadian government source that says explicitly, not that the Queen resided in Canada, but that she belongs in the same category as &quot;foreign heads of state&quot; and that she &quot;visits&quot; Ottawa along with &quot;other royal visitors&quot;. The edit on 5 March: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211912250] removes an invention of Miesianiacal's that George VI's 1939 state visit to the United States was on behalf of Canada uniquely. He knows this invention is untrue because we had a long discussion about it at [[Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother/Archive 2#Royal tours]]. The same edit tags a source that does not support the material it is next to. The edits therefore demonstrate that sources are twisted and that the article includes original research. He also lists a series of uncivil edits but fails to mention that they are all in response to his baiting, which can be seen by looking at the comment(s) to which they respond or the preceding edits. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214420204] is in response to the unsubstantiated claim that I think the article used to say the Canadian monarch lives in Canada. That is untrue. I should not have taken the bait but it is difficult to avoid doing so when it is so frequently flung in my face. If Miesianiacal doesn't want to awaken bears, he shouldn't poke them with a stick. Once again in his response to this discussion, we are faced with his absolute refusal to acknowledge any bludgeoning. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 17:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' - I was not involved in this original dispute, but became involved in discussions after commenting in the second RfC. As I wasn't involved at that time, I don't think I have anything useful to add about users' conduct while the first RfC was taking place. I will say though that some of DrKay's comments since have not been particularly productive. Calling other editors comments (mine included) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215025473&amp;oldid=1215012120 &quot;Farcical garbage&quot;], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215042417&amp;oldid=1215039825 wrongly accusing them of strawman arguments], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215044541&amp;oldid=1215043365 ad hominem attacks], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215047616&amp;oldid=1215046927 deflection] aren't really helping anyone reach consensus there. It seems the temperature needs to be lowered across the board.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 19:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I withdraw &quot;farcical garbage&quot; pursuant to [[Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility]] #1d.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1216052301&amp;oldid=1216048196]. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 19:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> With all due respect. [[Talk:The Worldwide Privacy Tour#Royal family description|This discussion, concerning a cartoon episode]], was memorable. I'm not certain how to describe the content dispute that took place there, a year ago. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Okay. My apologies for the length of the following. But, there's a lot to address.<br /> <br /> I've taken some feedback and looked at the whole of what this expanded into from the initial accusations. I've been editing here for 20+ years; I have crossed paths with many, many editors. The vast majority of interactions have been without significant problem. However, I have also sometimes been a problem. Admitting as much has prompted me to improve my collaborative manner; over even eight months ago (these recent discussions--[[Talk:Royal standards of Canada#Terminology|1]], [[Talk:Republicanism in Canada#Opinion polling|2]], [[Talk:King Charles III Coronation Medal#Canadian medallions/medals|3]]--are perfectly fine). I'm okay with disagreement; I'm willing to compromise (if it's not a policy matter).<br /> <br /> But, if my self-reflection is accurate, what's still been problematic up to now is my reaction to what I perceive as not being heard; in whatever manner. I've taken it as an unnecessary drawing out of the dispute and felt an RfC will do so even more (implying an impatience on my part). I become not incivil, but... blunt in my interactions with the other party. Now I see that, ironically, my insistence on getting the other party to hear me (driven, again ironically, by a want to find a mutually agreeable resolution) often leads to an RfC, anyway. The ends truly don't always justify the means. This is not to pick on DrKay; I just think it's relevant to show that even he and I ''can'' interact in a completely decent way: [[Talk:Head of the Commonwealth#Dubious|1]], [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 20#Official lists|2]]. So, ''my'' problem must be how I've been dealing with communication breakdown; between myself and anyone I think it's happening with.<br /> <br /> Putting whatever restrictions will inevitably be imposed on me aside, going forward, I'll accept what I think are failures to communicate as soon as I believe they've happened and that the wider community then has to be brought in; I'll accept there's no deadline to complete an edit. Of course, consensus is, as always, consensus. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 05:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :In the 20+ years, there seems to be (from you) a tendency to advocate for the monarchy in Canada, to be viewed in a certain way on Wikipedia. One ''might'' see this as breaching [[WP:RGW]]. Charles III, like his mother, grandfather, etc, before him, are/were most recognized as British monarchs. That's simply how the world sees it. At [[Monarchy of Canada]] (for example), we can't be suggesting in anyway, that the monarch resides/lives in Canada. Anyways, that's my theory on what's the core of your problematic behavior. It's up to the community to decide on what to do. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If there has been [[WP:RGW]] behaviour by editors at [[Monarchy of Canada]], it appears to have occurred on both sides of the initial debate there. With all due respect, I am not sure someone calling for a Canadian Republic on their user page is the best person to cast that particular stone. It seems to me many users are talking past each other on the talk page, which seems to be continuing in the new discussions on [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Residences]]. MIESIANIACAL is one of the editors commenting in the debates there, but the persistent content dispute(s) there, and the resulting walls of text, are of many editors makings. As I said above, I think the temperature needs to be lowered across the board.-- [[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't edit as a republican &amp; have at times been considered a closet-monarchist. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::A person dusclosing a political position on their user page should not guide which pages they are permitted to edit. Only whether their edits adhere to Wikipedia standards. As an example, my strident anti-monarchism had nothing to do with my positions regarding the [[Where is Kate]] article - only BLP standards. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I think it would be dangerous if we went down the path of declaring people to be in a COI because of their ideology or belief. Monarchists (or republicans) should no more be banned from editing articles on the monarchy than Christians should be banned from editing articles on Christianity (or even articles on the church they belong to), or Liberals or Conservative supporters or members be banned from articles on the Liberal or Conservative parties or liberalism or conservatism as ideology. What we should look out for is editing conduct and POV-pushing. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 18:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Deletions of (article) talk page material ==<br /> <br /> I have a long-running dispute that has started on 8. January when [[User:Chaheel Riens]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194299127 deleted 26 KiB of talk page material]. I would like the mentioned 26 KiB of deleted talk page material to be restored (archiving it would also be fine with me). However, this dispute is interrelated with the correct interpretation of [[WP:TPO]], and it might have important consequences as such.<br /> <br /> As a justification for his actions, [[User:Chaheel Riens]] provided [[WP:FORUM]], [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:NOTHOWTO]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1194383866 here]. After some further arguments and counter-arguments, he <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1194505317 refused to properly argue]<br /> . I think that there was some amount of [[WP:LAWYERING]] involved on his part, but I don't see that as important.<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_241#Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Summary_of_the_discussion_so_far I took the issue to the DRN],<br /> but it was not successful. However, my conclusion was that DRN was not a proper venue, because the central issue is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material, which is a conduct issue.<br /> <br /> The relevant guideline related to this problem seems to be [[WP:TPO]]. Some experienced editors are interpreting it as supporting the disputed deletion, while other experienced editors are of the opposite opinion. The editors who support the deletion are referencing various parts of [[WP:OR]] to justify the disputed deletion. In my opinion, such justifications are invalid, because WP:OR clearly states: {{tq|This policy does not apply to talk pages...}} Other justifications for deletion are invalid due to similar reasons. My conclusion is that the policies are supporting my side of the argument, therefore the deleted talk page material should be restored and then archived.<br /> <br /> Currently, this dispute is stuck at some kind of status quo, as I was absent for a month, and other editors apparently refused to argue further. I think that further arguments would be futile anyway, because this dispute is essentially about two widely different interpretations of WP:TPO, as it was noticed <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Some_Follow-Up_Comments_Regarding_Removing_Material here]<br /> .<br /> <br /> This dispute is unlikely to be resolved by any kind of discussion between involved parties. I judge that WP:ANI is the relevant authority for this kind of disagreement, because deletions of talk page material are conduct issues. To escape the status quo, some definitive guidance is needed about the proper course of action in this dispute.<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Someone_has_just_deleted_all_of_my_suggestions Initial discussion at ZX Spectrum graphic modes]<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Removed_sections Link to the continuation of discussion after DRN failed].<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Removing_material_from_article_talk_pages Link to the discussion at WP:TPG talk page].<br /> <br /> - [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Is this still the same discussion where you pretty much accused me of being a scammer and a liar? I distanced myself when it because clear it was turning into a slow-motion train crash while beating the dead horse at the same time. I've given a cursory glance over it since I last commented, and you don't seem to be gaining much favour - even the editor who was critical of me seems to have washed their hands of you and the discussion. This could be a case of [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|WP:FILLIBUSTER]] where you just go on and on and on and on and on until everybody simply gives up in exasperation. I've taken the liberty of pinging the other involved editors who were missed, but the discussion is such a mess it's hard to see if all have been included. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 16:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I have never accused you, or anyone, of being scammers and liars. It is just your interpretation of one '''hypothetical statement''' of mine, which I posted in a separate discussion about copyright issues [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_136#ZX_Spectrum_graphics_(modes)] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Parrot_standard.png] that isn't really related to this one. I apologize to you any everyone involved if you were offended by a lack of clarity in my writings, because I don't think that you are a scammer or a liar.<br /> ::I argue that what you have just suggested is essentially an attempt to perpetuate the status quo. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Z80Spectrum}} You mentioned &quot;''the possbility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers''&quot;. Would you have included Chaheel Riens in that group? &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Segoe Script;&quot;&gt;''[[User:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#BC49A6&quot;&gt;City&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:Green&quot;&gt; o&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:Red&quot;&gt;f &lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]]''&lt;/b&gt; 18:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I must admit that, at that specific moment, I was quite confused about what is happening. Therefore, my statement in question did not refer to anyone in particular. The copyright issues are a serious problem, and my statement was intended to alert to the importance of those issues. I [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01#c-Z80Spectrum-20240129030400-Clindberg-20240129005500 appologized here] to another user, [[User:4throck]], who might have been most obviously affected by that unfortunate statement of mine. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This doesn't belong here or indeed anywhere. The proper path forward is to work on something else. What practical difference is there between moving this information to the talk page archive vs having it available in diffs? Unwillingness to repeat oneself endlessly is not &quot;refused to properly argue.&quot; [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 18:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Not again!''' - I tried to mediate the dispute, which was originally presented as an article content dispute, but was really mostly a dispute about the removal of talk page material. I developed [[WP:DRN Rule F|DRN Rule F]] and was preparing to mediate a discussion about the removal or restoration of the article talk page material. [[User:Z80Spectrum]] then began discussing the dispute with [[User:Ritchie333]], an end run around my mediation, so I failed the mediation. <br /> *I will comment that I started off sympathetic to [[User:Z80Spectrum]] about the talk page edits. The [[WP:TPO|guidelines on editing other editors' talk page posts]] are poorly written, and do not clarify when the removal of talk page material is in order. My opinion is that they should state that removal is only rarely appropriate, and that normally disputed talk page material should be either archived or userfied. So I started out thinking that [[User:Chaheel Riens]] had been overly aggressive, but I tried to maintain neutrality. [[User:Z80Spectrum]] soon acted aggressively, making an accusation on the talk page of [[User:Ritchie333]] that I still don't entirely understand, but that appeared to be [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]]. Two months later is late to apologize for a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] that was called out at the time. Now [[User:Z80Spectrum]] wants to reopen a dispute that had faded away more than a month ago. <br /> *This filing is a [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] thrown by [[User:Z80Spectrum]]. If the community agrees with [[User:VQuakr]] that there isn't a current issue, then the issue is what to do about this [[vexatious litigation]] by the filing editor. I think that there wasn't a current issue until this report was filed, but now this report is reopening something.<br /> *One possible resolution to this case would be a one-way [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]] on [[User:Z80Spectrum]] against interacting with or attacking [[User:Chaheel Riens]].[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm not very glad to read this opinion of yours. I would have liked it better if you had communicated it to me earlier, which wasn't the case. I'm not &quot;reopening&quot; this dispute, as the dispute was never closed. <br /> *:I would like to point out that all I want is the 26 KiB of deleted talk page material to be restored and archived (that's the primary reason for this WP:ANI report). I will accept the interaction ban on my behalf, or any similar measure, to get that deleted content restored. I also wanted to clarify the ambiguities in the WP:TPG guideline, but that is secondary. This dispute is not about opinions, it is about proper application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and those are not decided by a community vote.<br /> *:I think that your accusation of vexatious litigation is not very nice. What else should I have done to get the deleted content restored? Did I not do everything you have suggested to me? Did you communicate any other suggestions to me earlier? I do not care about any measures to [[User:Chaheel Riens]], as I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_48#ZX_Spectrum_-_additional_note said earlier on your talk page]. <br /> *:From my point of view, [[User:Chaheel Riens]] was misinterpreting my words so I felt no need to apologize on my own incentive. If he had asked me to apologize on my talk page, I would have apologized. I even apologized to one unrelated editor, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dionysius_Miller#My_aplologies]. The discussion at DRN was interrupted due to the copyright issues, and I considered those a priority over the DRN discussion. In spite of your alleged &quot;sympathetic&quot; stance towards me, your post is a one way attack against me, with not a single word said in defense of my perspective. Therefore, I doubt your neutrality.<br /> *:I certainly don't want this discussion to get derailed again by off-topic comments, so I would like to remind that the reported issue is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material. If my conduct had not been stellar, I will accept the consequences, I will accept the boomerang, but I won't accept if the reported issue is completely ignored. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 06:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': I think this boomerang has NOTHERRE written on it; way too much valuable time has been wasted on this. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 05:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ===Another Reply to [[User:Z80Spectrum]]===<br /> ::[[User:Z80Spectrum]] writes: {{tqb| I'm not very glad to read this opinion of yours. I would have liked it better if you had communicated it to me earlier, which wasn't the case. I'm not &quot;reopening&quot; this dispute, as the dispute was never closed.}}<br /> :::When earlier would you have wanted me to communicate with you? In early February? I started a discussion of talk page removals at [[WT:TPG|the Talk Page Guidelines talk page]], in which I said that the talk page guidelines about removal of talk page posts were poorly written. Between 4 March and 17 March? You took a break from editing. If you were ill, I am sorry that you were ill and hope you have recovered. If so, I apologize for any rudeness on my part. <br /> :::You say that the dispute was never closed. It was never closed at [[WT:TPG|the Talk Page Guidelines talk page]]. It was closed at [[WP:DRN|DRN]]. It appears that it was closed there because you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue, in which you said that you had evidence that some editors were scammers and liars. It was your fault that you entangled two disputes, which confused me and confused [[User:Ritchie333]], and looked to me like a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] on [[User:Chaheel Riens]]. <br /> ::It is true that I am no longer sympathetic or neutral. That is your own fault.<br /> ::If you were ill, I am sorry, and I hope that you have recovered. In any case, the talk page removal is not a conduct issue, because it is an issue of a poorly worded guideline. If there is any conduct issue, it is your conduct. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 15:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt1.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|When earlier would you have wanted me to communicate with you? }}<br /> :::For example, at any time after 21 February 2024 would have been fine, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Z80Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209366787 after I had pinged you].<br /> :::'''Pt2.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|It was closed at DRN. It appears that it was closed there because you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue [...cut...] It was your fault that you entangled two disputes [...] }}<br /> :::No, it was not my fault. Or, maybe it is my fault, if I was supposed to stop the editing completely while the DRN case was in progress. How could I had known in advance that my attempt to coordinate efforts with [[User:4throck]] would lead me to stumble upon [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:4throck&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196226931 the copyright issue] (which is at the end of a discussion with him)?<br /> :::[[User:4throck]] was previously mostly sympathetic towards me and my writings, like in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1184433585 this comment], which is a part of the 26 KiB of deleted content.<br /> :::'''Pt3.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq| [...] you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue, in which you said that you had evidence that some editors were scammers and liars. }}<br /> :::No, that is just your interpretation. I have said: &quot;You must consider the possibility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers.&quot;, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197434065 here]. There is a big difference. Notice the words &quot;'''possibility'''&quot; and &quot;'''might'''&quot;. I don't like such serious misinterpretations of my words.<br /> :::'''Pt4.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq| It is true that I am no longer sympathetic or neutral. That is your own fault. }}<br /> :::The evidence is mounting that you were never sympathetic or neutral. For example at DRN, you took no action against [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197162384 this comment], where another editor is acting contrary to your [[Wikipedia:DRN Rule F]], section 9 (also, in my opinion [[User:Chaheel Riens]] is completely misinterpreting the &quot;archiving problem&quot; there).<br /> :::Two days before that, I reported this case to WP:ANI, based on what you have said <br /> :::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1195796819 here], and based on behavior of [[User:Chaheel Riens]], where it took him 42 hours to reply with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196399728 this comment] where I was accused of making a &quot;threat&quot;.<br /> :::After I reported the case to WP:ANI, you have proposed to continue the moderated discussion, which was fine. However, after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196480778 I objected ], the case at ANI should have been reopened, and the case at DRN should have been closed, as you have previously stated. Instead, you said {{tq|I would suggest that you follow the guidance of User:Ritchie333 who closed your complaint at WP:ANI. }}, defending the inappropriate closure of my case at WP:ANI. I agreed, nonetheless. However, given all that has happened at the DRN, it was quickly getting obvious that the case has no chance of succeeding, and it was getting worse by a series of misinterpretations by [[User:Chaheel Riens]]. For example: I was the one who agreed to archiving, and I clearly stated it at least three times: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196507327 here ], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196752695 here], and much earlier, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chaheel_Riens&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194929135 here] on [[User:Chaheel Riens]] talk page. In the DRN discussion, [[User:Chaheel Riens]] was constantly making it appear as if I had something against archiving, by citing various technical trivialities, and by attempting to dodge the archiving question as long as possible.<br /> :::'''Pt5.''' However, I decided to interpret all that as a honest mistake on your part, [[User:Robert McClenon]]. I considered that the &quot;honest mistake&quot; interpretation is the most likely one.<br /> :::'''Pt6.''' By the time I raised the copyright issue, the discussion at DRN had already have failed, at least from my point of view. I also consider the legal situation with copyright to be of much higher priority.<br /> :::'''Pt7.''' I judge that all the arguments against me are either gross misinterpretations of my words or gross misinterpretations of the entire situation. From my point of view, it is now quite likely that some of those misinterpretations were intentional, and some are a consequence of common human biases (i.e. [[User:Robert McClenon]] is far from being neutral, he is just acting in support of a long term editor, and against me as a newbie). I judge that even such are a normal and expected part of discussions.<br /> ::: All the evidence shows that I was the one who had a lot of sympathy for both [[User:Robert McClenon]] and for [[User:Chaheel Riens]], and I still do. I'm willing to instantly forget all the injustices that you have done to me, under the condition that the 26 KiB of deleted material is restored. Then we can engage in a discussion whether that material is WP:OR, or not, on the &quot;ZX Spectrum graphics modes&quot; page, and any further implications of that material.<br /> :::Took me three hours to write this. I hope that you appreciate it. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 21:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Boomerang''', whether that's a [[WP:CIR]] block, or a topic ban to prevent future disruption. This should have been dropped months ago, but instead [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] has chosen to drag it out. [[WP:FORUM]] is definitely a bit vague, but this is not a good choice of edits to pick a fight over. What's more concerning is Z80Spectrum's insistence that this must be resolved to their satisfaction, after leaving it fallow for a month, as well as trying to insist the ''real'' problem is {{tq|the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material}}, rather than their dogged insistence on litigating this. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 16:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I was not &quot;insisting&quot; on anything. I don't have the power to do so. I was saying that I would very likely consider it unjust if my complaint about the deletion of the 26 KiB of deleted material is disregarded. I don't see any way in which that deletion can be justified, in the sense that I expect the deleted material to be restored.<br /> *:[[User:HandThatFeeds]] said {{tq|after leaving it fallow for a month}} ... Wikipedia is not my full-time job. As I red in one of the essays, time passes slowly here, and breaks in disputes are usually welcome. It can be easily verified that all the last comments (before I took a break in this dispute) are mine, and that it was other editors who all went silent before I took a break. I can't reply to their silence. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 22:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Z80Spectrum, I mean this with all due respect and in all good faith, but for your own good, walk away. Deciding to go to battle with Robert McClenon, who is basically Wikipedia's aptheosis of equanimity, is not going to find you favor. We know how you judge your situation, but please take into account that others may judge it differently. All the best. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 22:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Thank you for your reply, which I judge was in very good faith. Unfortunately, I habitually don't respond affirmatively to any [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority arguments from authority]. All arguments with me have to be properly justified, in a properly conducted and fair discussion. If that is unacceptable on Wikipedia, feel free to ban me. So yes, I'm going to argue against the respected [[User:Robert McClenon]], until the arguments show that I'm in the wrong, or until I'm banned. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 23:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::To be clear, I am not saying you must agree with anything Robert says. I am merely saying there is a vast swath of territory between 'disagreement' and 'picking a fight.' Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 15:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::I didn't pick a fight with him, he picked a fight with me. I didn't invite him here. I said nothing about him before he did it here first, and I only replied to his comments. I'm also giving a peaceful offer, which is the same one from the very start of this case: to forget it all, if the deleted material is restored and archieved. Perhaps I forgot to say that I will likely write about this incident on my user page, but I can try to avoid mentioning names there. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::{{tq| I'm also giving a peaceful offer[...]: to forget it all, if the deleted material is restored and archieved.}} <br /> *::::::It's [[argumentum ad baculum|either your way or total war]]?!?? &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 18:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|Wikipedia is not my full-time job.}}<br /> *::No one is saying it should be. But, after a month, the discussion is dead and over. Dragging it back out over and over to get your way is just [[WP:TEND|tendentious]]. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 15:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *{{re|Z80Spectrum}} in reviewing past interactions I was reminded of [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3AParrot_standard.png&amp;diff=843591192&amp;oldid=843256802 this] (quite specious) interaction regarding copyright. When people are talking about [[WP:CIR]] in this context, &quot;competence&quot; is regarding your ability to collaborate on a project that is defined by its collaboration. It seems to me that you have battled or argued with nearly everyone you've interacted with; is that a habit you are able to change? [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 00:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:A fair question. Primarily, Wikipedia is a system. More precisely, Wikipedia is a complex system consisting of a community of people, principles, policies and guidelines, server-side software and data.<br /> *:All complex systems have faults of significant importance, and no human-made system ever has worked without failures. I am a newbie user here. I have to defend myself from all the consequences of the Wikipedia-as-a-system, including its many faults.<br /> *:In the case you have mentioned, if the copyright information of the problematic image was invalid, then I would have been legally liable to persecution. I consider such circumstances as a physical attack on me, as a consequence of one of Wikipedia's failures. I considered it as a grave and important situation.<br /> *:Wikipedia can't claim infallibility. I can't just rely on opinions of a few editors, or on information displayed by Wikipedia. Thus I demanded an opinion of an expert. I had every right to defend myself, in my opinion. When I got a good-enough explanation, I accepted it. If I have extensively argued before that moment, it means that I always had some unanswered objections.<br /> *:'''The problem would not have existed if the disputed image was hosted on Wikipedia''', instead of a third-party website.<br /> *:Instead, Wikipedia-as-a-system forced me, under a possibility of a legal threat, to extract the necessary copyright information from Wikipedia in a somewhat aggressive way. '''No one was seriously harmed''', as far as I can tell.<br /> *:You are correct in stating that I have argued with many people on Wikipedia. '''The problem is that I joined Wikipedia with a dispute-at-hand'''. It was not just an ordinary dispute, but a dispute where [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Some_Follow-Up_Comments_Regarding_Removing_Material conflicting interpretations already existed] before I joined Wikipedia. '''That is not my fault'''.<br /> *:I would honestly suggest to Wikipedia-as-a-system to try to fix its own faults first, and to not shift blame on the users, and especially not on newbie users. Unfortunately, complex systems are similar to persons, and they don't like to be criticized, so they usually don't listen to criticisms. I would also suggest to Wikipedia-as-a-system to be more tolerant of newbies, to not try to immediately intimidate them with [[WP:LAWYER]]. When reading many pages and essays here, I came under the impression that this criticism is already well-know, and that '''the real problem is in Wikipedia's reluctance to improve itself'''. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 03:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::My thoughts:<br /> *::- There are many ways you could improve Wikipedia that don't involve trying to restore that talk page - ways which it seems to me that a lot of others in this discussion would rather be doing instead of discussing this even more. Maybe seems unfair, but it appears that that is the current state of things.<br /> *::- If you want to improve the article and discuss it in the talk page, you can still do that, if you want to look at the deleted talk page content to find ways to improve the article, you can also still do that (by looking at the talk page from before it was removed).<br /> *::- Are you right? Are you wrong? Those questions should matter a lot less than questions like &quot;How can we move on? What can we still improve? How can we discuss it in a way that won't result in someone interpreting it as violating [[WP:TALK]]?&quot;.<br /> *::The big thing here, is that this does not appear to be an issue of great significance, and the more time that is taken to either try to resolve the dispute or discuss things here in ANI (honestly, the more time that it takes to read big walls of text too) the less people are going to want to do that, because it's a lot of time for little gain.<br /> *::&lt;br&gt;<br /> *::I don't agree with people saying that you should be sanctioned for making this ANI thread and for having dug this topic after people had moved on, because you made this thread as a way to continue the dispute (which seems to have been left as a possibility in the conclusion of the the DRN discussion) and because of what your intentions appear to have been when making it, but I think that you should withdraw this ANI thread and move on from and forget this dispute before people actually do get you blocked for it.<br /> *::The value you bring to Wikipedia is directly weighed against the time that is taken away from other editors without that time being used to improve or protect the Wikipedia.<br /> *::&amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|talk]]) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::And just to be clear, since I'm unsure how aware of how things work you are, withdrawing means saying that you do, that's all. &amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|2804:F1...7E:615D]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|talk]]) 04:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::If I understand it right, you are suggesting a compromise in which I withdraw, and I also suffer no consequences. I decline such a compromise (which was provided in good faith) due to the following:<br /> *::::'''Objection 1.''' Such a compromise implies that I consent to devaluing most of my work on Wikipedia so far, in return for some kind of &quot;safety&quot;. I would turn out to be a complete coward, which I am not.<br /> *::::'''Objection 2.''' Such a compromise is not in accordance with my stated principles of justified and fair discussions. I would much rather see and suffer the consequences of the outcome which is at this moment uncertain, than to retreat without being given proper justifications.<br /> *::::'''Objection 3.''' I think that I'm fighting for the right cause. The outcome of this ANI case would likely serve as a precedent that clarifies the ambiguities of WP:TPO, which was one of my goals. One of the worst outcomes from my point of view would be the perpetuation of the status quo, in which WP:TPG remains ambiguous. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 06:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::{{tq|The outcome of this ANI case would likely serve as a precedent that clarifies the ambiguities of WP:TPO, which was one of my goals.}}<br /> *:::::You are vastly overestimating the importance of this discussion. You're also [[WP:RGW|fighting the wrong battle.]] If you want sanctions, I expect you're going to get them now. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 15:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::This isn't a battle to be won and lost based on courage or cowardice. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 00:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Z80Spectrum, if you feel being banned from the topic page or Wikipedia in general is worth making your point, then that is certainly fine. I just want to make sure you're aware that you are making the former a near certainty and the latter more and more probable. All the best however things should go. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Thank you, Dumuzid. If I'm banned, I can take it. I wasn't editing Wikipedia much before this incident, and I can certainly live without editing Wikipedia in the future. I wasn't even planning to edit Wikipedia, I was just bored, about 4 months ago. So, don't worry about me. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 01:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ===Yet Another Reply to [[User:Z80Spectrum]]===<br /> :You seem to be arguing with yourself, and one of the risks of arguing with oneself is that one may lose the argument. On the one hand, you agree that [[WP:TPO|the guideline on editing the talk page posts of other editors]] is poorly written and ambiguous. On the other hand, you say that you have reopened this [[WP:ANI]] thread because the removal of your 26K post is a conduct issue on the part of [[User:Chaheel Riens]]. If the guideline is poorly written, it is unfair to argue that there was a conduct violation, but maybe you are arguing both ways.<br /> :You have now decided that I was never neutral. You probably won't believe me, but I started out thinking that your 26K posts should be restored, because I thought and still think that deletion of talk page posts should only be done rarely. I disagreed with [[User:Chaheel Riens]], and thought that they were overreacting when they deleted your 26K post. I still think that, other things being equal, your 26K should be restored either to an article talk page archive, to your user talk page, or to a user talk page archive. I was inclined in that direction until you went to the talk page of [[User:Ritchie333]]. It appeared to me that you are asking for his help with regard to the dispute about the talk page post. I now see that you were asking for his help with regard to a copyright dispute. I still don't know what the copyright dispute was, and I am not sure whether I want to know. <br /> :You say, in '''Pt 3''', that I misunderstood what you were saying, about scammers and liars. That is probably true, but you said that you had evidence:<br /> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARitchie333&amp;diff=1197436589&amp;oldid=1197435165<br /> :You said that you had evidence. Now you say that is only my interpretation. <br /> :You write: {{tqb|I didn't pick a fight with him, he picked a fight with me. I didn't invite him here. I said nothing about him before he did it here first, and I only replied to his comments.}} If you mean me, I didn't pick a fight with you. You say that you didn't invite me here. By &quot;here&quot;, do you mean [[WP:ANI]]? It is true that you didn't ping me, but I was always here. Unlike you, I didn't take a two-week or four-week break from Wikipedia. You wrote: {{tq|I'm not &quot;reopening&quot; this dispute, as the dispute was never closed.}} So did you think that I would have forgotten about it? <br /> :I didn't pick a fight. <br /> :Thank you, [[User:Dumuzid]], for your positive comment.<br /> ====Starting Over ? ====<br /> Now, at this point, here are the issues that I think remain:<br /> *1. [[User:Z80Spectrum]] wants their 26K of deleted posts back. That material has not been [[WP:REVDEL|revision-deleted]]. Z80Spectrum can copy it to a user subpage in user space. If they want it in article talk space, they can resume the discussion of [[WP:UPG|the talk page guidelines]], but at least they will have it. A user has more control over their own user space than over article talk space. If anyone else thinks that the material is inappropriate for user space, they can nominate the material for [[WP:MFD|MFD]]. Userfication should be a satisfactory compromise that doesn't require a community decision.<br /> *2. Z80Spectrum did say that they have evidence. That was not a hypothetical statement, but an allegation against someone. They should either present the evidence, or say that they were just talking wildly. <br /> *3. Is there anything else?<br /> [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Z80Spectrum said they want {{tq|the deleted material [...] restored and archived}}, or else. &quot;Material&quot; being his [[WP:OR]]. No thanks. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 04:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I dislike your comment, Paradoctor. I repeat, again, a quote from [[WP:OR]]: {{tq|This policy does not apply to talk pages}}. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Article talk pages exist to discuss changes to the corresponding article. &quot;I dislike your comment&quot; is an oddly (bizarrely, even!) confrontational way of putting things. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 17:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Pt11.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq| You seem to be arguing with yourself ...}}<br /> :Your argument depends at least on a presumption that the property of being ambiguous can only have a yes or no answer. I argue that there exist many intermediates, or degrees, of ambiguity. WP:TPO is not ambiguous to such a degree that absolutely no conclusion can be reached. I judge that, upon careful reading, WP:TPO supports my side of the argument to a level significantly higher than the case for deletion.<br /> :I will skip the detailed justification of my previous sentence. Instead, I ask you this: '''can you quote a part of''' [[WP:TPO]] which, in your opinion, supports the case for deletion of the disputed 26 KiB? Such a quotation would be a good start of a fair discussion.<br /> :On the other hand, you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1195796819 have stated at DRN] : {{tq|However, it is my opinion that the removal of material posted by another editor to an article talk page is only allowed under unusual circumstances, and those circumstances were not present. So the removal of the large amount of talk page material was an error. }} From my point of view, it appears that you are the one who is now arguing against own previous statements.<br /> :'''Pt12.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|You probably won't believe me, but I started out thinking that your 26K posts should be restored ...}} Actually, I believe you. In the vast majority of cases, bias is sub-conscious. Biased persons are usually not aware that they are biased. Or, perhaps you were not biased, and it was some other kind of a honest mistake. Still, that DRN case was unjust towards me, primarily because it should have been closed and moved to WP:ANI when I requested it.<br /> :'''Pt13.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|I still think that, other things being equal, your 26K should be restored [...]. I was inclined in that direction until you went to the talk page of User:Ritchie333. …}}<br /> :I judge that as invalid. One thing has nothing to do with another. I see no valid logical connections between whether the content should be restored and what I said on the page of User:Ritchie333 .<br /> :'''Pt14.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|You said that you had evidence. Now you say that is only my interpretation. …}}<br /> :I have already apologized for that entire discussion on User:Ritchie333 talk page, three times: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215019037] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dionysius_Miller#My_aplologies] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01#c-Z80Spectrum-20240129030400-Clindberg-20240129005500]. I now apologize for the fourth time. I would also like to point out that I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1197467546 ended that discussion with] {{tq|You win. I've had enough. I don't even know why am I wasting time here. }}. That final post of mine was an attempt to cancel what I have said there. Obviously, it wasn't clear enough.<br /> :This insistent objections concerning those few sentences on User:Ritchie333 talk page are getting in the way of a fair discussion. I have a feeling that you and [[User:Chaheel Riens]] are trying to scare me and silence me by quoting that discussion only when I try to argue for the restoration of the deleted material. I won't search now for evidence in support of that feeling of mine, but I will do it if the issue is brought up again.<br /> :I repeat: I see no valid logical connections between restoration of the deleted material and what I have said on the page of User:Ritchie333 .<br /> :'''Pt15.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|If you mean me, I didn't pick a fight with you. […] By &quot;here&quot;, do you mean WP:ANI? }}<br /> :Yes, I mean/meant you, [[User:Robert McClenon]]. I was replying to an answer of another editor who used the phrase &quot;pick a fight&quot; first. I re-used his phrase due to concerns of clarity. Yes, I meant WP:ANI.<br /> :'''Pt16.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|Unlike you, I didn't take a two-week or four-week break from Wikipedia. }}<br /> :On WP:ANI, I have already provided an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215232772 answer to your allusion].<br /> :So, you claim that you were present on Wikipedia. Tell me, have you done something related to this dispute since February 21st? If you did, I'm still unaware of it. I was mostly absent, and I might have missed some important development, so I would like to get informed. Or, perhaps you did nothing since February 21st?<br /> :-<br /> :'''Answers to the three points titled &quot;Starting Over ?&quot;:'''<br /> :'''Pt21.''' (answer to 1.) The question is not where can I copy the deleted material, but primarily whether the deletion was justified. Perhaps you are trying to say that the deleted material belongs better to my user space, but I don't think it does. The deleted material is strongly connected to the &quot;ZX Spectrum graphics modes&quot; article, where it should be discussed. The deleted material specifically discusses improvements only to that article, and also discusses and documents methods of generating images specifically for that article.<br /> :I see no justification in the guidelines for your proposed compromise. '''Can you quote a part of''' [[WP:TPO]] that would support your proposal to move the disputed material to my user space?<br /> :A rhetorical question: '''What would you say if I proposed that every comment you wrote on any talk page should be moved to your user space, as a compromise?'''<br /> :I propose as an equally good &quot;compromise&quot; (ironically): If the 26 KB of disputed material is moved to my user space, then I should be allowed to pick 26 KB of yours and User:Chaheel Riens posts and move them to your and his user space.<br /> :'''Pt22.''' (answer to 2.) When I said &quot;I have evidence&quot;, I meant that [[User:4throck]]<br /> :a) provided me with a link to an image hosted on a third-party website<br /> :b) didn't upload the disputed image to the Commons, even after I notified him; that inaction appeared to me as a possible attempt to hide information about copyright.<br /> :c) the image he previously uploaded to the Commons was modified in a strange way, which made me extremely suspicious<br /> :'''Pt23.''' (answer to 3.) Yes, there is more. Given the totality of your objections and proposals in this discussion on WP:ANI so far, I would estimate that, generally speaking, you are not arguing properly. I ask for arguments and justifications of better quality. I especially dislike apparent constant attempts to blame me for as many things as possible, which then causes me to spend unnecessary time and space for rebuttals of each accusation (since I might be punished by WP:ANI for any single accusation of yours). To accusations, I might respond with counter-accusations, as I did. To valid arguments, I will respond with arguments.<br /> :Please, if you want to improve the quality of this discussion, then try to provide a small number of well-thought out arguments, instead of a multitude of short, but easily rebutted arguments. You can start by answering the two questions that I have partially bolded/highlighted. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Good Lord, this is becoming a veritable black hole waste of time. I didn't realise it was still ongoing, as my username was incorrectly spelled in some of the earlier pings, so I never received them. However, I'll make just a couple of observations and try to keep away in general:<br /> ::# {{tpq|I propose as an equally good &quot;compromise&quot; (ironically): If the 26 KB of disputed material is moved to my user space, then I should be allowed to pick 26 KB of yours and User:Chaheel Riens posts and move them to your and his user space}} - that depends on whether the 26Kb in question has been challenged, and the reasons behind it. As this would obviously be a [[WP:POINTY]] edit, then you would most likely find your actions had consequences that you would undoubtedly feel were unfair. (Incidentally, you state that this is a rhetorical question, but also ask for it to be answered. It can't be both, but I chose the latter.)<br /> ::# The issue here that you are still fixated on the talk page removal, and [[WP:STICK|will not let it go]] - to the extent where everything else fades out and your position ''must'' be accepted. However, to every other editor this is no longer the case - even those who supported you at first. It's now turned into a primarily a conduct issue, albeit ''your'' conduct around the original issue (even if mine was questioned at the start) - yet you refuse to accept or take advice in that respect. Even back when DRN was first mooted I was prepared to accept the outcome regardless, and recognised that {{tpq|I've interacted with Robert before in passing - he's to be respected}} [[User_talk:Chaheel_Riens/Archive_1#ZX_Spectrum_modes|here]]. I ''tried'' to support you, I really did - when you first joined I left you a [[User_talk:Z80Spectrum#Welcome!|Welcome template]] on your talk page, and recognised that you were just venting with your userpage, voting to '''keep'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Z80Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197682148], but you make it a hard row, and I feel like it's against the current. You seem to be making it personal, and that's not a good place to edit from. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt31.''' (answer to 1.) Perhaps I used a wrong word there (i.e. &quot;ironically&quot;). Precisely: that last &quot;compromise&quot; of mine should not be understood at face value. I also think that you didn't correctly identify the &quot;two questions that I have partially bolded/highlighted&quot;. It is likely a honest mistake on your part.<br /> :::Whether the disputed content should be moved to my user space is a question of justification and a question of consistence. A justification has to be found in the policies and guidelines. &quot;Consistence&quot; is about the usual and accepted ways to solve this kind of a dispute. It would be the best if both the justification and the &quot;consistence&quot; coincide into one and the same action.<br /> :::'''Pt32.''' (answer to 2.) I'll only let go if I'm provided with a valid justification (which can also be based on the concept of consistence, but such is a much more complex argument to make). &quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Without a proper justification, you can't convince me. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::[[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. If you can't convince other editors you're right, then you ''have'' to drop it. This is policy on Wikipedia. If you can't handle it, you're in the wrong place. <br /> ::::[[WP:CONSENSUS]]: {{tq|'''Consensus''' is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making [...] [[Consensus decision making|Consensus]] on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity [...] nor is the result of a [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|vote]].}} &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::No, I don't have to convince other editors. Conduct issues are decided by WP:ANI, and the deletion od 26 KB is a conduct issue. I'd like to hear the judgement of WP:ANI. I hope that it will be properly justified. Until then, I'll be posting my counter-arguments, in order to better inform the administrators at WP:ANI of my side of the argument. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 01:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|The question is not where can I copy the deleted material, but primarily whether the deletion was justified.}} This seems quite a lot like a [[WP:BATTLE|battleground mentality]].<br /> ::{{tq|...didn't upload the disputed image to the Commons, even after I notified him; that inaction appeared to me as a possible attempt to hide information about copyright....which made me extremely suspicious.}} All editing is voluntary. It is not reasonable to make demands of other editors. [[WP:AGF|Assuming good faith]], however, is not optional. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 17:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt41.''' [[User:Vquakr]] said: {{tq|All editing is voluntary. It is not reasonable to make demands of other editors. Assuming good faith, however, is not optional. }}<br /> :::OK. However, I argue that I had good reasons for being suspicious, due to the gravity (i.e. importance) of legal problems. I argue that I had the right to demand immediate clarification of the copyright problem, and that I had sufficient reasons for being suspicious. Even if it wasn't entirely so, that has no implications on the restoration of the 26 KB disputed material. The issue of my conduct is a separate issue. I can't tell how much have I overstepped, as I am a newbie here. I have already agreed to accept the boomerang. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*{{tq|'''can you quote a part of''' [[WP:TPO]] which, in your opinion, supports the case for deletion of the disputed 26 KiB?}}<br /> ::Can't speak for Robert, but ''I'' do. <br /> ::[[WP:TALKOFFTOPIC]]: {{tq|It is common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself}} <br /> ::Which OR always is, by definition. <br /> ::Which I told you more than five weeks ago, on your talk page. You have [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|hearing issues]]. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt42.''' [[User:Paradoctor]] said: {{tq| WP:TALKOFFTOPIC: It is common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself }}<br /> :::I think this is a repetition of the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Z80Spectrum#Talk_page_guidelines_vs._ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes on my talk page], in which you participated. I'll reply [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Z80Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209392534 the same as I did there], but shorter : {{tq| The deleted discussion is not a discussion about article's subject (the subject are the graphics modes), but about article content (images in the article are content). }} [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{tq|I think this is a repetition}} Uh, I literally said so. Let me repeat another bit of yours from slightly further down: {{tq|Frankly, I can't see your side of the argument at all}}. <br /> ::::Me and everyone else. So, lots of not seeing on all sides. What are we to do? The fact is, for whatever reason, and whomever you wish to blame for that, you couldn't convince anyone to accept your position. Which means your position won't result in content. <br /> ::::You dislike this, sure. I understand. But it is clear that further discussion will not lead to conversions. Attempting to continue the campaign will only waste the time of other editors. So, unless you ''wish'' to be sanctioned, it is time to [[WP:DEADHORSE|drop it]] now. Remember what Obi Wan said to Anakin on Mustafar. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 01:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I don't know what's the best way to say this, but I want to say to you that you are, by your nature, quite an amusing person. You make me smile. I would like that to be understood in a positive way. So, I can't say that I dislike your comment.<br /> :::::That was a slight digression. On the serious side, your argument is just a version of a fallacy known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Argumentum ad populum]. I would like to be given proper justifications, not fallacies. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::You know, if you try to condescend to someone, at least make sure you're right. I never said consensus makes right. I said [[WP:CONSENSUS|Wikipedia operates through consensus]], and consensus is not with you here and now. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 02:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I forgot to say that I accept only the original trilogy, so Obi Wan on Mustafar didn't happen. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :* And from [[WP:NOTFORUM]]: &quot;Per our policy on '''original research''', please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: ... #4 Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia ... bear in mind that '''article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles'''; they are '''not for general discussion''' about the subject of the article&quot; &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 18:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:'''Pt43.''' I have already discussed that in other forums. I argue that the deleted 26 KB is solely about improving the article. To verify it, you have to read the deleted 26 KB: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;oldid=1194297511#How_to_simulate_Spectrum's_PAL_output this topic (at least the first post)], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;oldid=1194297511#c-80.80.52.99-20231111154100-80.80.52.174-20231111033300 this part, which is about improving the &quot;Colour palette&quot; section of the article] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Colour_palette].<br /> :*:Also, I would like to remind that [[WP:OR]] does not apply to talk pages. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::This is your research: {{tq|Let's compute this conversion of &quot;theoretic&quot; ZX Spectrum PAL colors into sRGB color space. They are &quot;theoretic&quot; because we are assuming the maximum possible saturation that a ZX Spectrum could possibly achieve on the PAL output. The real colors produced by a ZX Spectrum on the PAL output are probably less saturated. The real colors are currently unknown, and the only way to find them out is by an oscilloscope, via the UV voltages method (by measuring amplitude-phase shift of chroma sub-carrier).}}<br /> :*::Where is the [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that says what you are saying there? <br /> :*::What do you not understand about [[WP:V]]?<br /> :*::{{tq|content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or [[Wikipedia:No original research|previously unpublished ideas or information]]. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.}} &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 01:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::I would like to remind that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::::WP:OR does not apply to normal appropriate talk page discussions, this means discussing with reliable sources improvements to the article. This type of discussion is not original research. You however are not using the talk pages for discussion within these talk page guidelines, you are using talk pages to try and publish your own thoughts, this is original research and per WP:NOTFORUM is is not allowed. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 02:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::Oh, [WP:V], sorry, here you go: {{tq|All material in Wikipedia mainspace, ...}} [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::::You are abusing talk page discussions to publish your own thoughts, these cannot be WP:V and using talk pages to try and end run around WP:V won't work. I think this is why you are so desperate to have this content put back on a talk page instead of your userspace, you can't get your WP:OR in the article directly, so the talk page is the next choice. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 02:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::::I have replied below at the start of &quot;Courtesy Break (1)&quot;. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Firstly, I'd like to clarify that I'm new to ANI, so forgive me if I miss any formalities. However, I wanted to chime in because like other editors here, I really don't see how this content dispute qualifies as a ''{{tq|chronic, intractable problem}}''. The dispute effectively amounts to a several month-old removal of talk page content, which has been dragged to death via various noticeboards. What exactly is the point of bringing this here? If it's content, this discussion does not belong here. I agree with the IP's suggestion for Z80Spectrum to withdraw this thread, before they continue to dig a hole for themselves, running the risk of potential sanctions. What I ''do'' find intractable, however, is Z80Spectrum's [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground mentality]], which has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout this thread, e.g ''{{tq|users are trying to scare and silence me}}'', (which is demonstrably false, since your own actions have led you to this point, not mine, nor anyone else's), and ''{{tq|I would turn out to be a complete coward, which I am not}}''. As @[[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] succinctly put it, this isn't a battle to be won and lost based on courage or cowardice. Irrespective of whether or not the removal was justified, I think Z80Spectrum needs to stop digging a hole for themselves. This really isn't a hill that one should die on. [[User:Bandit Heeler|Bandit Heeler]] ([[User talk:Bandit Heeler|talk]]) 22:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Courtesy Break (1)===<br /> <br /> After an approx. 15 hours break, I would like to continue the argumentation here. I'll skip the replies to all the argument so far where I estimate that they are either obviously false, fallacious, off-topic, irrelevant, or without sufficient substance. <br /> <br /> As far as I can tell, that leaves only two posts unanswered, by [[User:TimothyBlue]], where he talks about applicability of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]] policies. [[User:TimothyBlue]] said: {{tq|You are abusing talk page discussions to publish your own thoughts ... }}<br /> <br /> '''My answer is as follows.''' Generally speaking, Wikipedia talk pages contain thoughts of users. I estimate that user's thoughts form over 50% of the total Wikipedia talk page material. Wikipedia does not require user's thoughts published on talk pages to be verifiable. Upon reading the [[WP:V]] policy, it can be easily noticed that it speaks primarily about article content, and not about talk page material.<br /> <br /> Additionally, most parts of the disputed 26 KiB material are actually easily verifiable. You just need to use a calculator, and you need some introductory knowledge in the topics covered.<br /> <br /> Similar reasoning applies with regards to [[WP:OR]], which explicitly and clearly states: {{tq|This policy does not apply to talk pages... }} . If Wikipedia was to apply [[WP:OR]] to content of talk pages, it would imply that all the talk page discussions have to be just slight re-interpretations of material already published somewhere else. That would further imply the need to put inline references into all sentences published on talk pages. So, it is not any kind of a wonder that [[WP:OR]] does not apply to talk pages.<br /> <br /> [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :[[WP:PLAYPOLICY]] &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You have a right to state that opinion of yours. I argue that it is an undoubtable and obvious intention of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]] to be applicable only to mainspace (i.e. to articles, and not to talk pages). Therefore, I'm not gaming the use of policies and guidelines. Instead, I'm providing a very obvious interpretation of WP:OR and WP:V. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Topic ban===<br /> <br /> Given the above lengthy comment, which dismisses concerns as {{tq|easily rebutted arguments}} and that users {{tq|are trying to scare me and silence me}}, I can see no option besides the following:<br /> <br /> *&lt;s&gt;'''Topic ban''' [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] from [[Sinclair Research]] and related articles.&lt;/s&gt; I chose this more broad topic ban (rather than just the [[Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes]] page) as I expect this will continue at those related pages otherwise. This is the only way to put this interminable argument to rest and bring focus back to improving these articles, rather than going in circles over a months-old [[WP:FORUM]] removal from the Talk page. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 21:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|HandThatFeeds}} their area of interest/expertise is clearly linked to that subject area given their user name and editing history; topic banning them from that area rather than addressing the behavioral issues seems like an indef block by another name, and ''if'' they started editing in another area with the same behavior the same issues would arise. Put another way, this boils down to battleground mentality not the subject area so I don't think a topic ban is the right tool. As an alternative: what about a ban from arguing against or uncollapsing off-topic talk page posts, with a warning that future forum-like posts, synthetic talk page posts, or battleground behavior will likely result in a block? [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::&lt;s&gt;Z80Spectrum seems to have an interest in technology in general - a look at their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Z80Spectrum&amp;target=Z80Spectrum&amp;offset=&amp;limit=500 contributions so far] (once the talk page and ANI chaff is filtered out) shows a fairly wide breadth of computer related interests. A topic ban here would not restrict them as much as a block, indef or not. Additionally, they have made constructive edits to the [[ZX Spectrum]] article - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZX_Spectrum&amp;diff=1214435159&amp;oldid=1214433745 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZX_Spectrum&amp;diff=1211653251&amp;oldid=1211596298 here] for example. I think a topic ban would work for just the [[ZX Spectrum graphic modes]] article &amp; talk page. Not being a mop-holder, I'm also unaware, but I do - best will in the world - think that some kind of attitude warning or restriction based on the [[WP:STICK]] and battleground mentality is in order. As an involved (!) party, I'm not sure how much weight my observations carry though. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 22:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/s&gt;<br /> :::'''Indef block''' - Changed my mind based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215583779 this comment] in '''Pt32.''' (answer to 2.): {{tpq|&quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me.}} Although it's abundantly clear he has no intention of stopping, this is where he categorically states and admits it. He's not going to stop and will keep filibustering until somebody stops him instead. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 08:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::15 years, 37,619 edits, carries a bit of weight. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't think a behavioral topic ban will suit, because that's just too vague to enforce. Either an article topic ban, or a CIR block, are the only solutions I can think of to end this. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''': They really have left everyone with few options. I suppose this comes down to how much more time needs to be wasted? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215287811 Based on this] I think the underlying problem will resurface in a different form. After looking at their userpage, I think they want to be blocked to prove what they think is a point. Wikipedia has flaws large and small, but their userpage rant is even more unhinged than this discussion. However the tban is crafted, it needs to be crystal clear that if the problem repeats a block will be fast in coming. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * &lt;del&gt;'''Topic ban''' for [[ZX Spectrum graphic modes]]. I think the crux is that this is about something they put a lot of work in, and the rejection of their work has them [[WP:WIKISTRESS|running a lot hotter]] than their usual self. Let's not forget they are new here. If I'm wrong, we'll learn soon enough, but I'm willing to give them a chance to cool down.&lt;/del&gt; &lt;br&gt; &lt;del&gt;'''Block indef''' Reassessed.&lt;/del&gt; &lt;br&gt; '''Site ban''', but will accept an indef block. I have begun to see the wisdom in Remsense's words below. &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paradoctor|contribs]]) 23:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;&lt;ins&gt;; edited 02:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/ins&gt;&lt;ins&gt;; edited 10:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/ins&gt;<br /> *:However it turns out, I would like to say that I mostly enjoyed conversations with you. I'm saying this just in case that I'm banned and therefore unable to say it. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Topic ban''' or '''just block indef'''. Based on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215583779 comment in this discussion]: {{tq|&quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me.}} - it is obvious that some sort of sanction will be required. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 00:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support Indef block''': They just replied above (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;curid=5137507&amp;diff=1215583779&amp;oldid=1215582006]). They made it clear they have no intention of stopping. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' any topic ban from article space. The conduct issue here is the editor's [[WP:FILIBUSTER|filibustering]] in project space about an article talk page. I am not stating a position for or against an indefinite block or site ban, but those are not what is being considered here. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 01:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Indef block''' even now, with this discussion open, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=1215618454&amp;oldid=1215616779 just] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1215618454 can't] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1215618585 help] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1215618692 themselves]. Hopeless case of [[WP:BATTLE]]. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 07:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support Indef''' - Given the new rants and declaration they will not stop until a &quot;justification&quot; which satisfies them is presented, I'm striking my topic ban suggestion and supporting an indef block. User is [[WP:NOTHERE]] to collaboratively edit. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' a '''Site Ban''' after the subject editor wrote: {{tq|&quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Without a proper justification, you can't convince me.}}, since it is also apparent that they want to decide what is a &quot;proper justification&quot;. That insistence may be good mathematical logic, but it is not collaborative work in an electronic office. They threw a [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] at a [[kangaroo]] that wasn't there. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support site ban''' – In the course of human events, sometimes words simply fail. Here, they likely failed months ago. Z80 has been given months more time to adjust their behavior than I had initially expected—time during which they have been consistently afforded a wide variety of patient advice from fellow editors. At several points, it seemed to me that there may have been some getting through to them. Unfortunately, that no longer seems plausible. Beyond a very shallow threshold, Z80 is completely unreceptive to other editors' perspectives. This threshold is unacceptably shallow for Wikipedia. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 07:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Accusations of deception====<br /> Just a heads up that [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] is still engaging in battleground mentality, albeit on a much more low-key level over at the [[Talk:ZX Spectrum]] page, where everybody who he disagrees with is being deceptive - although it's probably an honest mistake, so he'll forgive them: (paraphrase, but also my sarcasm)<br /> *{{tpq|I also estimate that I have been deceived by Paradoctor's and VQuakr's interpretation of the situation so far, but it was probably an honest mistake on their part, so at this moment I'm willing to just forget it}}<br /> *{{tpq|This is Paradoctor's statement that I find deceptive...}}<br /> *{{tpq|This is another Paradoctor's statement that I find deceptive...}}<br /> *{{tpq|This is the VQuakr 's statement that I find slightly deceptive...}}<br /> ending with:<br /> *{{tpq|As I have said, I still consider those to be honest mistakes, provided in good faith}}<br /> The last three (and {{tpq|honest mistake}} statement) were made directly after both [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] and I asked him to stop making such comments - as Paradoctor said (I had a brain-freeze and couldn't think of the term!) they are at best condescending, and at worst insulting. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 06:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Yeah, I think at this point an admin really needs to take action here. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::[[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]]'s comment is a relatively accurate description of an issue that happened in this very recent discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum#The_leading_paragraph]. Therefore I don't have much to add there. I think that the linked discussion is quite illustrative, and I think that it speaks for itself. So I don't need to say anything additional, except my advice to read the discussion from the start to the end.<br /> ::I would like to correct myself regarding another issue here. In my reply numbered &quot;'''Pt2.'''&quot;, I said {{tq|No, it was not my fault.}} Reading it again, I think that the closure of the case at DRN might have been my fault, since my replies at User:Ritchie333's page do connect the DRN case with the copyright case. I must admit that, by the time I have posted on User:Ritchie333's page, I have probably already lost my faith in the DRN case and that I thought DRN has little chance of settling the issue. I think, as I always did, that [[User:Robert McClenon]]'s decision to close the DRN case at that time was a correct decision. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 17:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I have another correction (clarification) of another sentence of mine. In '''Pt41.''' (semicolon instead of the full-stop):<br /> ::&quot;Even if it wasn't entirely so, that has no implications on the restoration of the 26 KB disputed material''' ; t'''he issue of my conduct is a separate issue.&quot;<br /> ::I.e. the issue of my conduct is an issue separate from the issue of the 26 KB disputed material.<br /> ::Also, previously in this discussion I used the word &quot;ironically&quot; instead of &quot;sarcastically&quot; (I guess). Also, I used the word &quot;consistence&quot; instead of the word &quot;uniformity&quot;. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :The issue is battleground mentality and the inability of this editor to drop any [[WP:STICK]], ever. I think the specific concern about the connotations of the word &quot;deception&quot; are less concerning given that English isn't the user's first language, but that's just my opinion. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm not going to directly respond to VQuakr's accusation. Besides, I'm a newbie here, and I don't really know what are the accepted interpretations of Wikipedia policies. So I'll leave the judgement to others.<br /> ::Related, I would like to point out a policy of WP:HARASS, which contains a section [[WP:HOUND]]. I have no idea whether that policy applies, and what is the accepted interpretation of that policy. I'll be leaving it to others to think about it, and to respond if they think it is appropriate. Similarly, there is a guideline [[WP:CANVASS]], which might, or might not, apply in this dispute at WP:ANI. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 07:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :An editor named [[User:CodeTalker]] has just replied in the mentioned discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216223186]. I don't know whether that editor is an administrator here, and whether his answers are an official opinion from WP:ANI, or his own opinions. To be safe, at this moment I will refrain from any actions. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 20:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|Z80Spectrum}} [[WP:ADMIN|Administrators]] are not authorities that rule by decree. They are editors with extra buttons to allow technical actions. Whether they are an admin or not should have zero bearing on whether you [[WP:LISTEN]] to them. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I just figured out that better words for &quot;deceived&quot; and &quot;deceptive&quot; would have been &quot;mislead&quot; and &quot;misleading&quot;. So, I appologize for that mistake. I can correct myself, by strike-outs, on the &quot;ZX Spectrum&quot; talk page, if the offended editors agree. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 07:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::&quot;Deceive&quot; and &quot;mislead&quot; have the same negative connotations. There is no practical difference between them in this context. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 08:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::OK. I would also like to suggest &quot;misguide&quot;, &quot;misinform&quot; and &quot;misrepresent&quot; as acceptable alternatives. If, at any later time you would like me to change it, just notify me. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::All of which are synonyms. You appear unable or unwilling not to misjudge other editors. This given that your accusations have been refuted. Those against me by myself, and the one against VQakr by CodeTalker. What you should have done was to either concede your error, or offer an effective rebuttal. What we're getting instead is a concession that is not conceding anything. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 10:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I just wanted to make sure that I didn't use a word with an incorrect meaning. I was uncertain, that's all. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 10:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::🤦 &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 10:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===ArbCom? Probably not now===<br /> There is a [[WP:RFAR|Request for Arbitration]] currently open before ArbCom that is similar to this dispute, in that it is about the deletion of questionable material from article talk pages. The filing party was in the habit of restoring talk page posts by IP addresses that were deleted by other editors. The filing party was then blocked for seven days for disruptive editing for restoring the IP posts. Having come off block, they are asking for ArbCom action. Their request is unlikely to be accepted, because several arbitrators have already voted to Decline. However, I have made a statement saying that both cases, this case and the RFAR, illustrate that a poorly written and ambiguous guideline is problematic. I don't think that ArbCom considers poorly written policies to be within their scope, but have said that some sort of statement about the guideline would be useful.<br /> [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Definitely not. The way it looks to me FTM, there is consensus for an indef block, at a minimum. As regards our guidelines, they are all badly written, and ambiguities are unavoidable, given [[WP:5P5]]. Z80Spectrum's issues are not caused by that. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 10:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == User:Fred Zepelin ==<br /> <br /> I am asking for [[User:Fred Zepelin]] to be indefinitely blocked from posting to my personal talk page, and for an administrator to consider appropriate action in response to his hounding and ongoing personal attacks.<br /> <br /> During a recent content dispute, he accused me of “whitewashing” and being a “white supremacist apologist”.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABlake_Masters&amp;diff=1210112045&amp;oldid=1210099756] The two other editors involved in the discussion suggested he “focus on content, not contributors” and “clear the slate with a strike and or apology”.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Zepelin#Careful]<br /> <br /> Instead, he followed me to another article where his first-ever edit there was to revert my content and source[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrei_Cherny&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210119834] and template-warned me inappropriately.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BBQboffin#February_2024]<br /> <br /> I have asked him repeatedly to stop posting on my talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABBQboffin&amp;diff=1210139356&amp;oldid=1210138700], citing [[WP:USERTALKSTOP]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABBQboffin&amp;diff=1210737930&amp;oldid=1210736842] and telling him that I would view future violations as harassment. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFred_Zepelin&amp;diff=1212439892&amp;oldid=1211599745] But days later he again posted there again, and with another personal attack.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABBQboffin&amp;diff=1214772992&amp;oldid=1212595355] [[User:BBQboffin|BBQboffin]] ([[User talk:BBQboffin|talk]]) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Which they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BBQboffin&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214772992 immediately reverted and apologized for] (and was in regards to what was not a PA at all). What are you asking us to do if the other user already self-resolved it? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 17:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Immediately reverted - yes. Apologized for casting aspersions about alleged &quot;whitewashing&quot; - no.[[User:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue&quot;&gt; ''Isaidnoway'' &lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:black&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/b&gt;]] 18:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::So what is being asked for, then? The editor immediately reverted so there's nothing to revert, though it looks like the two have had a running content dispute for the last month but not to a block-worthy extent. I just can't stand when the reporter leaves out something on purpose (the reversion) to try to have an action done, without the other in the dispute being able to respond. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&quot;I forgot&quot; is neither an excuse for harassment nor is it an apology. Posting &quot;Knock off the whitewashing&quot; and then reverting is like someone throwing a punch and pulling it back at the last minute. It doesn't &quot;self-resolve&quot; a situation; it has an intimidating effect. And this isn't the first time FZ has done this: he had been warned about respecting [[WP:USERTALKSTOP]] with another editor[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1060198549], ignored the warning, and got himself a 48-hour block[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&amp;oldid=1130765395#December_2022]. What I want is for him to just stop posting to my talk page: if he can't be banned from posting there permanently, maybe a 72-hour block would help him remember next time that harassment (of me or anyone else) is not OK. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::The edit summary on their self-revert, &quot;''forgot, this particular user asked that I not post on thier talk page,''&quot; gives me faith they'll stop posting there. Do you agree but still think they need to be blocked, or do you think if they're not blocked they'll continue messaging you there? &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Segoe Script;&quot;&gt;''[[User:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#BC49A6&quot;&gt;City&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:Green&quot;&gt; o&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:Red&quot;&gt;f &lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]]''&lt;/b&gt; 22:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I can’t know if he's going to forget again. A talk page block would make it 100% certain. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Sorry but that wasn't what I asked. And they're not going to be blocked from your talk page because it's possible they'll have messages they're required by policy to leave for you. &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Segoe Script;&quot;&gt;''[[User:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#BC49A6&quot;&gt;City&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:Green&quot;&gt; o&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:Red&quot;&gt;f &lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]]''&lt;/b&gt; 02:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::In lieu of a talk page block I would accept a promise from FZ not to post on my talk page anything beyond required-by-policy messages. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::It's been four days and they haven't posted since you took them to ANI, which is '''not''' a result I want for anyone as &quot;chilling&quot; an editor from posting again is a major reason we discourage ANI reports of this kind if an issue is easily solvable by using a talk page to discuss editing concerns. We're certainly not going to take action on the above because of that, and I truly hope you didn't needlessly scare a productive editor away because of this overreaction to an honest mistake. But in the reverse, Fred had been warned to step back from editing on a particular article on their talk page, so we're not going to warn someone either from taking a break and pausing editing, then coming back a better editor if they do so. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 16:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Fred did return and going by their response, they felt this ANI thread was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&amp;oldid=1215718380 completely frivolous (but put it more profanely)] and resumed editing elsewhere. Next time, use the user talk page first before going to ANI, because nothing is happening here. He's done with you, be done with him, and move on, BBQ. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Ok, next time I'll use the user talk page more than I did, but I don't think this is an &quot;easily solvable&quot; issue. I will move on, although on his first day back I see another editor has already become exasperated with Fred and asked him not to post to their talk page[[User talk:Alansohn#The longest quotes in references ever seen|[1]]]. Fred certainly has value to the project for his tenacity and skill in ferreting out sockpuppets and their ilk, but it would be nice if he would show mutual respect to his fellow editors. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == TonyTheTiger is gaming the WikiCup through GAN spam ==<br /> Over the course of a few days, {{user1|TonyTheTiger}} has increased the number of articles he had pending at GAN from a handful to [[Special:Diff/1214753203|nearly 70]]. When [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations|asked about it]] by {{u|Ganesha811}}, TonyTheTiger basically admitted to [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] to score [[Wikipedia:WikiCup|WikiCup]] points, saying that he'd only be willing to withdraw if another backlog drive was guaranteed to him later in the year (at which point he hoped to have date priority on nominations). Such a huge strain on the process might be understandable if his submissions were all carefully scrutinized, but the only charitable explanation is that they clearly were not. 25 of his submissions have been quickfailed by 13 separate reviewers (myself included) on several grounds, including poor sourcing, unsourced sections, poor prose, unhandled maintenance tags, lack of substantive contribution, and lack of breadth. On multiple occasions, after an article was failed, he lashed out at the reviewer before renominating the article with little substantive change. {{u|Premeditated Chaos}} rightly pointed out that this was a pretty clear abuse of the GAN process, {{u|Epicgenius}} (who is a WikiCup judge this year) warned him that his conduct could be seen as gaming, and {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} noted that he was TBANed from [[Wikipedia:Featured sounds|Featured sounds]] back in 2011 for this exact pattern of conduct.<br /> <br /> His behavior pretty much only gets worse from there. If you look at [[Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)|one of his renomination attempts]], you'll see that TonyTheTiger, who has been editing since 2006 – rather than choosing to respond to any of the admins, backlog drive coordinators, or other senior editors who had raised concerns about his conduct on his talk page in the past day – chose to go after {{u|Generalissima}}, a relatively new editor on the scene, telling her, &quot;{{tq|You are bending over backwards to fail this article... Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know.}}&quot; He then told everyone else to {{tq|Calm down and stop quickfailing stuff for no reason... If you fail a 20-25% {{sic}} of my articles that does not make me a problem editor.}} He told another quickfailing reviewer, {{u|Teratix}}, {{tq|I assume you are lieing {{sic}} to pick a fight.}} He has now claimed in multiple places that a vague group of &quot;vindictive&quot; editors [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Open season on qfing me|are conspiring to fail his articles for WikiCup points]], claiming that articles like his get through GAN in good shape all the time. If he's right, I worry. In the meantime, multiple editors have asked him to find and withdraw his poorer-quality nominations, and he has refused, while continuing to making spurious renominations. This is clearly disruptive behavior that needs to be addressed. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 22:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Proposed sanctions ===<br /> :This is really disappointing, because many of his past FAs and GAs ''are'' high quality. His [[Wikipedia:Featured topics/Four Freedoms|FT on the Four Freedoms by Rockwell]] is great work! Why he has decided to take such a big step down with his quality control in favor of mass-nomination of Start/C-class articles is beyond me; the only way many of these articles would get through GAN is if either a newbie reviewer picks them up without fully understanding the GA criteria, or if a reviewer painstakingly holds his hand the entire way from start class up to meeting the criteria. <br /> :I feel a fair response to this would involve suspension from this year's Wikicup for openly trying to game the system, alongside a tight restriction to how many GANs he can have at once, to prevent this sort of waste of reviewers' time in the future. Maybe just one GAN at a time to start out with? &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::given his past pattern of similar behavior, including disruption at FAC &amp; DYK, i worry that this kind of thing will just continue in another area of the project. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::That is fair enough. I would absolutely support a '''topic ban from Wikicup''', as I feel this is the primary cause for his behavior. However, a '''topic ban from GAN''' should be instituted if this sort of abuse continues outside of the cup. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 02:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Upon all the new evidence being brought forward of his consistent behavior in this respect, mark me down as in favor of a '''TB from GAN/DYK''' too. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 22:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *A look back to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Featured Sounds Process|this very noticeboard in 2011]]: Tony is topic banned from a) participating in the Featured Sounds process and from b) uploading pictures relating to himself (this is as absurd as it sounds, so let's ignore it). Why was he TBANned from FS? Well:<br /> **{{green|TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured...He wants to add stars to his trophy wall, and he wants to feed his ego...TTT has a strong case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and is pursuing his own self-aggrandizing agenda at the cost of significant community patience, and in this case, the quality of Featured Sounds}}<br /> **{{green|Tony previously caused similar issues at FPC, nominating pic after pic after pic relating to Chicago...He has also caused problems with mass nominations at DYK (which reflected very poorly on the WikiCup, in which he was participating)}}<br /> **{{green|TonyTheTiger seems unable to understand the ways in which he disrupts and abuses of featured content processes and other editors' time in his goal of promoting himself...he disrupted DYK in his attempt to win WikiCup, there was an issue at TFA/R, and FAC instituted a special rule to limit repeat noms because of his repeatedly using FAC as Peer review for ill-prepared articles, and bringing back ill-prepared noms the minute the previous one was archived...I don't know if topic bans are a solution, because he just moves on and does the same thing in another area}}<br /> **{{green|I am also very unimpressed with the shouting and calling of specific others &quot;liars&quot;, and would note the lack of support for his position by any other party on this page.}}<br /> *Move on 13 years, and Tony is again nominating anything that he thinks will have a remote chance of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back and immediately renominating unsuccessful nominations, clogging GAN with items that don't deserve to be GAs, disrespecting every other editor involved in the Cup and GAN, and calling other editors &quot;liars&quot; while facing unanimous disagreement, all to feed his ego. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 22:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **For the record, I support a '''TBAN from the Cup and nomination restrictions at GAN'''; hopefully that ends the disruption. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{A note}} Tony *has* withdrawn a few of his nominations since the debacle started ([[Special:Diff/1215223230|Benji (2012 film)]], [[Special:Diff/1215224630|Essex on the Park]], [[Special:Diff/1215224964|NEMA (Chicago)]] and [[Special:Diff/1215225403|The Flick]]). Everything else in your comment is spot on. – &lt;code style=&quot;background:#333;border:1px solid #999&quot;&gt;[[User:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#fff;text-shadow:0 0 5px #fff&quot;&gt;Hilst&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#090&quot;&gt;&amp;lbrack;talk&amp;rbrack;&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/code&gt; 22:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Within my areas of expertise I am still a bit unsure as to why articles are being failed. I think offensive linemen [[Michael Schofield (American football)]] and [[Heath Irwin]] compare well with my current GA for [[Patrick Omameh]]. At [[Talk:1000M/GA1]], I responded completely to the review before renominating. It was not until after a second fail when reviewers explained what the issues were. Had I understood these were the issues, I would have addressed them. Everyone thinks I understand why the articles are deficient in advance of the reviews. I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems. To people who review in any of certain fields the flaws may seem obtuse, but I did not look at the articles and realise the flaws and then nominate them. The reviews are informative to me. I don't understand why &quot;[[Humble and Kind]]&quot; is not regarded as in the general quality range of my 2022 GA &quot;[[Sheesh!]]&quot; except for a tag. I am finding the reviewer responses confusing. I have started removing some of my nominations that I are further afield from my expertises.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 22:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Tony, if you are so flabbergasted by the reviews you're getting, then that is more indicative of you ''not reading them'' than it is an indictment of over a dozen other editors' feedback. Anyways, this is not a place to air your grievances about the quality of the reviews you're receiving, this is a discussion about your ''behavior''. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 23:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Noting I have nominated Omameh for GA reassessment, as it clearly does not meet the GAC in its current state. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I think it is clear that the WikiCup is not good for TonyTheTiger (it is supposed to be a fun competition, but he seems to think it is something he needs to win) and TonyTheTiger is not good for the WikiCup (as a fun game, it really should not take such a heavy toll on the GAN backlog; abusing the general community like this endangers the Cup). A '''topic ban from the WikiCup''' is the minimum that should happen (full disclosure: this would slightly benefit me, as I am also a competitor in the Cup). However, there are wider [[WP:IDHT]] and almost [[WP:CIR]] issues related to [[WP:GAN]]: TTT has nominated (and sometimes renominated directly after a quickfail) several articles that he last edited years ago, and some of them are significantly out of date, have maintenance tags or other obvious issues (I re-quickfailed one of them, [[1000M]]). So a '''topic ban from GAN''' should be at least considered. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 23:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Mark me down in favor of a '''topic ban from GAN''' entirely, given the continued IDHT and inability to take any accountability for his actions, and repeated poor attitude towards other editors. It's clear Tony will not stop this behavior unless he is forced to. The past behavioral issues put me more firmly in support of a restriction. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 23:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *for the record, i also '''support a topic ban from both GAN and the WikiCup'''. the above-mentioned behavior is entirely disruptive, rude, and a waste of our time. the GAN process and the WikiCup do not exist to serve TTT's ego. i concur with Kusma about the IDHT &amp; potential-CIR issues; how ''anyone'' could read [[Humble and Kind]] (for example) and think it's even slightly close to GA quality is beyond me. patience has run dry. &lt;br&gt;'''edit:''' as other people have also mentioned they're competing in the Cup, i'll disclose that i am as well. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 23:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **For the record, without an explanation, I don't understand why (other than one tag) &quot;[[Humble and Kind]]&quot; is worse than &quot;[[Sheesh!]]&quot;. I believe the majority of my recent nominations were in the range of proximity to [[WP:WIAGA]] to be reasonable nominations. After hundreds of GA reviews, you should know that I am not a problem at GA in general. I feel that the intersection of the GA and the CUP is the issue. I do feel I could work productively at GA without the competitive element of the CUP.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 23:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:{{tq|After hundreds of GA reviews, you should know that I am not a problem at GA in general.}} Doug Coldwell also used his number of GAs to justify his poor behavior and shoddy work... and look where that got him. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 23:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:It didn't take long to find a [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/interview-tim-mcgraw-new-album-dueting-daughter-6753874/ half-dozen] [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/lori-mckenna-album-1988-interview-1235375769/ reliable] [https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/humble-and-kind-how-lori-mckenna-wrote-tim-mcgraws-hit-single/ sources] [https://www.tennessean.com/story/entertainment/music/story-behind-the-song/2021/01/25/story-behind-song-tim-mcgraws-humble-and-kind/4228236001/ covering] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/12/22/why-humble-and-kind-was-the-hit-song-we-really-needed-this-year/ the song's] [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/tim-mcgraw-humble-and-kind-video-oprah-6851683/ production], some in great detail, that just aren't being used. Even [https://cmt.com/news/dqi1jz/humble-and-kind-meant-spaghetti-day-for-lori-mckenna the CMT piece] has a lot of untapped material. The fact that I can find this many sources for one section of the article reflects poorly on the rest. To put it bluntly, &quot;[[Sheesh!]]&quot; covers all the major aspects of its topic, &quot;[[Humble and Kind]]&quot; does not. An editor as experienced as you should realize this. [[User:Averageuntitleduser|Averageuntitleduser]] ([[User talk:Averageuntitleduser|talk]]) 00:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **addendum, after reading others' comments: i don't think a time-based restriction will work. his history of disruption goes all the way back to 2011. while i support a full TBAN from GAN (and certainly from the Cup), i would also be supportive of a strict limit on how many GANs he can make at a time, should a full TBAN not gain consensus here. i think his entitled attitude is the single biggest problem here, as PMC pointed out below. i don't see why we have to give him so much more leeway than he has given his fellow editors. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * [[User:TonyTheTiger|Tony]], would you be willing to go through all your pending GA noms and withdraw all except those of ''exceptional'' quality (or just all). Its looking like you could be heading for a GA topic ban, something I'd think would be a shame since you seem to have a great record of producing good content. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 23:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Topic ban from GAN and the WikiCup''', with regret. TonyTheTiger has [[Special:Diff/1215170109|continued (re)nominating]] articles with issues today, well after many editors have expressed both general and specific feedback about the inappropriateness of his mass nominations. His reaction to this feedback has been to deny or underplay issues and shows a lack of regard for other editors' time and the research required for ensuring his nominations are [[WP:GA?|broad in their coverage (#3)]]. Overall, his recent activity has been detrimental to the processes and to the task of building a high-quality encyclopedia. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|&lt;span style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]''') 23:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''No ban on anything''', Wikipedia eating its own? Assume good faith is a thing. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:with all due respect, did you read the thread? every avenue has been tried before ANI - [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations|his talk page]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Open season on qfing me|the WikiCup talk page]], [[User talk:Teratix#Heath Irwin review|Teratix' talk page]], the [[Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2024#Reason for &quot;backward&quot; progress|GAN drive talk page]], and numerous individual reviews. he has been uncivil, [[WP:IDHT|refused to listen]], and continued to engage in the same disruptive behavior after over a dozen editors, including multiple admins, have asked him to stop. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Yes, I read the thread before responding. Have now read Tony's talk page, and there seems a mix of failed and under review Good articles. He now is pulling some back, as mentioned above. My comment was only about jumping from concerns to banning TtT from GAN, where he has excelled for years. Wikipedia eating its own is a thing, as seen many times on this page when that kind of jump is made from discussion to &quot;Get 'em!&quot;. But good faith is one of the best things, so let's use that one instead. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Tony has not assumed good faith of those who have reviewed his articles. he said to Generalissima &quot;{{tq|You are bending over backwards to fail this article... Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know.}}&quot; he claimed &quot;{{tq|There is an overzealous posse of editors quickfailing my articles.}}&quot; at the Cup talk page. he accused Teratix of &quot;{{tq|lieing to pick a fight.}}&quot; i could go on; what else is there to do at this point? &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic bans from GAN and the WikiCup''' (disclosure: I'm technically still a contestant in the Cup but I have no hope of progressing to the next round). There are seven distinct grounds:<br /> #Mass-nominating GANs to an extent that would be absurd and disrespectful of volunteers' time ''even if'' all nominations were impeccable.<br /> #Mass-nominating GANs with especially obvious, gaping flaws, indicating Tony either does not read the articles he is nominating or fails to understand the GAC. [[Talk:1000M/GA1]] is a representative example (where Tony either didn't notice or didn't care about an entirely promotional and unsourced section) but I recommend reading his other quickfailed articles for the full perspective.<br /> #Renominating GANs after quickfails without fixing the article's problems. See [[Talk:1000M/GA2]], [[Talk:Kenny Demens/GA2]], etc.<br /> #Openly admitting this behaviour is motivated by tactical concerns related to his WikiCup performance. See [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations]]<br /> #Displaying an appalling attitude towards how the GAN process runs, believing the project should bend over backwards to schedule backlog drives and grant special exemptions from date priority for his benefit. Read his replies to Ganesha811 on [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations]]. I have never seen more entitled behaviour.<br /> #Behaving uncivilly towards reviewers and critics. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATonyTheTiger&amp;diff=1215214325&amp;oldid=1215211986 Thebiguglyalien's summary], I'm by no means sure this is comprehensive.<br /> #Not recognising and in many cases doubling down on this bad behaviour.<br /> *&lt;li style=&quot;list-style:none;&quot;&gt;To be clear, I see the GAN and WikiCup bans as inseparable – neither sanction on its own would adequately address these problems. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/li&gt;<br /> *:Tony's behaviour has been appalling enough already but I want to add an eighth ground – openly admitting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215238004&amp;oldid=1215237796 &quot;I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems&quot;]. Or, in other words, '''&quot;I nominate articles in areas where I know I cannot competently assess whether they have issues and rely on volunteer reviewers to inform me of obvious inadequacies&quot;'''. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support GAN nomination ban, temporary or indef''' (edit: or a wider ban that includes GAN) GAN reviewers' time is precious. Wasting it is disruptive. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &amp;#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;buidhe&lt;/span&gt;]]''' 02:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from GAN and WikiCup'''. Buidhe and Teratix have both put it very well. Frankly at this point I'm inclined to support a block. This is not the first time Tony has gamed Wikipedia processes for his own arbitrary personal goals, but it is the first time he's been quite so nakedly honest about what he's doing. No one who would make a statement like {{tq|I am willing to stop nominating new articles until April 1 if you can promise that there will be another backlog drive in October}} is operating in good faith. That's right everyone, if we can '''promise''' Tony that we'll organize an entire backlog drive on '''his''' schedule, he'll stop mass-nominating garbage. '''For now'''. Oh, how kind of him! The level of entitlement he feels to other peoples' effort so that he can have points for a '''game''' fucking boils my blood. &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 02:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:For the record, I'm fine with a limited TBAN from GAN (ie X number of noms at once, or for X number of months, or whatever). &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 03:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *There's rightly been a lot of outrage about Tony's abuse of process, both here and elsewhere. Surely a GAN/WC ban is an inadequate response to a very serious conduct issue? Tony's behaviour is a very clear case of [[WP:NOTHERE]] and [[WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT]]. His abuse of process is borderline vandalistic and certainly disruptive edit-warring. His personal attacks on other editors have been unwarranted and severe. He seems to have no intention of changing his behaviour and continues to persevere with a perverse victim mentality. Other editors have been blocked for less. I don't understand why editors in this discussion are not considering a harsher response. '''[[User:–C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 02:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **'''Project block''', minimum one month, preferably indefinite. Per my comment above. Editors in this discussion are ''far'' to eager to excuse serious, sustained, and deliberate misconduct from an editor with an obvious NOTHERE attitude who really ought to know better. If unblocked, permanent ban from WC, GAN, FAC, and DYK. All the red flags have been there for years now. '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 02:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***Tony hasn't got the message – he's written a reply apologising for his abuse of process, but not for his abuse of other editors. I do not believe that his misconduct towards other volunteer members of the project have been properly addressed, either by other editors here or by Tony himself. As such I continue to support a minimum one month block from the enwiki project, just to make sure the message finally gets through that this behaviour will not be tolerated, even from people who have produced good content in the past. '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 13:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Can anyone show that Tony is like this when ''not'' participating in the WikiCup? I don't understand how {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} has turned up quotes from 13 years ago that basically could have been written yesterday. Has everything been fine in the intervening 13 years? Is this a case of someone losing their senses specifically because of the WikiCup competition and otherwise being mostly normal? What is even going on here? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{tq|Has everything been fine in the intervening 13 years?}} No, there was also a debacle last August when he tried to make a special date request for his sister's article (that he wrote) to appear on DYK on her birthday. Discussion is here: [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#COI issue at Carla Vernón]]. &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 02:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::That is just bizarre. He did not see to understand why we don't do any of that, including pictures of himself. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 12:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]]: I can say that I think Tony [[WP:BLUDGEONING|bludgeoning the process]] isn't limited to the Cup or GAN. My first interactions with him were on the [[Wikipedia:Vital articles|vital articles]] project, where my impression of him quickly became that he would relentlessly [[WP:BADGER|badger]] anybody (and sometimes everybody) that disagreed with one of his proposals. I don't have the energy to revisit all of it, as this was a big reason why I left the VA project, but I recall [[Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Archive_2#Add_Anna_Kournikova|one particularly bad thread]] in which he (in the words of [[User:The Blue Rider|The Blue Rider]]) {{tq|&quot;[came] after everyone who hasn't supported his proposals enough times&quot;}}. In this same thread, I also expressed discomfort over what I felt were some ''very'' inappropriate remarks about a woman athlete, which he doubled down on. In [[Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Archive_4#Add_Ed_Asner/Remove_Leslie_Nielsen|an earlier thread]], only a few days before this, Tony opened a comment saying {{tq|&quot;Forgive me if it seems I am badgering the voters, which does not seem to be something that we do here&quot;}} before going on to badger the two users that opposed his proposal. <br /> *:I'm not going to comment one what I believe should be done, as I'm not an admin so I don't think this is my place, I'm just recounting some of my past experiences with him. -- [[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk:Grnrchst|talk]]) 14:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::@[[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] it now looks like it isn't limited to bludgeoning, either. The bottom of this thread is in conspiracy theory territory. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 00:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from both GAN and WikiCup''' – Before continuing, I will disclose that I am also a contestant of the WikiCup like others have listed above, so therefore something like this would effect me. At first glance, I didn't think these mass nominations were ''that'' bad, many editors keep a backlog on a backburner. I didn't think it was much of an issue until realizing the quality of them and noticing TTT's behavior beyond this. I view the comments he made towards Generalissima and other editors, as well as the ones he has used to defend himself or make demands (ex. demanding a backlog drive) as unacceptable. I simply can not understand how any editor with good intentions can blatantly attack other users over a game. Hell, knowing his previous topic bans for similar reasons, this is something where the punishment could go beyond a topic ban, and if this discussion escalated to that I'd support that such action be taken. Absolutely egregious. &lt;span style=&quot;border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px&quot;&gt;'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#264e85&quot;&gt;'''Negative'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#7d43b5&quot;&gt;'''MP1'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 03:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from GAN and Wikicup, at the very least''': I was there for the featured sound debacle and well remember it. This is just history repeating again. I'd also support anything from a ban from all article nomination processes up to a block of any length, including indefinite. Enough is enough. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 03:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Weak oppose an outright GAN TBAN'''. While The Tiger's recent acting is...erm...concerning, to say the least, we should not ignore his previous great work, including a bazillion actually good GAs, and an outright TBAN is too much over a single incident with an otherwise constructive editor. I don't have the energy to workshop it, but I would support a proposal that limits how many GANs he can submit per day/week/month and/or a limit on how fast he can renominate GANs. No opinion on a WC TBAN; for disclosure's sake, I participated in round 1 of the cup, but was eliminated. {{not watching}} [[User:Queen of Hearts|queen of 🖤]] (they/them; [[User talk:Queen of Hearts|chat]]) 04:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I would be willing to drop down to just a tban from the cup if Tony would actually take responsibility and agree to only nominate a few articles at a time, articles which he has actually put serious work into (and I think we all know he is perfectly capable of writing quite good articles when he puts his mind to it). But I have not seen that just far, only demands for us to bend our backs for him because he feels entitled to spam half-baked nominations for the sake of a contest where the prize for winning is nothing more than bragging rights. He has yet to even show he understands ''why'' his nominations are being failed despite the reviewers offering clear reasons and actionable feedback. Bottom line, Tony did this to himself despite being given multiple opportunities to self-correct and avoid any sanctions. I don't take any pleasure in supporting a TBAN from creating quality content, but this has gone well past the line of acceptable behavior. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose TBAN from GAN''', but like queen of 🖤, I would also support an alternate proposal for some limitations on how many he can submit in a given time frame. This thread has only been open for a few hours, and going from zero to sixty seems kind of extreme in my view. No opinion on WikiCup.[[User:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue&quot;&gt; ''Isaidnoway'' &lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:black&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/b&gt;]] 05:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * ''' support CUP tban '''. If [[User:TonyTheTiger]] apologises for lashing out at reviewers, I think a cap of 1 open nomination at GAN may work. TTT has engaged well with the process in the past, and if seems the intersection between the competition and the uneven GAN process is driving his behaviour. Without recognition that his behaviour towards reviewers was unacceptable, I do not have trust in TTT engaging with the process. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm also happy to support Schrocats suggestion below, except for the fact that I would like to put the max 5 nominations as part of the restriction to give clarity to TTT. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 09:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Five nominations sounds too many. I think stick to your suggestion of 1. This isn't just about flooding GAN, it's the personal attacks that have come with it. Editors have a right not to face that kind of chilling behaviour. Tony will be lucky to escape a GAN outright ban here so allowing one at a time seems reasonable to me. &amp;nbsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You're right, I was too hasty: any rope here should be accompanied by TTT showing they understand why their behaviour was unacceptable. A cap of up to 3 would still seem reasonable to me after a 3-month ban, 5 indeed stretches it. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 10:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::What about a limit of 1 to start with, and if those have a decent 75% rate of passing after [some unit of time] it could maybe creep up to 3. That’s just my idea reading this, let me know if this makes no sense. [[User:Geardona|Geardona]] ([[User talk:Geardona|talk to me?]]) 10:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::75% is quite a low pass rate. I expect a near 100% pass rate for experienced nominators. Otherwise, this makes sense. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 11:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::It's one thing to have a pass rate of less than 100% (though I'd be embarrassed if my pass rate dropped below near 100%, personally). It is another ''entirely'' to have nominations so poor they are being routinely quickfailed. We are dealing with the latter here. I would support Femke's proposal if Tony would take feedback seriously, but thus far he has refused to do so, leaving us with only sanctions as an option to change his behavior. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 15:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from the cup; three month ban from GAN'''. The cup seems to be the driver for the disruption, so ban from that. GAN is where the disruption is taking place, so a more limited ban from that (on condition that all nominations are withdrawn). There’s no point in pushing a harder ban that’s harms the encyclopaedia and punishes TTT after the cause of the disruption has been sorted. He has three months to be able to work on whatever he wants, but a similar mass nomination at GAN (more than five articles in the process at any one time), should be a trigger for further time out off the process. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 08:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from the cup; three month ban from GAN''' per SchroCat. Let's keep remedies simple. I want to address the question of good faith. It's an inevitable feature of the discussions around erring senior editors that we must assume the good faith of an editor who has declined to do the same in return. Good faith really has nothing to do with it. Tony's behavior is disruptive regardless of his intentions. The question is whether Tony is prepared to acknowledge that other editors have a problem with his conduct and change his behavior. That's your standard feedback cycle. Editors get shown the door when they can't or won't change. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 10:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from the cup and remove all his current nominations'''. Tony knows perfectly well how to nominate good quality articles at GAN; if he continues to nominate clearly unready articles that's a problem we can address then, perhaps with a short GAN ban, but I see no reason why he would without the cup as motivation. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 11:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *There is a narrative emerging among a couple of editors' comments here along the lines of &quot;Tony is basically competent to submit GANs but in this case he went too far because he was competing in the WikiCup&quot;. I want to push back on that a little and draw these editors' attention specifically to Tony's comment earlier in this thread, where he says {{tq|Within my areas of expertise I am still a bit unsure as to why articles are being failed.}} That is, he looks at a review like [[Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1]], and actually can't understand what the problem with the article is. And that's in an area he claims to be comfortable editing in. {{pb<br /> }}When it comes to areas he describes as outside his expertise, it gets worse: {{tq|Everyone thinks I understand why the articles are deficient in advance of the reviews. I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems.}} That is, he nominates articles to GAN, outside his experience, knowing he lacks the ability to tell whether the articles contain basic deficiencies or not, and uses volunteer reviewers as a crutch to paper over the gaps.{{pb<br /> }}I understand these sort of discussions balloon very rapidly, and there are a lot of comments to read through. But if your position is &quot;support an indefinite Cup ban but more hesitant on an indefinite GAN ban&quot;, Tony's comment here should be ringing alarm bells. It speaks not just to a specific incompetence to edit under competitive pressure, but a more fundamental lack of understanding about GAN. It has definitely pushed me to favour an indefinite ban from GAN over a time-limited ban or restrictions on the number of simultaneous nominations. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 11:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;s&gt;i'm inclined to agree with this, unfortunate as it is. an indefinite ban is not necessarily permanent, and if Tony can demonstrate that he can once again produce quality work, i see no reason why he couldn't be unbanned. i do think that the Cup is the inciting factor here, but Teratix is right that he seems to not understand GAN itself, which is very strange.&lt;/s&gt; yeah upon further thought now that i'm more awake, one really can't have gotten multiple FAs and not understand GAN &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I think I disagree here. If somebody has multiple FAs, they know full well what to do for a GA, but choose not to, and perhaps overplay ignorance as an excuse not to prepare their nominations sufficiently, or an unwillingness to take the time to take in reviewers comments. I think the issue is primarily behavioural, rather than competence. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 16:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Agree that seeing this as a competence issue makes no sense, and it's strange that Tony appears to be trying to spin it as one. Someone who keeps a writing habit doesn't just spontaneously forget how to write, barring literal brain damage. Something else is obviously going on. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::good point. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 20:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Femke, you may be interested in reading Gog the Mild's comments on his behaviour at FAC – he hasn't had an article promoted in ten years and his last ten nominations have been archived without success. I'm speculating here, but it could be a case of the project's standard for quality content advancing over time while Tony's writing standard remains the same, resulting in a misperception of what's required. It is difficult for me to explain Tony's comments here as merely the product of Cup pressure. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 01:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{u|Teratix}}, you're right that Tony has engaged in problematic behaviour at GAN, but I think it's clear that the current issue is related to the WikiCup, and since there is ample evidence that he does know how to write good articles, I think we ought to limit the response here. This thread is already giving him ample warning about future GA nominations. I don't think more is needed. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Tony's longer statements have slightly changed my view. My speculation on a mismatch between Tony's and GAN's writing standards was wrong, he is still capable of submitting GANs of acceptable quality in some cases. However, he still doesn't seem to understand that excessive mass nominations can be problematic independent of article quality. To me it seems a one-GAN limit could be a good solution, allowing Tony to continue submitting his absolute best content but also protecting GAN reviewers' time and energy. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 06:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''TBAN from the cup and GAN''' GAN reviewing can be hard enough even when the article is relatively high-quality; you're reading through an entire bibliography and acting as a copyeditor for a basically thankless job. It is not reasonable to expect GAN reviewers to hand-hold somebody who's been around here for so long through writing a GA-quality article; if you don't understand what makes a GA in a certain topic, ''don't nominate 70 of them to figure it out''. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 12:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:In case it matters: I'm participating in the WikiCup and will probably qualify for the next round. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 12:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I'd support a Wikicup ban without question at this point, as it seems like per the above any reward-based area seems to bring out the worst in him. I'm not opposed to an outright GAN ban, but I'd perhaps prefer an indefinite strict nomination limit, no more than 3 so that the articles can actually be properly written. A three month ban stated above isn't going to work since the mass-nomming of articles that don't meet GA standards will just continue. [[User:Wizardman|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#030&quot;&gt;'''''Wizardman'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Changing my stance to '''Support Cup/GAN/DYK ban''' per the added evidence, it's clear that he's not getting it, and seems to think this is a game that he has to win at all costs rather than just writing article to write them. [[User:Wizardman|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#030&quot;&gt;'''''Wizardman'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' I'll note we've seen similar behavior at DYK, including [[Special:Diff/1194391967|arguing about his apparent interest in gaming of DYK rules]] by saying, {{xt|All rules are made to be broken and gamed.}} {{pb<br /> }}Example of how he intends to game [[Special:Diff/1198340366|here]]: {{xt|As I think of my next potential DYK candidate, Joanne McCarthy (basketball) that I have 5xed over the weekend, the new set of rules allows two alternatives. 1. I could DYK now and GA-DYK in 5 years with minimal change 2. I could GA now and DYK within 7 days after it gets approved with a 2nd DYK only possible with another 5x in 5 years.}} This was in a discussion of whether DYK should allow repeat appearances. Tony literally is planning 5 years out so he can get repeat DYK credits. {{pb<br /> }}I'm actually a little concerned that a tban from GAN/WikiCup might just transfer the issue to DYK full time. Tony seems to be extremely interested in scorekeeping. Which of course can be a motivator for some people, and he's certainly created or improved a lot of articles. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 13:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&quot;All rules are made to be broken and gamed&quot; that is absolutely ridiculous, and i think you're right that this disruption will just move over to DYK. his idea of &quot;GA-DYKing in 5 years with minimal change&quot; says to me that he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about how GAN works. probably both. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::He didn't do that, though: [[Talk:Joanne McCarthy (basketball)/GA1]]. Also, in the [[Joanne McCarthy (basketball)]] review, the CUP points gaming again comes up as an issue in a couple of ways. He requests the reviewer promote in a specified time frame ({{tq|Also, be advised that I am competing in the [[WP:CUP]]. Do not promote on Feb 28 or 29.}}) and in response to a sourcing concern about the subject's Polish heritage, a source is quickly added to the article that likely does not meet [[WP:BLP]]. The McCarthy article is not a problematic page (loads of pages have small sections or a few missing sources), but Tony is clearly capable of better writing ([[Juwan Howard]]) outside of this CUP context. [[User:Rjjiii|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps;&quot;&gt;Rjj&lt;sup&gt;iii&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 15:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::i'm not entirely sure if you're disagreeing with me (or if you were intending to respond directly to Valereee's comment?) but i agree with the substance of what you're saying &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 19:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Not so much disagreeing with either of you, but pointing out the nuance that even though his talk page comment was regarding DYK, the actual disruptive edits (overloading GA and placing a bizarre citation into a BLP) were again done in the context of the CUP. To be clear: I would '''support a WikiCup TBAN''', but I'm not speculating on how he'll react. I empathize with the frustration from editors in this discussion about the need for this discussion to get this far, but don't see the need to impose the various restrictions mentioned in this thread all at once. Apologies if I was opaque before, [[User:Rjjiii|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps;&quot;&gt;Rjj&lt;sup&gt;iii&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 02:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::no worries! i just wasn't entirely clear on your position. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 02:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I am not familiar enough with the WikiCup situation to have any firm opinion on it, but '''when it comes to GAN I support, at minimum, the removal of all outstanding nominations'''. I noticed the nomination of [[Malcolm (Macbeth)]], which is very obviously very far from GA standards even at a quick glance. An editor with both hundreds of successful GA nominations of their own and hundreds of reviews of other people's nominations surely knows better; on the off chance that they genuinely do not, I think it's reasonable to conclude that they likely never will. Nominating articles that are not ready would appear to be a pattern; looking at the user's talk page, I saw that during the course of a 24-hour time period (20:25 UTC on 22 March to 20:25 UTC on 23 March), no fewer than 25 &quot;Failed GA&quot; messages were left by ({{u|ChristieBot}} on behalf of) ten different reviewers. This indicates to me that leaving the remainder of the (rather large number of) nominations up would not be a good use of the community's time. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 14:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I think part of the problem is with the editor but part of it is with the WikiCup... Its not set up for an honest editor to win, its set up for the winner to be the person who games the system the hardest without betting disqualified. The WikiCup clearly encourages gaming the system because a significant number of the recent winners won that way. The difference is that most of those editors were more subtle about it than this one. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:This is a valid criticism, and indeed is why I declined to participate in the cup this year. My suggestions to balance scoring to stop this have yet to be adopted. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 16:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::For the curious, can you link to those suggestions? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::The suggestions are at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2023/1#Points for next year]]. For what it's worth, any Wikipedia contest such as the Cup will by its very nature be competitive and could be considered by some as gaming; however, the vast majority of editors don't also violate Wikipedia guidelines or policies while participating. &amp;ndash; [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 18:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I agree that the WikiCup encourages users to time their nominations for maximum score (instead of nominating when the article is ready). I'm not sure that this is a huge problem; different people have won the Cup using different strategies over the last years, and some of them increased my respect for the winners, others did not. The issue here is that TTT did not just try to score WikiCup points with little effort, but disrupted other processes while doing so. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 16:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I agree its not generally a problem, its kind of a poster child for something that is objectively a net positive... But that doesn't mean it doesn't have downsides. But on the other hand these are issues the community should never be having to deal with, the whole point of the game having referees/managers is to prevent this sort of community disruption and time wasting from happening. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I checked the past four WikiCups and you can't say any of the winners were gaming; they all did a fair number of FACs and otherwise earned their points in a lot of ways, from doing lots of GANRs to making large GTs to ITN. Only one winner mainly relied on points from GAs, and nominating 60 articles you've worked on over the course of the year over two months is hardly gaming. This is poor decision-making on TTT's part and not something that's a trend with the cup. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::More than one way to game the system. Agree to disagree on whether this is a trend, but note that it would be remarkable if a competition like the wikicup didn't come with the negatives normally associated with open entry organized competitions. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *For the sake of completion I note that TTT's last ten nominations at FAC have all been archived. Nine are from 2014–2016 and one from 2023. This included five nominations of [[Emily Ratajkowski]]; in the last of these TTT received a coordinator warning &quot;Tony, I'm not prepared to allow accusations of bad faith leveled at reviewers without substantive evidence. Please strike these immediately and keep your comments focused on the content, not the editor. This isn't the venue. Additionally, there are many occasions when nominators and reviewers come to an impasse about content. I'd prefer you let [the FAC coordinators] weigh the matter rather than posting repeated pings and harangues when the reviewer has disengaged.&quot; TTT [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FEmily_Ratajkowski%2Farchive5&amp;diff=727511236&amp;oldid=727508803 kicked back]. (Disclosure: I have been a FAC coordinator since 2020 and closed TTT's 2023 FAC nomination.) [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 17:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Based on the assembled examples of tendentious behavior in relation not only to GAN/WikiCup, but also DYK, FAC, and COI editing, I think that a GAN/WikiCup ban is the bare minimum sanction, and that a broad WP-space ban may in fact be more appropriate (although this is somewhat complicated by the fact that these various processes exist across multiple Wikipedia namespaces). What I see here is a pattern of behavior for over a decade of consistently engaging with quality-control/content-promotion processes in an entirely self-serving fashion, conveniently ignoring guidelines when it suits them, and accusations of bad faith against editors who don't provide review results to their liking. There's little reason to believe that this behavior will change other than by barring them from engaging with such processes. &lt;sub&gt;signed, &lt;/sub&gt;[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from WikiCup and GAN'''. TTT has an ''extensive'' history of NOTHERE gaming the system for Wikipedia points and self-promotion. I would support further bans as well. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support WikiCup TBAN''' I don't like commenting at ANI, but this seems like a good time to step in as someone who has experience with Tony from the Vital Articles project. Sadly, it would appear that a TBAN from the WikiCup is needed to deal with disruption, but I believe that he can be productive. I also '''weakly support a restriction on open GANs''' as a fair step to prevent disruption without barring him from making good content entirely. I '''oppose an indefinite ban''' because he has shown himself to be a quality contributor who can contribute productively when not doing stuff like this. I believe a WikiCup TBAN and a restriction on GANs will solve the problem while allowing him to continue to contribute productively. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 18:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support WikiCup TBAN''' with the suggestion of leaving our snarky remarks at the door in the future. [[User:Panini!|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#F40&quot;&gt;Panini!&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;span style=&quot;color:#F40&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; [[User talk:Panini!|🥪]] 20:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support permanent WikiCup TBAN and temporary GA and DYK TBAN''', as a minimum. I was prepared to limit my support only to a TBAN from WikiCup, as the current locus of disruption, until I saw Valeree's comment quoting TTT as very recently saying &quot;All rules are made to be broken and gamed&quot;. No. That is not the sort of collegiality and cooperation that we should be bringing to Wikipedia editing. Some rules are obstructions but almost all were created as a response to a specific problem, and TTT's behavior is a problem that is currently producing a push for more obstructive rules at [[WT:GAN]] that could slow down the whole GA system for everyone. If we take away WikiCup, it seems likely that GA badge counts will become the next personal contest to game. The GA process needs time away from TTT's disruption, for one thing to evaluate what is to be done to distinguish TTT's many valid Good Articles from those that may need reconsideration (with at least two currently under formal reassessment). Valeree's comment raises DYK as another very likely locus of disruption and a temporary TBAN could well head that off. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I'm going to stay neutral on the GAN and CUP topic ban proposals, since I don't think I have anything more to add to those discussions, but I '''oppose a topic ban from DYK''' in any form, at least for now. TonyTheTiger's conduct at DYK has only peripherally been discussed in this thread, and while there would be some more to unpack if it were focused on, I'm unconvinced that the DYK-specific evidence could necessitate action at this time. TBANs are preventative, but they're &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; preemptive. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 22:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I agree with tlc. I wasn't intending to suggest a ban from DYK just because if banned from GA/cup, that's the only place left to keep score. It might even be good to allow that one last place for TTT to show us they can learn from this. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support permanent WikiCup TBan'''. TonyTheTiger's participation in the WikiCup has caused problems since at least 2010 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&amp;oldid=386613217 &quot;Michigan basketball overload&quot;, 2 sections at [[WT:DYK]]). I also '''propose topic ban on solo nominations in any article recognition venue''': FA, GA, FP, FL, DYK&amp;nbsp;... anything. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194391967 &quot;All rules are made to be broken and gamed&quot;] on January 8, 2024 (after repeated discussion of his gaming and overwhelming at review venues, including sanctions applying to specific venues); the attempts to bargain by making new demands on backlog drive dates, also recent; and the admissions of insufficient knowledge about topics on which he is submitting articles for GA consideration. The COI promotional submission at DYK is the cherry on top. He's too focused on collecting accolades and evidently will continue clogging any recognition process in which he participates. If he wants to create and improve articles for the benefit of the encyclopedia, let him collaborate with other editors on nominations. Otherwise, do without the potential recognition. (And yes, I recommend a procedural quickfail of all his current GA nominations. Someone else can further improve an article they believe has GA potential and renominate it; at GA level there's always room for further improvement, and the list can be a useful source of improvement candidates.) (I have not participated in the WikiCup for many years, or in DYK for a similar number of years, except for a couple of nominations of articles I'd worked on by someone else.) [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 23:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from GAN and DYK, also remove all his current GANs'''. This diff in particular is just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194391967 shameless], also given past incidents of gaming the system.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 01:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Block''' from any &quot;awards&quot; whether GAN, WikiCup, DYK or what have you. Should have been when he tried to get his sister onto the fromt page with blatant disregard for COI. [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_195#COI_issue_at_Carla_Vernón]] but escaped it then. Clear history of acting in his own interest and not that of the project. [[User:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#be33ff;&quot;&gt;Star&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#ff33da;&quot;&gt;Mississippi&lt;/span&gt;]] 01:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:He tried to get his SISTER on the front page? Jesus Christ. I've collaborated with him on some FAs, but no one with the interests of the encyclopedia in mind would dare to pull that. Chalk me up as well as advocating a '''Block from all &quot;awards&quot;''' as per Star Mississippi. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''&lt;span style=&quot;background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF&quot;&gt; '' Ravenswing '' &lt;/span&gt;''' ]] 06:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::and this wasn't even, &quot;I know this is not the right course, but here's my case for why she deserves it&quot; but rather &quot;I don't see what your issue is.&quot; That was the most problematic especially from someone of his tenure. Besides the WT:DYK, the discussion is also on the article talk. [[User:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#be33ff;&quot;&gt;Star&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#ff33da;&quot;&gt;Mississippi&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Quite. If he was lying about that, that's a [[WP:BADFAITH|massive downcheck]]. If he ''wasn't'', that's a massive [[WP:CIR|competency issue]]. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''&lt;span style=&quot;background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF&quot;&gt; '' Ravenswing '' &lt;/span&gt;''' ]] 00:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *(Disclaimer: I first heard about the situation involving Tony on Discord a few days ago, when it came up in a discussion among GAN reviewers, but I wasn't canvassed or asked to participate in any discussion, and my views here are purely my own.) Having reviewed the different discussions that have taken place at Tony's talk page and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup]], I think a '''permanent topic ban for TonyTheTiger from the [[WP:CUP|WikiCup]] is warranted'''. Tony has repeatedly [[WP:IDHT|refused to get the point]] that their conduct has been disruptive and a drain on other editors who are trying to participate in the WikiCup in good faith. Some of Tony's remarks that were directed towards other editors, especially Generalissima, are also pretty subpar and fall below the expectations I would have of somebody who has been editing Wikipedia for nearly 18 years. As for a topic ban from GAN or other featured content processes, I am more neutral; I think Tony could contribute to these areas constructively provided that he no longer participates in the WikiCup, but I understand why others feel that a broader topic ban or restriction might be necessary to address Tony's conduct. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 02:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Having read Tony's statement below, my opinion hasn't changed too much. I think an indefinite topic ban from the WikiCup is the bare minimum required to prevent further disruption. I am still not really in favor of an indefinite topic ban from featured content creation processes (e.g., GAN, DYK) ''at this time'', but I think the removal of any of Tony's recent GANs which have not yet been reviewed or are not currently being reviewed is acceptable. However, it is evident that there have been issues in the past with Tony and featured content processes (i.e., the issues with Featured Sounds and the DYK conflict of interest incident that have been mentioned by others). If anything comes up again in the future with Tony's conduct in featured content processes on this noticeboard, I will be far less likely to give Tony the benefit of the doubt if a topic ban or more severe sanctions are on the table. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from GAN''' and removal of current GANs. His current behavior is disruptive to the GA process, as many have stated above; a TBAN from GAN is sufficient to prevent that disruption. I very much doubt the disruption will stop until TTT recognizes why his behavior is disruptive and commits to changing it (I have seen evidence of neither). An indefinite TBAN until he's prepared to make such a commitment seems appropriate. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 02:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Given TTT's apology below, a GAN limit of 1 nomination at a time is also fine with me. If he shows he can handle that, I'm sure folks would be willing to increase that nomination limit before too long. Also just a note that I think we should clear his current unreviewed nominations -- which basically everyone seems to agree are problematic -- from the GAN queue. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 12:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''No bans''' {{ec}}I am not sure why every solution to problems must include onerous sanctions. As {{u|Starship.paint}} has said below, we are in the middle of things... and IMO there is not an immediate need to stop a disruption. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 02:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:So, just to be clear, you don't feel there's any problem with Tony's behavior here at all? &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 05:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support limitation on active GA noms, no bans''' - Limiting the amount of active GA noms Tony is allowed to have seems to take care of the immediate problem at hand. Not sure why we are ready to throw prolific content creators off a cliff when they are just going through a bad phase. He does good work overall, and long-term bans here are detrimental to our readers. To be clear, he has acted questionably in some of the diffs mentioned here, but not quite enough to be permanently put away.--''[[User:MaranoFan|&lt;b style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;N&lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:MaranoFan|&lt;b style=&quot;color:teal&quot;&gt;Ø&lt;/b&gt;]]'' 08:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:What makes you think this is just a &quot;bad phase&quot;? TTT has been engaging in this behavior since at least 2010. And by &quot;this behavior&quot; I mean relentlessly pursuing &quot;awards&quot; collection and self-promotion to the detriment of the encyclopedia. He was banned from Featured Sounds for the same reasons outlined in this RfC. Last year he tried to get an article he wrote on his sister onto the front page on her birthday, accompanied by a picture with him in it (despite a previous ban on uploading pictures of himself!). He has been [[User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 86#Blocked|blocked]] [[User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 71#Blocked 48h|multiple]] times for baselessly accusing editors who didn't support his TFA/FS requests of racism. At what point does this become a pattern? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Remember kids, you can get away with anything so long as you're a &quot;prolific content creator&quot;. They live by an entirely different set of standards. We are approaching Coldwellian levels of misconduct (and apologism for said misconduct), along with total refusal to accept any responsibility for one's actions here, and that is ''not'' something I say lightly, given my prominent involvement in that saga. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 20:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from Cup, limitation on active GA noms''' preferably to one active nomination at a time. If the disruptive behavior relocates itself to DYK, we can deal with it there, but I feel a sanction for that would be premature at this stage. [[User:Lepricavark|L&lt;small&gt;EPRICAVARK&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;]]) 15:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from WikiCup''', support '''limitation on active GA noms''' (I'd prefer something between three and five), '''oppose DYK ban'''. '''Oppose ''indefinite'' GA TBAN''', but not opposed to a three-month GA ban (with the carveout that he can continue any GA work that is currently being reviewed or that he is reviewing). The WikiCup seems to be the main driver of the disruption – if the disruption continues outside the Cup then we could revisit. Also not seeing enough for a DYK ban. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' Tony has been removed from the cup by the judges.<br /> *'''Support indefinite TBAN from WikiCup, support limitation on active GA noms (I'd prefer one), support DYK ban.''' &lt;b&gt;[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]&lt;/b&gt; 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support indefinite ban from Cup, limitation on GA noms''' The gaming has been quite breathtaking, and TTT seems unrepentant. I would suggest no more than 1 GA nom at a time. -- [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 19:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support indefinate TBAN from WikiCup, low limitation on GA noms''' (three seems reasonable), '''removal of all current GANs where a review is not yet posted, and a minimum three-month gap between a failed GA review and renominating the article''': TTT has been renominating quickfails after edits that only address a small portion of the issues raised, which is one reason why I think he needs limits on his participation at GAN. If the community insists on a TBAN there, I won't oppose that, though it's a second choice. If he persists in nominating articles that don't meet the GA criteria per the GAN instructions, then a TBAN there seems inevitable (and may be so already). [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support indefinite TBAN from Cup and GAN limits''' Most of the problems seem to stem out of WikiCup gaming, but I think TTT could still be a useful contributor at GA. (I wouldn't mind a 3 month GA TBAN though, but I have no strong thoughts one way or the other.) If abuse continues, I would be open to a harder GAN limit or Star Mississippi's proposal. [[user:HistoryTheorist|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;color:#2F7E98&quot;&gt;❤History&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:HistoryTheorist|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;color:lightpurple&quot;&gt;Theorist❤&lt;/span&gt;]] 00:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''&lt;s&gt;Support indefinite ban from GAN&lt;/s&gt;''' (EDIT: See below), second choice a nomination limit of ''one'' (but would honestly be healthier just to leave it at zero IMO). Did not want to pile on until Tony made a statement, but... that was the wrong statement. Notably there doesn't appear to be an &quot;In deference to GA norms, I'll withdraw some/most of my nominations on my own&quot; in it, and I still see the spam sitting in WP:GAN. That is table stakes in any statement given that he's been told to do this, repeatedly, bluntly, and now en masse at ANI, and the fact that he hasn't done it himself speaks poorly of him getting the point. If Tony didn't &quot;consider [it] would be a problem&quot; at first, how come he didn't trust his fellow editors when they told him that yes, it was a problem? To state what's been said many times before... GAN is not some sort of content assessment service to drop off articles you've worked on. It's more like trading peer reviews, and it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what GA nomination &amp; reviewing is to spam it so blatantly just to &quot;use the further polish of GAN attention&quot;. And ''everyone'' has waited a long time for GA reviews before, it's not unique to Tony, and shouldn't it be obvious that this kind of spam makes that problem ''worse''? Tony can be a great content creator; it's time to rekindle the love of doing it just to do it, no stars and no icons attached. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 07:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** As a side note: &quot;I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light&quot; is wishful thinking. Many of the cited GA quickfails should not have passed GA even with 2010 standards. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 07:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:I'm not sure it ''is'' wishful thinking, but unlike Tony I think that's a problem. I think if he hadn't drawn the attention of several experienced reviewers by submitting such a high volume at once, many of the articles that were QF'd would have instead been reviewed by reviewers more prone to looking at the list of GA icons he has on his user page and deciding that ''they'' (ie, the reviewers) were in the wrong, not him. &quot;He must know what he's doing... I guess I don't really understand the standards,&quot; etc. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 14:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Upgrade to full ban from all content review processes''' with narrow exception of GANs currently under review and GAR / FAR of TTT's content. I was unimpressed with Tony's original reply and not withdrawing his noms (I'm not demanding mind control, it'd have been fine to say &quot;I strenuously disagree but if the community considers such mass nominations a problem, fine, I won't do that&quot;), and his later comments appear to be from a different planet, seemingly still defending miles-off nominations like Heath Irwin and viewing himself as the victim, rather than the aggressor. GAN is to take a mostly-there article and make it better. Maybe there's some other process for articles wildly far off from GA status, like a Tony-specific &quot;this month's article to help me improve&quot;, but it ain't GAN, and this isn't hard to understand. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 20:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose sanction''' The entire point of the WikiCup is to encourage editors to do more in order to score points as a form of [[gamification]]. The participants will, of course, game this and competitive pressure will then generate this sort of excess. If this seems problematic then the rules of the competition should be adjusted. For example, if a GAN is quickfailed, the nominator might lose points as a penalty. So, fix the game, don't punish the players. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 08:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** &quot;Gamification made me do it&quot; is not an excuse, and the WikiCup rules are already very blunt that editors who worsen Wikipedia in an attempt to win will be kicked out. As indeed happened in this case. There's no need to create [[Wikipedia:Asshole John rule]]s which will be a feel-bad for good faith editors who get a nom'd quickfailed for standard and legitimate reasons. I would suggest striking your rather bold claim that Wikicup &quot;participants&quot; in general behave this badly, which is obviously false - nobody else in the WikiCup harassed valid reviewers like TTT did. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 13:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:See similar comments above such as &quot;''The WikiCup clearly encourages gaming the system because a significant number of the recent winners won that way. ... This is a valid criticism, and indeed is why I declined to participate in the cup this year. ... any Wikipedia contest such as the Cup will by its very nature be competitive and could be considered by some as gaming.''&quot;<br /> **:As TTT has been disqualified now by a WikiCup judge, that seems adequate to correct the immediate issue. My point is that the contest's checks and balances should be left to work themselves out without ANI piling in too.<br /> **:[[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 08:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''SUPPORT BAN from all content review processes''': (saw this while I was here for another thread above). TTT's abuse of content review processes for personal reward-seeking reasons is a problem more than a decade old, where the FAC page and FA process was seriously misused, mostly fed by TTT's desire to win WikiCup, with most of TTT's articles having be extensively re-worked by other editors. TTT has continuously and constantly abused content review processes (FAC, GAN) to gain rewards at WikiCup and DYk, while content produced has been initially marginal and sapped reviewer time to bring pages to standard, and Wikipedia will not lose if this problem can be removed from the pages it is draining. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support ban from all content review processes''': I've experienced Tony's combative behaviors around not-ready content at FAC, and it's clear that it's an issue at DYK and GAN too. With such an egregious track record going back years across all areas, this seems to be the minimum to save everyone else time and frustration. &quot;The Wikicup made me do it&quot; is not a valid reason to defend this. [[User:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support ban from all content-related Wikipedia contests''', but not from GAN. Tony does good work, they just need to focus on improving Wikipedia instead of getting high scores. I had to go looking a long way back to find the dispute that caused me to remember TonyTheTiger's name. Way back in 2014, TTT created a content fork on the high school career of a professional basketball player, and it was deleted at AFD. Tony challenged at DRV where it was endorsed, and then it was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination)|nominated for deletion a second time]] after Tony recreated it anyway. Tony's bludgeoning and assumptions of bad faith in that discussion included a bizarre conspiracy of Canadian editors being secret members of [[WP:HOCKEY|WikiProject Hockey]] working against coverage of basketball topics, and spawned an [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:TonyTheTiger gaming AfD, bludgeoning and personal attacks against multiple editors|ANI thread]] in which Tony was warned to back off. The article was then salted, which led Tony to start [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262|''another'' AN thread]] requesting its restoration, which was a rather transparent attempt to set up for recreating the deleted article a third time. The player's high school career was later expanded in the main article, which is what should have happened in the first place without all the drama, but Tony was after points for the WikiCup or the [[WP:FOUR|Four award]] or some other contest so we got to play this game for a few months instead. What's happening with GAN spamming isn't the same issue but it's the same root cause, and it's disappointing that the same problem persists a decade after our spat: Tony is editing to score points, and improving content only because it scores points. [[WP:CIR|As the essay says]], &quot;a mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up.&quot; Tony is a prolific and valuable editor who just needs to refocus on content and stop making messes, and a ban from participating in these contests and awards will help. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]&lt;/sub&gt;) 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{u|Ivanvector}}, just to clarify, are you also wanting Tony to be banned from claiming [[WP:Four Awards]]? &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Would you say that's not covered by &quot;all content-related Wikipedia contests&quot;? [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]&lt;/sub&gt;) 21:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Yes, that's why I wanted to clarify. I don't view 4A as a contest, as you're not competing against other people for a prize in a limited timeframe. (I know there have historically been issues with Tony and 4A, and I'm not trying to say he ''shouldn't'' necessarily be banned from 4A, just clarifying your stance). &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Fair question, then. Yes, I think he should be banned from seeking those awards, but that does raise an issue of enforcement since we can't stop other editors handing them out. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]&lt;/sub&gt;) 21:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from both GAN and WikiCup''' per Ivanvecor, PMC and Buidhe. Bling is one thing, but active disruption (and the complete wasting of people's time that has with it!) brings behavior into the community's purview. &lt;small&gt;...and PMC, particularly, oozes a degree of sarcasm that I can only dream of.&lt;/small&gt; [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from WikiCup and content review processes''' per PMC, Sandy, DWF, my previous comments on the WikiCup talk page, and Tony's recent comments below (starting with {{tq|In the back of my mind...}}) which amount to a conspiracy theory about other editors. (Disclosure: I am currently competing in the WikiCup.) [[User:Dylan620|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;Dylan&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;620&lt;/span&gt;]] (he/him • [[User talk:Dylan620|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|edits]]) 23:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Appeal for GAN TBAN exception for already actively reviewed GANs===<br /> <br /> I see that there are GANs already actively being reviewed '''before''' the start of this ANI. One is &lt;s&gt;[[Talk:3:16 game/GA1]]&lt;/s&gt; (closed now) where Tony is the reviewer. Another is [[Talk:In a World.../GA1]] where Tony's article is being reviewed. Others include [[Talk:2018–19 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1]], [[Talk:Wait a Minute (The Pussycat Dolls song)/GA3]] and [[Talk:Joanne McCarthy (basketball)/GA1]]. Perhaps there are more such GANs that I missed. In the interests of being reasonable, having courtesy and respect for Tony and the other reviewer/reviewed editors of these GANs, I suggest a carve-out to allow Tony to participate in these if he receives a GAN TBAN. This does '''not''' apply to GANs Tony nominated but no one has reviewed yet. This would also not apply to any GAN review Tony started after the ANI began. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :In the case of GANs where Tony is the reviewer, that seems fair enough. In the case of GANs where Tony is the nominator, the reviewer should be made aware of the situation here (if they aren't already) and given the option to discontinue the review. But if they're happy to continue, giving Tony a carve-out seems fair enough. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 06:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Yes, if the other reviewers wish to stop for any reason, then that is the end for that nomination. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 09:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I missed &lt;S&gt;[[Talk:Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention/GA1]]&lt;/S&gt; (closed now), [[Talk:A Christmas Story: The Musical/GA1]], [[Talk:Chris Hill (basketball)/GA1]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 12:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Junk the Wikicup===<br /> {{hat|1=Proposal SNOW closed and wrong venue. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])'''}}<br /> {{atop|Closing this per [[WP:SNOW]] and (more importantly) the wrong venue to request a project be closed. {{nac}} — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 21:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> ...because it regularly leads to this kind of trouble. It's long outlived its usefulness. [[User:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:red;&quot;&gt;E&lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:blue;&quot;&gt;Eng&lt;/b&gt;]] 16:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Really? When was the last time? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' due to being obviously incorrect. The purpose/&quot;usefulness&quot; of the cup is to encourage users to improve content, which it does. One person possibly trying to game the system isn't a valid rationale to junk the entire competition. It's silly to suggest we do so just because of one person. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose'''. Clearly not the correct outcome. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 17:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I really don't think this is the right conclusion to draw from the discussions above. The vast majority of WikiCup participants don't violate any Wikipedia guidelines or policies, and when they do, they get disqualified from the competition (as Tony was just recently). As for {{tq|It's long outlived its usefulness}}, it's inspired people to expand or create hundreds of articles over the years, the vast majority of which, again, have no issues. I'm going to say that ''any'' type of competition is liable to have issues like this come up; it's just a matter of how well the problem is handled by the judges of such contests. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Junk and never replace... Or junk until we can come up with something better? Not super open to the first but could see the second being valuable. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' I feel the fact that the community is so eager to sanction someone gaming the cup in this way is a good sign that Wikicup participants not want this sort of incident to occur again. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::People want to sanction them for gaming wikipedia, not for gaming the cup... As far as I know that would be up to the Cup's organizers and I don't think they've chosen to take any action here. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Tony's already been kicked out of the cup. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 17:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ec}} {{tq|I don't think they've chosen to take any action here.}} - I disqualified him from the cup earlier today, once I got to my computer. I had limited internet access over the weekend, so I couldn't do it earlier. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you, I didn't know that you were the only organizer who could do that. Is there a reason they're recorded as withdrawn rather than eliminated on the project page? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{u|Horse Eye's Back}}, if this is an underhanded comment directed at {{u|Cwmhiraeth}} and {{u|Frostly}}, you're still required to notify them as you're now discussing their conduct at ANI. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::It isn't, I wasn't aware who the organizers were or how many there were when I made the original comment. If that is not the case I apologize, but then I don't really understand why Epicgenius having limited internet access is relevant. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::While Cwmhiraeth and Frostly are also judges, I'm currently acting as the ''de facto'' main organizer of this competition. Hence, I made the decision to withdraw them as soon as I was able. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Noting here that I support the decision to withdraw.&lt;span id=&quot;Frostly:1711397869258:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&amp;apos;_noticeboard/Incidents&quot; class=&quot;FTTCmt&quot;&gt; —&amp;nbsp;[[User:Frostly|Frostly]] ([[User talk:Frostly|talk]]) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/span&gt;<br /> :::::::{{ec}}Cwmhiraeth is now largely retired from WP, and is there to help Epicgenius and Frostly, who are both new to the role. So far (in the 30% of a cup we've had), Epicgenius has done the work of setting up/eliminating contestants. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::It's largely a technical distinction. Contestants are marked in red if, at the end of the round, they don't have enough points to qualify for the next round. Contestants are marked in purple if they are removed or if they withdraw from the competition in the middle of the round. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose''' because despite the extra drama it really is needed to help reduce backlogs (at GA, for instance) and would have done so this time if not for TTT's gaming. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 17:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::It still does, even with TTT considered. [https://wikicup.toolforge.org/index.php?year=2024 So far this year], Cup competitors have contributed 316 GA reviews and 108 featured article/list reviews, against 141 GAs and 26 FAs/FLs promoted. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I stand corrected, thanks. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''', unsourced claim. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' – I'm really really mad I got knocked out in the first round. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{smiley}} [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' drastic proposal without even an attempt to provide evidence. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''oppose''' per Epicgenius &amp; Gog &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 20:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' - It’s been a long time since I had available time to participate in the WikiCup, but the year that I did, it encouraged me to keep putting in effort and working on the encyclopedia. I kind of like that. It’s a shame some people have to game, like robbing the bank in Monopoly, but proper enforcement by the coordinators and responding to gaming complaints seems like a small price to pay for a positive force for editing. I may want to see some reforms personally that continue to encourage contributions from those eliminated early on, but nothing wrong with the concept as a whole. [[User:Red Phoenix|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#FF0000&quot;&gt;Red Phoenix&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Red Phoenix|&lt;sup style=&quot;color: #FFA500&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 20:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose'''. It's not really my cup of tea but it prompts people to improve the encyclopaedia and they have fun while doing it so it's harmless at worst. It has been known to cause some problems with backlogs at review processes but I believe steps have been taken in recent years to mitigate that. It's unfortunate that one editor took things too far and didn't participate on the principle that it was fun, but I see no reason to think that's typical of editors participating in the cup. [[User:HJ Mitchell|&lt;b style=&quot;color: teal; font-family: Tahoma&quot;&gt;HJ&amp;nbsp;Mitchell&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman&quot; title=&quot;(Talk page)&quot;&gt;Penny for your thoughts?&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *This is daft, even by your standards, EEng. '''Oppose''', obviously. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 20:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' - no real evidence has been provided that the WikiCup {{tq|regularly leads to this kind of trouble}} or has {{tq|long outlived its usefulness}}. I don't think we need to get rid of something that most people seem to be able to constructively participate in just because a few don't. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> {{hab}}<br /> <br /> ===TonyTheTiger's statement===<br /> Today, I stumbled upon a User talk page of a user who had been blocked, with instructions on how to appeal a block [[User_talk:Ptb1997#September_2023]]. It gives the directive that <br /> <br /> To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that<br /> <br /> *the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or<br /> *the block is no longer necessary because you<br /> *#understand what you have been blocked for,<br /> *#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and<br /> *#will make useful contributions instead.<br /> <br /> I know bans are different than blocks, but the spirit of the directive is relevant here. I have tried to not say anything that I would regret for the last few days. I will be making a statement in the next 6 hours.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 00:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I joined the [[WP:CUP]] this year. I remember finishing 2nd in the 2010 CUP and had honestly forgotten about [[WP:FS]] topic ban surrounding the 2011 CUP. Knowing myself, I probably figured out a strategy that if allowed to run its course would have given me a good chance to finish at least 2nd again without recognition of the broader implications of the strategy to WP in general and to the CUP. I apologize for whatever happened then (again, if I have already done so &amp;mdash; finally, if I have not).<br /> <br /> This year, I entered the CUP on a whim. As it progressed, I regained some editorial vigor that I had had before and during the 2010 CUP. I started feeling competitive. First, I started thinking about making the finals again and before you know it I was trying to strategize a podium finish. In the CUP great [[WP:FA|Featured Articles]] producers have an advantage. I am not such an editor. I have a pretty low success rate at [[WP:FAC]] for the number of FAs that I have. I large percentage of my FAs are the results of co-nominators or co-editors who are far better copyeditors than I. However, I have a long history of success at GA and DYK. So I decided to focus my efforts on those two methods of scoring CUP points. <br /> <br /> There were two main impediments to my prospects for success in the 2024 CUP. First, the way I have been keeping the bills paid is highly seasonal. Last year, I earned over 82% of my income between May and October. The busy season is usually May through September and it can roll into October depending on certain factors. I needed a strategy that would enable me to compete even when I get busy with work. Second, I don’t tend to get reviewed very quickly on GA. Recent history will show you that I don’t get the fastest GA reviews (probably because I don’t do a lot of reviews anymore). See the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations&amp;oldid=1168120698 GAN queue before last year’s August backlog drive]. I took a look at the rules and figured a way that I could have a good chance at continuing to score a lot of GA points while I am very busy and while my review lag tends to be high. I figured, that if I could put a lot of articles in the queue in a way that they would have date priority at GAN I would be able to score enough cup points in rounds 3 and 4 to have a good chance to make the finals. Since I have had hundreds of DYK promotions since my last run at the CUP, I felt that many of them were a good way up the hill toward GA. Cramming them into GAN all at once without significant recent editorial activity was not something I considered would be a problem.<br /> <br /> GA evaluation is a very subjective process. Artilcles that might meet with good favor under the right sunlight may suffer a bad fate under a cloud of darkness. Although I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light, they were reviewed at a time when I had upset a lot of active GA reviewers with my GA strategy. Ex post, it looks like I submit a lot of crappy articles to GAN. My long history at GAN probably says otherwise. However, I am not here to debate the quality of recently reviewed articles. <br /> <br /> I do understand that a common theme among the reviews for the old DYK nominations at GAN is that they have not aged well. Some have become out of date. Others have evolved into states where maintenance tags should have been or were added to the articles. I think in the neighborhood of 2 dozen (if not more) of my GAN articles have been quickfailed at in recent days. All but one of these have been DYKs from past years. There has been little issue with my recent editorial activity. I’ll try to give you a list here for comparison with those that have been rejected. You will probably agree that my most recent work upholds the standards of GA that all interested parties are concerned about. The following are current nominations (all sports articles except for one and mostly basketball) from recent work: [[Gary Bossert]], [[Andrew Dakich]], [[Jennifer Martz]], [[Sean Jackson (basketball)]], [[Dave Jamerson]], [[Billy Garrett Jr.]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;The most recent lead hook at [[WP:DYK]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;, [[Todd Leslie]], [[Peter Patton (basketball)]] and [[Eustace Tilley]]. Additionally, the following recent works were going to be heading into the GAN queue soon: [[Kobe Bufkin]], [[Will Tschetter]], [[Drew Golz]], [[Draft:Kasey Morlock]], and [[Draft:Alia Fischer]].<br /> <br /> I realize that it would be easier on reviewers and better for the GAN system if I refrained from nominating stale, atrophied and otherwise less exemplary articles. However, I do believe that things that I have recently researched continue to be of benefit to the WP readership and could use the further polish of GAN attention. Although I continue to have faults as an editor in need of correction, none of my recent works (mostly created from scratch) should have much in common with the recent batch of quickfails.<br /> <br /> I probably should not be involved in the CUP since I have twice gotten too competitive in ways that are adverse to the general mission of WP. I don’t really think the GA ban is entirely necessary. My current work at GAN is probably not as problematic as the topics that have been distant from my attention for years. The real problems that I am having with GAN are not so much as my general lack of understanding of what is deserving of review attention, but my competitive CUP juices compelling me to nominate articles with very slight consideration and minimal recent editorial involvement.<br /> <br /> I consider it highly unlikely that you will ever see a slew of articles with prominent blemishes if my GAN privileges were allowed to continue in general. It would be fair to all to remove all nominations stemming from my historical DYK activity, but nominations related to recent editorial efforts would probably benefit WP without burdening the GAN reviewers any more than normal.<br /> <br /> My apologies to all of the hardworking GA reviewers and all participants that keep the GAN system going. I apologize to all CUP contestants and judges. In addition, I apologize for all the time that I took away from other activities by necessitating discussant activity here and elsewhere on WP. Furthermore, my competitive juices also warrant an apology to several DYK parties as well for actions not at issue here, but not so remote from them either. However, I don’t really think that a person who gets too competitive with the CUP needs much more than to be removed from the CUP to continue to be an asset to WP.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Thank you Tony. I have a few follow-up questions.<br /> :#{{tq|Since I have had hundreds of DYK promotions since my last run at the CUP, I felt that many of them were a good way up the hill toward GA}} What inspired this feeling? Did you read back over the DYK promotions and feel each one was worth a shot at GAN? Or was it a more general feeling that if you'd managed to get an article through DYK, it was probably worth giving it a shot at GAN?<br /> :#:Read back over would definitely be a wrong description. Basically, I took a quick glance at every [[User:TonyTheTiger/DYK|DYK I have had since mid 2010]] and some related articles. E.g. Some Big Ten or Ivy League seasons as well as Michigan and Princeton seasons may have been before that cutoff, but I looked at all of those similar article types with a quick glance. I eliminated all short DYKs. I think anything that was not at least 2800-3000 characters was cut. I glanced for citation needed templates, but surely missed some. If it had a top maintenance tag, it probably got cut. No real scientific process. I probably cut a list of 550 down to about 100. Then I looked at the ones I had to work on before nominating and the ones that I thought were close enough to be shaped up. I think I looked to see if I was the top 3 or 4 editors on each page as well, but confess I did not pay much attention to my percentage contribution. --[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#{{tq|Cramming them into GAN all at once without significant recent editorial activity was not something I considered would be a problem.}} That's a comment on your past mental state. Do you, as of now, consider the number of GANs you submitted at once to have been a problem?<br /> :#:The GAN process is set up to have hundreds of simultaneous nominations at once. I would not be surprised if the GAN could present 1000 at once. I have in the past had upwards of 30 simultaneous nominations at once I believe. GAN is an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor. The 70ish number is not a problem on its face. The problem is that I have never dug up articles from the past and nominated them. I have always nominated articles that I have recently honed and crafted. As I mentioned above, I stand behind all of the DYK creations from the past few months as viable GAN candidates. I should have given more serious consideration to which types of topics tend to atrophy over time. Many of the subjects that I submitted were BLPS of subjects I last paid close attention to on the order of a decade ago. They either had or should have had significant changes that I was not involved in editorially. I think I placed too much faith in added contributions with [[WP:IC]]s. I think I sort of felt if all the added stuff had ICs, it was an article that was probably up to snuff, which is not really a valid check. My process was flawed and that was a sort of a problem.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#{{tq|Although I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light, they were reviewed at a time when I had upset a lot of active GA reviewers}} To be more specific, do you believe e.g. [[Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1]] would have passed or had a significantly improved chance of passing had you not &quot;upset a lot of active GA reviewers&quot; at the time? Are there specific failed GANs you believe would not have been failed had you not &quot;upset a lot of active GA reviewers&quot;?<br /> :#:There was definitely a time when the current version of [[Heath Irwin]] would have passed as is. For an offensive lineman who has not met with [[Pro Bowl]]-level or [[Super Bowl]]-level success, his article has some heft. I have had hundreds of successful GAs and don't remember a quickfail. I may have had some though, but I doubt I have had even 1 per 100 nominations if I have had any. A huge percentage of my GAs are American football and basketball related. So, I feel that I do have an understanding of what is a GA-caliber article for these sports. If there is a new 2024 standard for GA articles, I am not familiar with it. To my recollection, [[WP:WIAGA]] seems relatively unchanged. I use to be a lot more active with football nominations. 10 or 15 years ago when I was more active with football nominations, my rep might have kept me from having a nom quickfailed in the past and helped with some promotions. I concede that the percentage of football reviewers who even know me from Adam nowadays is much smaller. Nonetheless, I can see the patience that I have had as a reviewer at [[Talk:3:16 game/GA1]] for an article that was not well formed and immediately nomed at [[WP:AFD]] when I began my review. I am also aware of the skill and patience of many reviewers. I believe that there are many reviewers who would have had the patience and skill to coax me into recrafting [[Heath Irwin]] as a GA.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:Skill in this sense is meant to be a combination of wikipedia institutional expertise and subject matter expertise.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 12:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:I mentioned above that only one of my recent DYK creations met with the quickfail hatchet. In the past, I have presented several precollegiate athletes for GAN. I believe myself to have been one of, if not, the groundbreaker on producing pre-collegiate basketball GAs. When I started producing a lot of pre-collegiate basketball (and football) GAs over a decade ago many of them may have been a bit longer than [[Olivia Olson (basketball)]]. In some regards, I still was quite surprised that Olson was quickfailed. I find it hard to believe that you could expect so much more than was presented for this subject that what was presented was so remote from that expectation that it deserved a quickfail.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 06:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::You've been informed many times that high school athletes have to meet much higher standards for notability, otherwise we would have articles on literally every DI and DII football recruit. We sometimes don't even consider NFL draftees notable despite their garnering national coverage. This article is sourced almost exclusively to local and non-independent or primary media hype, which per NSPORT do not contribute to notability at least partly because they inherently fail to demonstrate breadth and depth of coverage and are routine for the topic. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 08:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::[[User:JoelleJay]], to be more specific to this article. [[WP:LOCAL]]'s nutshell summary states: &quot;This page in a nutshell: An article about a local place or person may be created if there is enough referenced information to make it encyclopedic.&quot; Furthermore, although like all pre-collegiate athletes Olson does not meet [[WP:NHOOPS]], further up that page [[WP:SPORTBASIC]] says &quot;A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.&quot; Furthermore, in regard to the numerous discussions regarding pre-collegiate athletes and this issue of local vs. national coverage, the general agreement was that only a very few and possibly a singular national level source would suffice to meet this standard. In this case we have [chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://playeroftheyear.gatorade.com/poy/assets/writable/84707/2024_GK_OOlson.pdf Gatorade.com], [https://michigan.rivals.com/news/five-star-point-guard-olivia-olson-commits-to-michigan Rivals.com], [https://www.aol.com/news/state-top-senior-girls-basketball-145400425.html AOL.com] and [https://www.si.com/fannation/bringmethesports/mn-high-school-sports/2-minnesota-girls-basketball-stars-named-mcdonalds-all-americans Sports Illustrated albeit a locally targeted offshoot]. With that support a QF was quite surprising. I don't think I have had a pre-collegiate athlete nomination with two or more national articles fail (let alone quickfail) in the past. It would not have been unreasonable for a patient reviewer to ask me if I could beef up the international section and personal life.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 12:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::I and others have pointed you to [[Wikipedia:YOUNGATH]] several times. &lt;br&gt;Gatorade is obviously not an independent source, the AOL piece is from the Star Tribune, the Rivals source is the offshoot specific to Michigan sports, and the SI piece is as you say a local offshoot. None of these are sufficient. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 16:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::: &lt;small&gt;FWIW, not all local sources should be discounted, especially major papers like the ''Star Tribune''. The only requirement is that it needs to be &quot;[[WP:YOUNGATH|clearly beyond routine coverage]]&quot; – though I admit I haven't analyzed the sources. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :#::::::Just dropping into this subthread to add that GA reviews don't take a position on notability. If there isn't sigcov in reliable sources it may be quite hard to write a GA-review-passing article, but at no point is the reviewer asked to make a notability call. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::What? The [[WP:GAN/I#R1|instructions]] for reviewers: {{tq|Ensure all articles meet [[Wikipedia:PG|Wikipedia policies and guidelines]] as expected of any article, including [[Wikipedia:NPOV|neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:V|verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:NOR|no original research]], and [[Wikipedia:N|notability]].}} [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 21:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::It isn't one of the criteria, and you'll find it explicitly listed at [[WP:GACN#Beyond the scope]]. AfD, not GAN, is the place to decide notability. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::::It's not one of the criteria, but it is explicitly in the instructions for GAN reviewers so there should be an expectation of notability. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 22:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::::{{reply to|JoelleJay}} It was added without consensus when the same wording was added the nomination instructions. Discussions on the GA talk page have generally held that notability is not part of a GA review and should be handled at [[WP:AFD]]. [[User:Rjjiii|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps;&quot;&gt;Rjj&lt;sup&gt;iii&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 05:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::Indeed. On occasion FACs are queried re notability. In principle, there is no reason why an FA couldn't be AfDed. I don't know if this has ever happened. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::It has! I recall at least one. A baseball player, I think? Nominated by its main author, actually. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::::{{ping|Gog the Mild|Asilvering}} I believe you are thinking of [[Lewis (baseball)]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination)|AfD]], [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lewis (baseball)/archive1|FAR]]). [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::::Yes, that's it for sure. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination)]]. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 01:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#{{tq|It would be fair to all to remove all nominations stemming from my historical DYK activity, but nominations related to recent editorial efforts would probably benefit WP}} Which specific GANs do you stand by? Which specific GANs should be withdrawn?<br /> :– [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 14:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Just a quick comment based on Teratix's #4, I've removed that set of nominations from the GAN queue (i.e. nominations that you haven't edited substantively in over a year, and that hadn't been reviewed yet). If you, or anyone else, thinks I hit a false positive, you are of course welcome to revert. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 18:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Aside from those articles that I have created or 5xed in the last 6 months or so, there are not too many that I can really stand solidly behind with confidence. Given the time between my past DYKs and now, I have to develop an understanding of how GAN evaluates formerly prominent athletes who have been less interesting for quite some time. Basically, anything that I have not worked on in the last 6 months is a candidate for removal.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 06:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :If I may add one question. You seem to apologize for nominating a large slate of underprepared GA noms. Can you also talk to your behaviour towards editors, where you failed to assume good faith, and what you would do differently in the future? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::WP is a community of people with different backgrounds, interests, expertises, skills, and roles. We are all here to help present knowledge to the world. It certainly works best if we always assume good faith. As I have stated above, I get a bit competitive about the cup. If I could turn back the clock (now that I am reassessing my overlycompetitive nature), I would have taken the CUP less seriously, which in turn would have caused me to be less in your face. I think I am having something akin to a WP midlife crisis in which my worth as a WPian is tied up in making the finals of the CUP. I am no longer one of the great editors and need to stop competing with ghosts of my past. Trying to figure out how to play the game to make the finals the way that I did was not fair to other editors who were working hard to reduce the GAN backlog, to achieve their own success in the CUP, to maintain the integrity of GA, and to keep things going. What I should have done is just participated in the CUP with things I had worked on recently. In the future, all of my GANs will have at least a recent flourish of activity or a solid reaffirmation based on close inspection.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::These aren't recent, but it may be relevant that Tony has had issues at ANI about bad faith accusations [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive811#Continued policy violations from User:TonyTheTiger at WT:FOUR (close requested)|in 2013 where he was indeffed]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:TonyTheTiger gaming AfD, bludgeoning and personal attacks against multiple editors|in 2014 where he was warned]]. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 19:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{re|TonyTheTiger}} Do you have any intention of apologising directly to the editors who you cast aspersions on? Further, if a new editor behaved as you did, do you believe they would have been offered the leniency this discussion has afforded you? '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 12:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Above when I stated &quot;My apologies to all of the hardworking GA reviewers and all participants that keep the GAN system going. I apologize to all CUP contestants and judges. In addition, I apologize for all the time that I took away from other activities by necessitating discussant activity here and elsewhere on WP. Furthermore, my competitive juices also warrant an apology to several DYK parties as well for actions not at issue here, but not so remote from them either.&quot; it was certainly intended to include them. If any of them do not feel covered by that statement, I do apologize for casting aspersions on anyone who felt thusly treated and anyone in any way offended by my CUP related behavior. In regards to leniency, I believe anyone brought up at [[WP:ANI]] is allowed to make a statement. I did not mean to abuse the system or seek special treatement by making mine, if that is the perception. I believe a new editor would be allowed to make any statement that they want.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 12:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::That's a blanket apology Tony, not a direct apology which is what is owed to Generalissima, Teratix, the editors at WT:CUP and on your talk page, and probably elsewhere. This is not a matter of them &quot;feeling thusly treated&quot;, it's a matter of you having made direct and explicit allegations of bad faith on their part. Perhaps you can present your mass nomination as a misjudgement or misunderstanding, but the statements you made towards other editors cannot be so excused. Regarding my second question, let me rephrase it: had you been a new editor who flooded GAN with obviously un-passably bad articles and then proceeded to make numerous allegations of bad faith against other editors, do you believe you would have been afforded the opportunity to continue editing with an ANI discussion being the most serious consequence for your actions? '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 13:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I took a long time to make an extensive statement because I am trying to remain level headed. I meant to make an apology that was sincere to all individuals whom I behaved inappropriately with. I feel the heat getting turned up a bit here and I am not trying to do [[Twelve-step_program#Twelve_Steps|steps 8 and 9 of the 12 steps]]. This is especially so as I see the line forming below for #MeToo apologies. In my time on WP, I have offended many (surely dozens). In the past week, I have offended several. Wrongly, I took offense to extremely negative reviews. I do not have any right to positive reviews regardless of my process, role, contribution, or performance. All reviewers have a right to give any review that they feel they can justify. All reviews are largely subjective, and I can not disprove any review. So, I must accept all reviews assuming good faith by their reviewers. Thus, all derisive responses to individual reviewers and even secondary discussants beg for apologies. Derisive and possibly hurtful statements to Teratix are at the top of my list of things I mean to apologize for and I do so here directly. Generalissima is likely the leading scorer in CUP points for quickfailing my reviews, but only one of these was particularly contentious to me. I actually think many of these points were well-deserved. Regardless of my contentions (is that a word) regarding any single review, I need to remain professional. I went beyond any acceptable manner of decorum with Generalissima. In fact, my interactions with Generalissima are correctly a huge part of an intervention like this. I apologize for the lack of respect conveyed in my interactions with Generalissima.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I too had hoped for a direct apology. Tony, you may want to read the lead of [[non-apology apology]] and the section {{section link|non-apology apology#Ifpology}}. The way you apologized is quite common, but not that convincing. I'm still hoping we can end this discussion with you continuing to contribute to GAN, but me at least need to be convinced you are willing to mend trust. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I don't recall interacting with you at any other page in relation to this $#!T storm. I went back about 10 days in your contributions to double check. By my investigation our first interactaion in what is at issue was 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC). So are you asking for a direct apology to you? Or are you seconding 5225C above? -[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::: I was seconding 5225C above. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Since following the thread is already a tad confusing, moving this below, but re Tony's in-line replies to the list above:<br /> *: {{green|GAN is an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor. The 70ish number is not a problem on its face.}}<br /> * You've been told this repeatedly already, but just to say so again: Yes, it is a problem, on its face. Past a certain point, it's not on everyone else to explain why it's a problem to your personal satisfaction, you just need to accept that it is. It would have been a problem even if all your mass noms were perfect, no notes, ship it productions. It is a far worse problem when - as you yourself admitted you knew - you were seeking some &quot;polish&quot; from nomination review. Just as AFD isn't a way to demand other editors do cleanup, GAN isn't a way to demand other editors fix up an article for you. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **[[User:SnowFire]], my point was that I felt it was the quality of the submissions more than the quantity. That was of course only my opinion. It may be that the quantity was more of a problem than the quality and I was wrong. It is likely that each individual here assigns a different weight to how much of this issue is related to quantity and how much is related to quality. As I have stated, in the past I have had dozens of simultaneous nominations without issue. But as we are here there is some element of the problem related to quantity and some related to quality. Clearly you assign a higher proportion of the problem to quantity.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *** ''Both'' quantity ''and'' quality were problematic. It's just that you seem to grudgingly accept that the quality was an issue, but still don't seem to get that the quantity was an issue, too. And frankly I'm skeptical that your previous activities were truly &quot;without issue&quot; given that you've proven not particularly perceptive to the time of other editors.<br /> *** Hypothetical situation: an eccentric millionaire reveals that he's paid a team of independent researchers to create 1,000 new articles on notable topics, that are mostly about GA quality or close. This person is ''awesome''. They deserve a barnstar, a Signpost article, a shout-out, whatever. However, the contracts are up so the researchers can't really do any good peer reviews themselves. Should our millionaire - who has done a fantastic service to Wikipedia (just as you have) - submit all 1,000 of these articles to GAN, because it's &quot;an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor&quot;? The answer is ''emphatically not''. The awesome part was the GA-level articles themselves, not the green icon which readers neither recognize nor care about. GAN is useful as a mechanism of trading around peer reviews and second opinions, not about classifying the very best articles, and our millionaire can't possibly do their side of the equation for 1,000 articles. Which is fine. It just means that GA status is not in the cards. Basically, even in the scenario where the articles you nominated were in significantly better shape, this sort of mass nom is not a thing. The &quot;reward&quot; of your work is the articles having better content. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:Personally as both a GA contributor and a millionaire, I consider your hypothetical to be ridiculous.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 11:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::I'm just taking what you wrote seriously and where that would go in an extreme situation. You've completely dodged responding to the merits of the question - you ''still'' think that nominating 70 or 1,000 or whatever articles at once is no problem? I guess I should have listened to my own advice and not bothered to attempt to even convince you. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::You dig yourself a deeper hole with every reply here, Tony. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 22:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:There's an [[Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposals_to_address_the_backlog|ongoing discussion about ways of improving the GA process]] to better cope with the growing backlog of reviews. One idea is to formalise a limit of 20 nominations per person and it's surprising that this hasn't been done before. A QPQ system is obviously needed too. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 09:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::I already linked Asshole John rule above to you. If someone is abusing the process, just ban them from the process, which you opposed above. Don't create bespoke, hacky rules just for them that also impact others. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:::These are not bespoke, hacky rules; they seem quite natural and sensible. And they are used successfully elsewhere. The FA process limits nominators to one at a time. And DYK has a QPQ process which seems quite productive. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 17:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::::DYK has a QPQ system that requires them to argue over like a fourth of hooks 3 hours before they go on the main page because everyone pumps out QPQs to get it over with. It'd be even worse at GAN, where there's a significant time investment for a good review. Every person who doesn't actually want to do a review will just tick their way through a template and the end result will be even more strain on reviewers because now they have to check every else's work too. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:::::DYK has a system of triple-checking so naturally there's a further round of issues when set-builders and promoters make their additional checks. The GA process doesn't make such double-checks immediately because there's no big impact immediately. But there's a [[WP:GAR|reassessment]] process which currently has a queue of articles awaiting further review. All such processes are naturally imperfect per the [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer|disclaimers]]. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 10:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::::::Reassessment of poor reviews is not the solution. After a poor review, an opportunity has been wasted. The GA process is good when an article gets an in-depth review that makes it even better. Encouraging checkbox QPQs takes away the best thing about the process. Getting a shiny green badge is and should be secondary to the improvement to the encyclopedia that results. More shiny green badges is not itself an improvement to the encyclopedia. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *In the back of my mind, I am wondering if this all has anything to do with my decision to do a GAN review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3:16_game&amp;oldid=1214023874 this malformed article with no infobox and a prominent maintenance tag] to turn it into a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3:16_game&amp;oldid=1216053622 Good article]. Were the subsequent quickfails of my works and the nomination of the article at [[WP:AFD]] a vocalization of disapproval of my decision to commit to doing such a review. I.e., is there an effort to make it known that we don't want people to commit to that type of improvement.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:You know Tony, I really thought with your statements above that you might kind of be getting it, but this accusation of a bad faith conspiracy shows you obviously aren't. &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 18:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:??????????????????? – &lt;code style=&quot;background:#333;border:1px solid #999&quot;&gt;[[User:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#fff;text-shadow:0 0 5px #fff&quot;&gt;Hilst&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#090&quot;&gt;&amp;lbrack;talk&amp;rbrack;&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/code&gt; 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::took the words right out of my mouth. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::ditto &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't even understand what the purpose of the conspiracy would be here... to discourage high-quality GA reviewing? Why would anyone want to do that? My motivation in raising an issue with your nominations, for the record, was solely to keep morale high at the March GAN backlog drive, per my role as coordinator. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Should I assume that this discussion means that we expect people to quickfail such articles regardless of whether they have the skill and patience to guide the article toward GA?-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 18:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:We ''should'' presume that they are different skillsets, and that it is entirely possible to gauge whether or not an article is fit for GA status without necessarily being inclined to take an article to GA status. You've been around far too long to fall into the delusion that only some Consecrated Elite has what it takes to make such determinations. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''&lt;span style=&quot;background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF&quot;&gt; '' Ravenswing '' &lt;/span&gt;''' ]] 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{u|TonyTheTiger}} - by my reading of the situation, the sanctions have nothing to do with 3:16 game. It’s really other parts of your behaviour you have to improve. It’s not about other editors. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 01:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Frankly, I would be ''more'' likely to quickfail an article from an experienced nominator who possesses &quot;skill and patience&quot;. For a newbie, I'm usually happy to give them some latitude, work closely with them to improve the article, and help them go through the process to understand the GA criteria. But once someone has 100+ GAs under their belt, I expect that they will have the criteria down pat and ensure that the article basically meets them ''before'' they nominate it for GA. That applies doubly when the experienced nominator is mass-nominating old articles without re-checking them in order to score points in a competition. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 01:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == User:SheriffIsInTown chronic reverting problem ==<br /> <br /> Continously reverting and redirecting ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan_general_election_forms&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210942217], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan_general_election_forms&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211734720], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan_general_election_forms&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215365066]) on [[Election Commission of Pakistan general election forms]] and trying to impose a redirect without a consensus. Generally, this should be handled through [[WP:AFD]] and considered as a failed [[WP:PROD]], but this guy will mindlessly revert, revert, and revert. [[Special:Contributions/141.195.113.18|141.195.113.18]] ([[User talk:141.195.113.18|talk]]) 18:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#SheriffIsInTown Similar problem] was highlighted by {{ping|Saqib}} as well a few days ago, but it was archived prematurely by a bot. [[Special:Contributions/141.195.113.18|141.195.113.18]] ([[User talk:141.195.113.18|talk]]) 18:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Ping to {{ping|Wiki.0hlic}} who was also involved. [[Special:Contributions/141.195.113.18|141.195.113.18]] ([[User talk:141.195.113.18|talk]]) 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *The author of that article was blocked following the investigation detailed in [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toomanyyearskodakblack#19 February 2024]]. According to policy, contributions by blocked editors can be reverted without justification. In this instance, the forms were appropriately relocated to [[Election Commission of Pakistan#General election forms]], resulting in a redirect. There seems to be a concerted effort by these individuals to impede my editing. They file frivolous ANIs daily in hopes that if they persist, an admin will block me, thereby eliminating opposition. It appears this IP is connected to the blocked editor. This ANI warrants immediate closure, and the IP should be blocked. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;Sh&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: red;&quot;&gt;eri&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;ff&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: black;&quot;&gt;☎ 911&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; 18:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Sheriff, while an editor ''may'' revert edits of a banned editor, per [[WP:BRV]], the same also notes that 1) they are not ''required'' to be reverted, and 2) once non-banned editors (such as Wiki.h0lic) revert, [[WP:BRV]]'s 3RR exception no longer applies, as you're no longer reverting a banned editor, but an editor in good standing. If the articles should be BLAR'd, I expect consensus will bear that out. <br /> *:That said, IP, I note that you have no other edits except to the disputed page and this noticeboard. I can understand Sheriff's [[WP:ABF|assumption]] that you are connected with the blocked user. Have you done any other editing on Wikipedia? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 19:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::In the two days since this report was opened, the page in question was BLARed by consensus and protected, and the reporting IP has not edited. No further disruption seems forthcoming, so this section can be closed without prejudice. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Sorry, I was away for a professional engagement so could not reply to the ping. I don't know how chronic this problem is, but in the past couple of months I have had 2 run-ins with Sheriff. It happened on the page in question and secondly, it occurred on [[Qazi Faez Isa]], where my effort to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qazi_Faez_Isa&amp;oldid=1211007521 build consensus] was ignored and, true to their moniker, they have adopted a &quot;my way or the highway&quot; approach after persistent reversion. Apart from the disregard for consensus, what troubles me in the case of both the articles, is that I have significantly contributed to the them, and Sheriff just comes in and copy-pastes ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan&amp;oldid=1210941932] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PTI_intra-party_elections_case&amp;oldid=1195845734]) the content elsewhere in a manner ignorant of [[WP:CWW]], effecting my attribution. [[User:Wiki.0hlic|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#01A0CA;&quot;&gt;Wiki.0hlic&lt;/b&gt;]] [[User talk:Wiki.0hlic|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #01A0CA;&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(talk)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Regarding their [[WP:CWW]] concern, I am just replying for the record. Their attribution was not affected in that particular case. Firstly, there were significant contributions by me to the content at [[Qazi Faez Isa]], secondly, the article [[PTI intra-party elections case]] was completely rewritten by me, they can run it through a copyvio tool. If they had contributed to Qazi Faez Isa to a specific case section, that does not mean no one else can write a separate article about the case. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;Sh&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: red;&quot;&gt;eri&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;ff&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: black;&quot;&gt;☎ 911&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Logosx127]] must be [[WP:NOTHERE]] ==<br /> <br /> <br /> For several days, this Wikipedian has made some contributions which necessitated reaching a consensus for [[Eastern Catholic Churches]]-related articles, especially the [[Syro-Malabar Church]] article and talk page. That conversation was then brought to [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Is_the_Catholic_Church_a_single_denomination_or_a_communion_of_24?]], and it has lasted for days on end again. After the involvement of multiple parties disagreeing with their contributions and seeming rejection of notice given [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Logosx127&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214852164 User_talk:Logosx127&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214852164 here], and then the lack of consensus, they opted to continue their contributions claiming a consensus had been reached. Now, discussion is at a stalemate with Logos themselves seemingly verbatimly disregarding the arguments against their desired overhaul of edits. With their latest responses, it also appears that they might just be [[WP:NOTHERE]] to build an encyclopedia, but [[WP:ADVOCATE]]. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 13:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :When there are arbitrary corrections to articles, how is it wrong to question them in the discussion? How is questioning and taking a strong position in a talkpage pointing out a very clear and obvious contradiction be considered wrong? That too, especially when other editors are agreeing with me and clearly recognising the issues as in [[Talk:Oriental Orthodox Churches#SCOOCH source|here]]. About the issue with the claim of consensus, it was actually another editor who initiated the claim of consensus as seen here [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Antony%27s_Syro-Malabar_Church,_Ollur&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215440856][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mar_Thoma_Sleeha_Syro-Malabar_Church,_Thulappally&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215441146][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Mary%27s_Syro-Malabar_Cathedral_Basilica,_Ernakulam&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215442132][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marth_Mariam_Cathedral&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215442430] and many more. Since they were the original user involved in the dispute with me, I agreed with them. I too tried to implement it, even though it was against my position, believing that the consensus was created against my position. How'd that be considered advocacy? When you make such accusations like nothere about me despite all my recent edits being there at various talkpages, please also explain the rationale. Because the only rationale I find behind is an urge for harassment. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 14:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Well, forgive my ignorance on that part of their consensus claim. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 14:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::For more details, you may please have a look at [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism&amp;diff=1215502400&amp;oldid=1215488573&amp;title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Catholicism&amp;diffonly=1 this response] that I gave to Lion there. I have answered more of their allegations there. I think copying all of it here will be boring for the adminstrators as well as me. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 15:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :To offer my two cents: With {{noping|TheLionHasSeen}}, I participated in the discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism]], trying to offer several possible solutions to the ambiguities/confusions that {{noping|Logosx127}} (and seemingly only Logosx127) believes are present in Wikipedia's coverage of particular pages. The solutions I presented didn't seem to satisfy the concerned editor. I'm not sure about [[WP:NOTHERE]], but I am concerned that the whole thing ballooned into a very long, timesinking discussion when this is, in my view, all possibly resolved by any editor taking the time and making the effort to add one or two sourced sentences. As the only editor who seems to believe that the pages affected currently present ambiguity/confusion, the rather obvious question is why Logosx127 didn't do this themselves. I was also concerned that Logosx127's discussion seemed to have two prongs which are impossible to reconcile: on one prong, we need to clarify ambiguities/confusions; on the other prong, the only correct interpretation of the ambiguity is their own with no possibility of nuance. My instinct is it might just be a good-faith but counterproductive zeal against any possible ambiguities/confusions that does not square nicely with nuances and reasonable interpretations, rather than [[WP:NOTHERE]]. But this is only based off our discussion. [[User:IgnatiusofLondon|IgnatiusofLondon]] (&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:85%;&quot;&gt;he/him&lt;/span&gt; • [[User talk:IgnatiusofLondon#top|☎️]]) 16:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I also participated in the aforementioned discussion, and I concur entirely with {{noping|IgnatiusofLondon}}'s interpretation. I think {{noping|Logosx127}} sees a problem and is trying to fix it; whether there actually is a problem to fix is being debated. There are issues here, but NOTHERE and ADVOCATE are not the ones. [[User:Smdjcl|Smdjcl]] ([[User talk:Smdjcl|talk]]) 18:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I agree. Logosx127 is a stubborn editor who occasionally intentionally pushes the edit warring limit and sometimes is unwilling to concede to consensus, but they seem to be genuinely here to build an encyclopedia and lobbied hard to have their editing privileges restored. Especially considering that I rose the matter with admins who looked into Logosx127's editing history and found no serious misconduct, I'm inclined against any sanctions at this time. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 18:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Well, after reading these observations, I have to admit that I would like to not be inclined against any sanctions either at this time. From seeing others' input here, I see that it is merely zeal, even though it seems to be coming off also as hardcore zealotry. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::@[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] what might be an alternative if they continue to push the edit warring limit however and is unwilling to concede to consensus? - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 23:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Your comments are contradictory. Initially you said there is no consensus, now you are claiming that there is. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 00:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::If there is a consensus, it's that no one here agrees with you, and I will '''not''' engage in another edit war with you on [[Oriental Orthodox Churches]]. This is becoming enough, and I am beginning to wonder again if you are here to contribute in peace or war with others? - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::If there is also a consensus, it is that on the lists of Christian denominations by category and membership, no one desires to remove the Eastern Catholic Churches completely by your measured understanding. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::@[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]], @[[User:IgnatiusofLondon|IgnatiusofLondon]], and @[[User:Smdjcl|Smdjcl]], I am growing tired of this continually being dragged. It came to the point of me putting a warning notice on their talk page, but I reverted and recanted publishing it because it would have done no good. Now, they have come on my talk page copying what I did. I reverse my request of no sanctions, and request a hammer. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::You have been continuously disregarding the article talk page and the reliable sources at [[Oriental Orthodox churches]]. Now you are disregarding your own words and is edit warring by removing sourced content. At this point I must certainly respond to this mocking {{tq|wonder again if you are here to contribute in peace or war with others?}}: Well I am not here to war, my policy is [[WP:NPOV]]. Some editors tend to attack me when they believe I am a threat to their POV. In the specific case of Eastern Catholic Churches, it is their catholic pov. I find it very ridiculous considering the fact I am myself a Catholic too. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 16:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::Given the edit warring going on right now, I'd say you both need blocked from editing the article for a while, and need to hash it out on the Talk page. [[WP:DRR|Follow the Dispute Resolution]] process.<br /> :::::::::::That said, Logosx, templating in retaliation is not a good idea per [[WP:POINT]]. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::I am withholding myself from any contribution regarding this, because while they might not care, I do care that I am not blocked and would like to exemplify the character of one who doesn't desire a blocking, @[[User:HandThatFeeds|HandThatFeeds]]. I do however choose to ignore their retaliatory report, when they could have easily been reported for edit warring before, but again, I digress as I refuse to have that permanent record on my account. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::Also, in my own defense, I withheld responding on the talk page because it seemed that you, @[[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]], did not understand that the source was not removed whatsoever, as you have disregarded it seems before with other discussions which became prolonged. The information was restored back to its form before any of these issues ensued. The information in the versions has been sourced prior to your contribution, and then properly sourced thereafter. I am now more confused than ever. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::Well, must be inevitable anyway since they opted to report me at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] after all of this. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::Wait a minute? Isn't there a discrepancy with that edit warring report? I reverted them 3 times on that article today, once on yesterday (the 27th), and then twice on the 24th? I did not go beyond the 3RR warning. Oh well, as I said, I'm not trying to take any bait and be blocked by responding to retaliation and as others stated, zealotry (not me, though later affirming). - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::::Edit warring does not specifically require violating [[WP:3RR]]. And frankly, Logosx reporting that while there's an ongoing discussion here smacks of [[WP:FORUMSHOP]]. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 20:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::::Fair enough. Thanks for enlightening me lol. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 20:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::::There is no forum shopping here. It is related to a different issue altogether. Here we are discussing about the dispute at the Eastern Catholic Churches and related articles and there is no edit warring in this case. I have purposefully distanced myself from editting articles in this case. I have been mostly editting only in the talk pages for a while. But there, at Oriental Orthodox churches, it is a totally different scenario. Lion is disregarding the talk page and opinion of other users and is actively edit warring. In my report, there is a reference to this report too. Meanwhile I have temporarily stopped editting in that particular article too as I am fed up of this. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 23:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::::::It's the same issue, you and LionHasSeen in an editing dispute. Hence forum shopping. It should've been handled here, rather than splitting up the admin actions. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}Logosx127, your behavior across multiple articles and discussions has been an issue. Not to a degree that merits a block or any formal sanction, but just that you should probably avoid pushing the edit warring limit, avoid forum shopping (this is the second time recently), and be ''far'' more willing to concede to consensuses you don't like. You're making good contributions in other contexts, though, and your new article on the Indian Christian schism deserves high praise. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 03:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :If I were to edit war, I wouldn't have any time left to do anything constructive. But I've been distancing myself from disputed articles. It's not because of any change of mind but I really don't have much time to waste in reverting back and forth and I find it ridiculous to do so. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 07:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Possible content ownership at [[List of X-Men members]] page ==<br /> I joined Wikipedia in mid-March 2024 and started editing [[X-Men]] related pages yesterday and participating in recent discussion some of those pages and noticed so many ongoing discussions (also not archived) in [[Talk:List of X-Men members|List of X-Men members talk page]]. I read last two talk pages of it, which made me suspicious of [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content|ownership of content]] of the [[List of X-Men members]] page by @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]]. Then I read last 500 edits of said page and made this report. I took me 1 day to make this report. I am new here and it is not my intention to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|Personal attack]] by mentioning so many users including @Hotwiki, just so you all don't feel that way. So below are 7 points of my report.<br /> * '''1:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:RS]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] sometimes asks for references but sometimes he himself don't provide a reference. Also one time he called a reliable secondary source moot while doing this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213677279] on the basis of ''&quot;This was already discussed before in the talk page, so that reference is moot. As for Fall of X, there's not a reference given to that issue.&quot;'' but you can search that that not any reference is declared moot in any discussion in [[Talk:List of X-Men members]]. He reverted the edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1167384151] done by @[[User:Tomahawk1221|Tomahawk1221]] on the basis of ''&quot;Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source''&quot;. He reverted the edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1168505738][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1168631372] having the same information (some more addition) done by @[[User:Ringardiumleviossa|Ringardiumleviossa]] and @[[User:Lipshiz|Lipshiz]] on the basis of ''&quot;Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source&quot;''. But when some of the information were removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210006942] by @[[User:Sewnbegun|Sewnbegun]] on the basis of ''&quot;Removing unreferenced content&quot;'', he reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210009006] them on the basis of ''&quot;Restored, I've read those issues before, and they do infact became trainees in those issues since they were working aside the X-Men in a field mission.&quot;'' I don't get why many editors need reference as per [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] for adding same information but one editor don't. That resulted to @Hotwiki making disruptive edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210042724] on the basis of ''&quot;these are unreferenced as well, we aren't going to cherry pick which unreferenced material to stay here here right?&quot;'' '''Also''', when several secondary sources were added on the basis [[WP:RS]] - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211422889&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1] on the basis of ''No there's NO need to add Multiple references in a single info, if there's already a VALID/reliable reference posted''.<br /> ** '''1.2:''' Reliable sources were finally provided regarding the above mentioned information in these edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169349294] by @[[User:Sookenon|Sookenon]].<br /> * '''2:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[MOS:GRAMMAR]]) Another of the authoritative attitude is seen during simple changes like fixing basic grammar/grammatical errors or expanding sentences. He reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1192149858] an edit done by @[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] to the previous version. Another similar edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211375774] (on the basis of ''&quot;Full stop is unnecessary because they are just words and not full sentence.&quot;'') was reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211376225] by @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] on the basis of ''&quot;its fine to add a period in table descriptions, especially the other descriptions have a period in them. We aren't to edit war with these simple changes, are we?&quot;''. Lastly, he kept reverting[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212819056][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212819769][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212819910][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212820201] changes regarding some sentences in [[List of X-Men members#Substitute X-Men teams|Subtitute X-Men teams section]] and only stopped until these edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212822711][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212823378] were made on the basis of ''&quot;Fixing basic grammatical errors, double check before making any edits to it&quot;'' and ''&quot;Adding extra and suitable information won't hurt (Like the big ones added in the X-Force and X-Club)&quot;'' respectively.<br /> * '''3:''' ([[WP:OWN]]) One of the most interesting edit was done here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1205235066] by @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] on the basis of ''&quot;No need to state the obvious&quot;''. He later himself made an edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212753131] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of ''&quot;fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as &quot;Muir Island X-Men&quot; thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute&quot;''.<br /> * '''4:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:CON]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] made this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208905355] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of ''&quot;Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well&quot;'' but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding [[Talk:List of X-Men members#Current members of the X-Men|current members of X-Men]] at that time.<br /> * '''5:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:OVERCITE]]) An IP user added[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211171452] months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] reverted the edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211174817] on the basis of ''&quot;Not all of those months are referenced.&quot;'' I thought [[List of X-Men members]] is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211369903] of numerous primary sources in [[List of X-Men members|that page]], which verge of [[Wikipedia:Citation overkill|citation overkill]].<br /> * '''6:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:RS]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] agreed to one thing from above point that List of X-Men members page is not the list of names of members of X-Men when @[[User:Sewnbegun|Sewnbegun]] added[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212720670][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212720997][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212721825] references to full names. You can clearly see that many of the names just had references added but some had changes made to them on the basis of those sources. Eventually those changes were also reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212752207] whole by him on the basis of ''&quot;Again, you don't really need to add a reference to every single name, especially those who have a Wikipedia article. This is a list of X-Men members. Not list of names of X-Men characters&quot;''. The question also arises why reverting those name which are clearly well sourced? because in fact these &quot;sourced reverted names&quot; were the only names not picked by from [[Talk:List of X-Men members#Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members.|Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members.]] which was in consensus - You can confirm it by checking these edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216709][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216790][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216976][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217413][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217684][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217918][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206218163][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219033][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219249][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220100][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220556][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220778][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220968][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221082][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221187] if you have time.<br /> * '''7:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:CON]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] also reverted the same edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215149738][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215230551] regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of ''&quot;Revert unnecessary changing of order&quot;'' and ''&quot;Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes.&quot;'' This edit war between him and @[[User:Sewnbegun|Sewnbegun]] resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, [[Talk:List of X-Men members#Drastically changing the order of the members|Drastically changing the order of the members]]. In the same discussion I had my opinion of ''This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic.'' While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#List formats|Manual of Style/Comics]] and [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Regarding some orders|answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun]]. The change was made[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215514179] but it was again reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215515294] on the basis of ''&quot;Still no talkpage consensus&quot;'' but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against).<br /> ** '''7.2:''' I wasn't going to mention above point since I think editors should wait for few days before making changes &quot;as per talk page&quot;, but I did it to show you the more of the authoritative attitudes of [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] as the same situation as above happened in this discussion [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer]]. 2 were in favour (@[[User:Storm1221|Storm1221]] and @Hotwiki) and 1 against ([[User:ToshiroIto7|ToshiroIto7]]). &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Teedbunny|contribs]]) 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;<br /> <br /> :You ''must'' notify users you are reporting on. Says so at the top of the page. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I already did. Thank you! [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Gone in 60 seconds, eh? ;) &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::See it again please. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Uh, I already did. Therefore [[Gone in 60 Seconds (2000 film)|the reference]]. ;) &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I still don't understand the reference but should I notify all the users mentioned or the only user reported on? [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Editors whose conduct is being discussed here should be notified of such. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 15:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Let me mention that There were TWO editors who were making drastic changes in the article. [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]] and [[User:Sewnbegun]]. Both are now blocked due to sockpuppetry and apparently they are connected. There's recently unusual activity from IP users who are making a ton of changes. These are already discussed in the talkpage of the article. I'm surprised that Teedbunny is bringing this up now? I'm not the one who reverted your most recent edit in the article. And Sewnbegun who I reported for sockpuppetry yesterday, is finally blocked today. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 15:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Also please read [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ringardiumleviossa]] and this is how [[User:Sewnbegun]] was blocked. How am I taking ownership of the article, when clearly [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]], [[User:Sewnbegun]] and a bunch of IP users making their 1st edit on Wikipedia, in the same article - was/were trying to manipulate the outcome of the article by jumping through different Ips/accounts. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::Also can Teedbunny simplify what am I being accused here. Yes I reverted edits that were unreferenced. But what unreferenced material in the article did I include in the article?From February to March 2024, there were a lot of drastic changes coming from two editors (who are both apparently involved in a sockpuppetry). There were making so many drastic changes and I've tried my best to discuss everything in the talk page. When I added &quot;names&quot; in the article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216709][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216790][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216976][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217413][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217684][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217918][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206218163][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219033][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219249][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220100][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220556][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220778][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220968][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221082][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221187]) it was from the article proposal of [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]] in the talk page or it was already in the article, I simply repeated names for consistency as several characters are mentioned more than twice. I don't recall anyone from the article, calling me out for unreferenced edits? [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::As for #5 (''An IP user added months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @Hotwiki reverted the edit on the basis of &quot;Not all of those months are referenced.&quot; I thought List of X-Men members is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition of numerous primary sources in that page, which verge of citation overkill''). I asked for references for the months, simply because there were too many months being added, and I was unsure, if those months were accurate anyway. At that time, the article was tagged at the top of the article, for needing more sources. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::As for #7. ''( @Hotwiki also reverted the same edits regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of &quot;Revert unnecessary changing of order&quot; and &quot;Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes.&quot; This edit war between him and @Sewnbegun resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, Drastically changing the order of the members. In the same discussion I had my opinion of This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic. While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in Manual of Style/Comics and answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun. The change was made[290] but it was again reverted[291] on the basis of &quot;Still no talkpage consensus&quot; but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against)''. How is there already a consensus? beside me and Sewnbegun. The only editor that made another comment in the talkpage was Teedbunny. The IP user who originally made the changed - is a suspected sockpuppetry that is connected to Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun. I was waiting for more editors to make a comment, (not just one editor). Sewnbegun reverted it again right after Teedbunny posted a comment, like as if Teedbunny made a consensus for the article. And I just didn't see it as a consensus yet.[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::As for #4 (''4: @Hotwiki made this edit[264] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of &quot;Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well&quot; but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding current members of X-Men at that time.''). What is the problem with that? Plenty of different editors in the past, have been bolding name of characters indicating that they are current members of the X-Men- without leaving a reference/citation for verification. I even addressed about this in the talkpage in its own section.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=1207714300&amp;oldid=1207710556] [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::As for 3 (''One of the most interesting edit was done here[263] by @Hotwiki on the basis of &quot;No need to state the obvious&quot;. He later himself made an edit[264] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of &quot;fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as &quot;Muir Island X-Men&quot; thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute&quot;.'') I don't see the issue of me adding the X-Men in section titles, and it was a non-issue if I remember correctly. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::Also, one more thing. [[List of X-Men members]] is now protected from persistent sockpuppetry until April 26, 2024. For those who are just seeing this, I hope you are aware of the sockpuppetry going on in that article in the last two months. I've done my best to cooperate with [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]] and [[User:Sewnbegun]] via talkpage of that article, even if both of them turned out to be the same person, that was also jumping through several IPs, in order to manipulate the outcome of that article. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 17:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::::{{Ping|Teedbunny}} how am I being called out here in ANI, yet you didn't mention the sockpuppetry suspicions towards {{ping|Sewnbegun}} especially if you read the talkpage of that article. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::As for 7, I stated it I think editors should wait for some more to get more editors to respond. You said &quot;'' I just didn't see it as a consensus yet&quot;'' because only two voted for it and one, who were you didn't. I must also point out why you didn't any see any consensus over [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer]] here when clearly there were two in favour (including you) and 1 against? Reverts[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;diffonly=1&amp;oldid=1173010598][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1173148124&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1201825159&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1] were kept being done as per [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|this discussion]]. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::Not all your reverts were unreferenced. There were many names which were perfectly sourced that were removed. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::I hope you don't ignore the fact that in the last two months I was dealing with 2 registered editors (Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun) and several IP users involved with sockpuppetry, in that 1 article. If you have read the entire talk page, you would know I have tried my best to keep my cool and worked with those editors as much as I could, especially with Sewnbegun despite my suspicions of them being the same person which turned out to be right. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 18:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::Also may I add, Sewnbegun was adding &quot;references&quot; to content that wasn't being challenged/questioned in the first place. No one was asking in that article for the name of Professor X, to be added by reference as his name was already in the article for more than ten years. As I explained in that article, a reference for the date/issue of membership was already enough. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::I am talking about the changes based on sources like for example see Magneto's name. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::Yes, I also noticed that and prepared another report on him, but beat me ahead by doing sockpuppet investigation yesterday. I also noticed the above points I mentioned in this report regarding you too. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::Also, you could have easily adressed this in the talkpage of that article or in my talkpage first, rather directly going to ANI. I haven't encountered you directly in the past, so this ANI report is comingoff as a surprise. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Is it just me, or is [[List of X-Men members|that article]] a prime example of why [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]] are rules? Looking through the talk page, I see a great deal of debating what constitutes a [[No true Scotsman|real]] X-men member. If reliable secondary sources verify, then the debate could be settled by citing them. If no such sources exist, I question how such a list fits in with the rest of Wikipedia. <br /> ::In any case, while I agree that Hotwiki can come off as having slight [[WP:OWN]] leanings, it doesn't seem to rise to the level of sanction, and I also note that I cannot find a discussion from Teedbunny attempting to address this on Hotwiki's talk page. Also, this [[WP:WALLOFTEXT|very long]] report doesn't make it easy to see at-a-glance what policies or guidelines Hotwiki is alleged to have broken, other than [[WP:OWN]], which seems to me to be a weak claim. Rather, everyone seems to be operating in [[WP:AGF|good faith]], and so this situation seems like a good candidate for [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], not administrative intervention. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]], please just read the last point (7 and 7.2) carefully. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Having reread both 7 and 7.2, I continue to see no wrongdoing. There doesn't seem to be a consensus; there's Hotwiki who discussed at length their opinion, a sockpuppeteer whose opinion is rightly discounted, and you with a single comment. Attempting to make the change once with ''per talk page'' is well within [[WP:BRD]]. Hotwiki reverting is likewise part of BRD. Frankly, even if there was a 2-on-1 split of opinions, [[WP:NOTVOTE|consensus is not a vote count]]. If there's still disagreement, perhaps posting a neutrally worded request to a related wikiproject would get a broader base of opinions. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 18:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I know this report is long which was the Main reason why I reported this to administrators.<br /> :::::* Along with [[WP:OWN]] @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] has also possibly broken these:<br /> :::::** [[WP:RS]] for point '''1'''.<br /> :::::*** Also, when several secondary sources were added on the basis [[WP:RS]] - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211422889&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1].<br /> :::::** [[MOS:GRAMMAR]] for point '''2'''.<br /> :::::** [[WP:CON]] for points '''4''' (no consensus at that time at all but still edits were made) and '''7'''.<br /> :::::*** While for point 7 why reverts[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;diffonly=1&amp;oldid=1173010598][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1173148124&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1201825159&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1] were made on the basis of [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|this discussion]] even if there was a 2-on-1 split of opinions?<br /> :::::** [[WP:OWN]] leading indirect [[WP:OVERCITE]] for point '''5''' which too only primary sources (detailed reason is given above).<br /> :::::[[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 19:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I'm wondering why you're expending so much effort on digging up months-old edits when you could try talking it out with Hotwiki. In any case, responding to your points... <br /> ::::::* Point 1: While I agree this shows Hotwiki leaning towards OWN behavior, I disagree that this represents a serious breach of [[WP:RS]]. Sometimes people fail to include a source. It happens. I've done it. Tag it and move on. The example you gave directly above likewise seems to be ''avoiding'' the [[WP:OVERCITE]] you mention later on. Maybe it'd be better with two references, maybe not, but that's a content dispute, not a behavioral one. <br /> ::::::* Point 2: MOS:GRAMMAR: Hotwiki's edits there seem to me to ''support'' the MOS, and were therefore justified. <br /> ::::::* Point 4: That's not violating consensus. I read that as Hotwiki pointing to the talk page for their reasoning. Again, part of [[WP:BRD]].<br /> ::::::* Point 5: I see no consensus on the talk page for the inclusion of all those sources. And again, I'm curious what you're looking for: In Point 1, you criticize Hotwiki for removing unnecessary material, but here you object to them leading to more references. I'd be okay with either, but you can't have it both ways. <br /> ::::::* Point 7: Not being Hotiwki, I won't speculate as to ''why'' the reverts were made. I will say that, glancing over that discussion, there were indeed 3 editors in good standing, with 2 opposed, 1 in favor of inclusion. Furthermore, Hotwiki alluded to [[WP:NODEADLINE]], which is a policy-based argument of &quot;Let's wait and see before we add it.&quot; I may be misunderstanding (this isn't my field) but even if that ''was'' against consensus, one violation ''seven months'' ago does not demonstrate ongoing disruption. <br /> ::::::Teedbunny, I'll be frank. In my view, there is no demonstration of any ongoing disruption. I strongly recommend you try ''talking'' to Hotwiki if their behavior is suboptimal, or otherwise following [[WP:DR]]. I also submit that it will be far easier than continuing this thread. Your reliance on tenuous or dated evidence makes this seem more like a grudge, which could lead to a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] if it continues. You seem passionate about this topic, so I hope you'll direct your energies to improving the encyclopedia; spending them at ANI would not seem to be be a productive use of your time. I've said enough in this thread, and will bow out and await other editors' input. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thanks, I will take in consideration in the future. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : I'd have to second {{np|EducatedRedneck}} that this doesn't seem to be an urgent issue immediately requiring administrator intervention. [[User:OverlordQ|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#171788;font-weight:bold&quot;&gt;Q&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:OverlordQ|T]] [[Special:Contributions/OverlordQ|C]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Issues should be discussed on the talk page before they're brought to ANI. This page isn't for disagreements on sourcing or reverts you don't like. The exception is that it ''is'' disruptive to revert if your only reason is that the previous version is &quot;[[WP:STABLE|stable]]&quot; or that someone [[WP:DRNC|didn't ask for consensus in advance]]. Removing unreferenced content is allowed, and best practice is not to add anything unless it's accompanied by a secondary source. Sock edits can always be reverted without question after the editor is conclusively determined to be a sock, although they're no longer subject to indiscriminate reverting if another editor restores the edit. Finally, the entries should ''not'' be based on comic book references per [[WP:PRIMARY]] policy #5: {{tq|Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.}} Editing to preserve a policy violation can be disruptive, but it should be discussed before we call it disruptive. I second everything that EducatedRedneck said in their initial response above. This should probably be closed so the issue can be discussed on the talk page, and this doesn't need to be an ANI complaint unless discussion fails and disruptive behaviors continue afterward. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]], do the [[List of X-Men members|list of X-Men members]] need more reliable secondary sources? [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Sca]]'s jokes on [[WP:FPC]] ==<br /> {{atop<br /> | status = <br /> | result = 36 hours in, and no consensus for anything, really, has emerged. Except, perhaps, that {{u|FatCat96}} could be a mite less hasty with the ANI button and that {{u|Cremastra}}'s dark day has not yet dawned. {{nac}} [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I suggest that [[User:Sca|Sca]] be topic banned from [[WP:Featured picture candidates]]. Sca has been making jokes on FPC instead of using it as a place to usefully collaborate with others. This is not a new practice, he has been doing it for several years, and despite being banned from [[WP:ITN/C]] twice for the same reason, he persists. Some examples include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/African_buffalo_with_oxpecker_(2)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215670769 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/African_buffalo_with_oxpecker&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=942747418 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/John_Cage&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214531087 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Happy_Chandler&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1184458215 here]. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :OK, I've deleted '''two''' &lt;small&gt;small&lt;/small&gt; humorous comments on nominations (''not'' those of ''FatCat69'') currently listed at [[WP:FPC]], leaving '''11''' serious and constructive comments of mine. I suppose user ''FatCat69'' might feel ill-disposed toward me because of (serious) critical comments I've posted about a few of his nominations, and I suggest that he and I agree not to engage in any continuing disputation, but seek to cooperate from now on. (Further, I would agree to a &quot;no contact&quot; direction covering the two of us.) -- [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 20:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I agree. I really don’t mind the criticism. After all, ''instructive'' criticism is how things get done. That said, it’s the jokes that bother me, I don’t think that FPC (and other areas) is the right place for joking, as it can sometimes come off as a bit disrespectful. I usually don’t mind humor, as long as it’s kept respectful and in the right place and time. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Personally I think the jokes are funny. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 21:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support''' no contact as this report seems unnecessary and is likely indicative of larger beef. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 20:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : '''Comment''' A German with a sense of humor, and an American without. The world has gone mad, I tell you, MAD! &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 20:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :OP, did you make any attempt to discuss your concerns with Sca? It appears that you skipped that step and jumped directly to proposing a tban. [[User:Lepricavark|L&lt;small&gt;EPRICAVARK&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;]]) 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I don't know if a FPC topic ban is needed yet, but it is disappointing that Sca appears to be repeating at another Main Page venue the same kind of behavior that got them partially blocked from [[WP:ITN/C]]. It certainly would not help any future appeal of that sanction. They previously promised to regard ITN as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive349#Appeal_of_partial_block_on_Sca &quot;serious business, not a venue for jokes or personal comments&quot;]; perhaps they should take the same attitude towards FPC as well. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 00:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I’ve got to be honest, but it’s because of Sca’s persistent nasty behavior that I have pondered on the concept of no longer contributing to FPC. It’s not just my nominations that he posts snarky comments on, it’s everyone. Very seldomly does he post actually useful comments. Unless he can get his act together, I feel that FPC would be a much better and more welcoming place without him. I also feel that the other users in this conversation are wholly ignoring the fact that Sca was blocked from ITN ''twice'' for this type of behavior. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 10:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I get that they are not treating the nominations with the seriousness you'd like to see, but it seems extreme to describe that as {{tq|persistent nasty behavior}}, as it seems pretty mild. Like others, I'm wondering why you didn't raise this with them at their talkpage instead of going straight to ANI. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 15:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::FatCat96 did raise the issue with them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASca&amp;diff=1196671107&amp;oldid=1195156259 here on January 18] but was immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sca&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1196671107 reverted by Sca]. A less confrontational tone from FatCat may have had more success, perhaps. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 15:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Yeah, that wasn't an attempt to discuss so much as it was a belligerent ultimatum. OP should have tried a more collegial approach. [[User:Lepricavark|L&lt;small&gt;EPRICAVARK&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;]]) 17:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Thanks, I chuckled at a few of these. If users get blocked ''for making harmless jokes'', it's dark day for Wikipedia. [[User:Cremastra|🌺 Cremastra ]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 20:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I think you should read [[WP:Humor]]. It states:<br /> ::* {{tq|Humor is sometimes misinterpreted}}<br /> ::* {{tq|Irresponsible humor damages Wikipedia's credibility}}<br /> ::* {{tq|Not everyone is looking for humor}}<br /> ::* {{tq|What one may find hilarious, another may find offensive}}<br /> ::I believe that Sca's jokes fall into several of these categories. These may not be true for everyone, but one should certainly remain mindful of these (which I think it's pretty obvious Sca does not) when commenting these &quot;humorous&quot; comments. One could easily misinterpret Sca's &quot;humorous&quot; comments as hateful, rude, or offensive. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 05:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[[WP:HUMOUR]] is an essay, and an absurdly stringent one at that. [[User:Cremastra|🌺 Cremastra ]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 12:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I don’t know… I think it makes some pretty valid points. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 12:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == [[User:Mann Mann]]'s vandalism on [[Central Asia]] ==<br /> <br /> I gave Mann Mann his first warning in edit history, second warning in my own user chat history, third warning on his own page. I noticed an entry that said Central Asia were predominantly Iranian before the 10th century. In the reference, this was a claim made by Ferdowsi in Shahnameh and only valid south of Amu Darya(disputed if it is even in Central Asia.) So I fixed that. That's the reference keeps trying to revert back to, it is from Ferdowsi in the reference and only refers to south of Amu Darya, not ALL of Central Asia. I added my own contributions towards Botai Culture and Tiele people. Mann Mann just keeps vandalizing ALL of my well-referenced edits by reverting. He should be at least banned from [[Central Asia]] and other related pages.<br /> [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This appears to be a content dispute, see the discussion on the Help Desk. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Mann_Mann_keeps_vandalizing_my_edits_in_Central_Asia._What_to_do?] TheLastUbykh has already been asked to read [[WP:VANDAL]], and to '''discuss the matter on the article talk page''', apparently to no effect. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I already started a talk in regarding that source by Ferdowsi. That should resolve that part. <br /> ::This is also about Mann Mann's vandalism of my other edits in that page. He down righted deleted my contributions in regarding Botai Culture and Tiele. <br /> ::&quot;The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. &quot; [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], you started a discussion (not a good faith discussion, but at least you started one) at [[Talk:Central Asia]], then immediately restored the disputed content, posted at Help Desk, posted a warning at [[User talk:Mann Mann]], then opened this thread, as well as repeating it at [[WP:AIV]] and [[User talk: Michael D. Turnbull]]. Mann Mann hasn't even edited since you started the discussion on the article talk page; you need to wait and give other editors time to respond before escalating matters so rapidly. (By the way, &quot;warnings&quot; in edit summaries are meaningless.) [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Look, I just did what he did. He didn't start a talk in regarding my edits either.<br /> ::And unlike him, I am new to this and went to help desk to proceed. I don't see how that's not in good faith. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], wait for Mann Mann to respond at the article talk page and work out the content dispute there. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], you also failed to notify Mann Mann of this discussion. Please go to the top of this page, read the large banner, and follow its instructions. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I did leave a message to his username talk page. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], '''read the red banner at the top of the page. Follow those instructions.''' [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::And I did that after reading your first post. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::When you said you'd left a message on Mann Mann's talk page, you had, but not the proper ANI notification. You posted that to their talk page at the same time that I repeated the statement about the instructions at the top of the page. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{nacc}} The OP had discussed this topic earlier at [[Wikipedia:Help desk#Mann Mann keeps vandalizing my edits in Central Asia. What to do?|the help desk]], and I haven't been impressed with how they've been navigating the problem. What started off as a content dispute over the reliability of some sources soon devolved into an accusation of [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] against Mann Mann, but looking at some of the target's relevant edits, such as [[Special:Diff/1215606808|this one]] as well as [[Special:Diff/1215695930|this one]], they were concerned about possible [[WP:OR|original research]] and other policy contraventions, something that is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia. —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::there is no original research, shahnameh by ferdowsi is the original historical document for the claim. keep going back to references between arabic and western researchers after 10th century, it keeps going back to this 'historical' document. the references they use, goes back to those same arabic and western researchers with this claim of Central Asia being Iranian majority. What we discuss is that Iranian languages eventually replaced Chinese as the franca lingua due to trade. And that they were Iranian-speaking, not Iranian majority besides lands south of Amu Darya, which I included in my edit that would include Sogdians.<br /> ::this was an easy discussion on a classroom setting but I don't have my phd(or a phd) to easily recognize to all these sources. so the time strain keeps getting bigger than the scope I initially thought it would be so I am questioning my commitment level at this point. I might add those to the talk page and wash my own hands off until someone nerdier comes along. <br /> ::anyways, there is no reason still for the removal of my Botai and Tiele contributions. that I considered a vandalism. he didn't just dispute those parts but removed my contributions unrelated to Ferdowsi. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 10:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Wikipedia is based on [[WP:RS]], not our own conclusions. You added info under citations that did not support it. This is still [[WP:OR]] / [[WP:SYNTH]]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 12:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::there is no personal conclusions, only a question of use of primary or secondary sources. secondary resources in academia, especially when those secondary resources use references that were secondary resources themselves from a time with less academic integrity. <br /> ::::again, this claim goes back to shahnameh, through following the references and going back to other articles and books published in 19th and 20th century that use shahnameh as a reference to try to push this claim. <br /> ::::[[shahnameh]] is the primary source. the main historical document of this long-standing and wrong claim, that has no prior basis before 10th century and contradicts earlier Chinese historical records that are also primary sources. period. this is what we study in our eastern asian studies departments. it is &quot;paris is the capital of France&quot; in the current mainstream Academic consensus. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 12:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You're proving my point. Please read [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 13:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> '''Comment''' Besides personal attacks, TheLastUbykh is also misusing sources per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Central_Asia#Mann_Mann_is_vandalizing_my_edits_in_regarding_Botai_Culture_and_Tiele_in_this_page.]. You don't need to know the Wiki rules to know that misusing sources is bad. [[WP:OUCH]]? --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> My reverts on [[Central Asia]] were justified. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215606808 the first revert], I restored the most clean/acceptable revision before the mess (including your edits). I did not restore my revision and I even restored the correct contribution that I reverted.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215263441][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215607017] In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215695930 the second revert], my mistake was not writing a better edit summary to convince you taking your concerns to [[Talk:Central Asia]], but the revert itself was the right decision. On the other hand, you started edit warring[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215714757] and launched a crusade/quest by calling me vandal.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215707854][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215714192][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215723939] You even used log-in/log-out method (editing as IP) to push your edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215492100] and targeting me.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215706954] Was I harsh? Maybe. But your [[Special:Contributions/TheLastUbykh|contributions]] show some kind of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. Also, your report and your comments are just [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. Yeah, I was a vandal since August 2012[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&amp;page=User%3AMann+Mann] that you discovered me. --[[User:Mann Mann|Mann Mann]] ([[User talk:Mann Mann|talk]]) 16:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Anyway, I don't edit/patrol Central Asia for a while because I'm not interested in working with [[Talk:Central Asia#Mann Mann is vandalizing my edits in regarding Botai Culture and Tiele in this page.|someone who doesn't even know how to open a discussion without harassment and personal attack]]. I let other editors reach a consensus. --[[User:Mann Mann|Mann Mann]] ([[User talk:Mann Mann|talk]]) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm very concerned that TheLastUbykh is trying to justify their edits, which means they will likely do it again, and thus get reported to ANI again. In these type of topics, we commonly have new users who make some sort of disruption and get blocked. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 15:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == NewImpartial - BLP discussion touching GENSEX ==<br /> <br /> I wanted to ask whether [[User:Newimpartial]] exceeded their [[WP:RESTRICT|editing restriction]] by participating in a BLPN discussion about Tim Hunt's alleged sexism or sexist comments about women in science and making more than two comments per day.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215544653][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215660109][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215672946][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215683633] This particular controversy would seem to fall under GENSEX as raised earlier at ANI by another user.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215377951] [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Addendum: I'm missing a diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215740145] [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 03:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Your last diff comes more than 24 hours after your first diff, though. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 03:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yes, but within 24 hours of the others. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 03:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{tq|they may however reply to questions provided the answer is reasonably short and they may add very brief clarifications of their own comments}}<br /> :Your links appear to be specifically two comments left in that discussion. And then two short replies to responses from others to those original comments. That appears to be perfectly within the wording of their editing restriction. [[User:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: dimgrey;&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;seren&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::What about the GENSEX topic ban, a separate restriction in itself? [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 02:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Wasn't that GENSEX ban regarding LGBT topics, particularly transgender topics and gender? Was it really meant to cover anything involving women and sexism in addition? Would that also include literally anything involving women's or men's rights? Feminism? Ect? I don't believe it was meant to be that broad, unless I'm misreading the prior discussion. [[User:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: dimgrey;&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;seren&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::That's why I asked. [[WP:GENSEX]] expressly references [[Gamergate (harassment campaign)]], which was about sexism in gaming. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 02:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::So it's...complicated. After doing some digging through the [[WP:ARCA]] archives, I came across a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 82#Clarification_request: GamerGate (March 2015)|GamerGate clarification request from March 2015]] about whether the topic of [[campus rape]] would fall under the then GamerGate discretionary sanctions. After reading the arbiter views from that request, and the two article revisions linked [[Special:PermaLink/1215781924#Tim Hunt|BLPN discussion]] I could see this content dispute plausibly being considered within the GENSEX content area, as it is dealing with remarks that were described as sexist, which would be considered a gender-related dispute.<br /> :::::However, despite the text of GENSEX stating that {{tq|Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people}} are the scope of the sanction, it's not immediately obvious from the four listed clarifications in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case (February_2021)|motion to transfer GamerGate to the GENSEX shell case]], nor my own personal experience editing within the content area that this would be in scope. Two of the clarifications (1 and 3) deal with transgender related disputes, and the other two (2 and 4) deal with disputes relating systemic bias and the [[WT:GGTF|Gender Gap Task Force]], and it's not immediately obvious from skimming the text just how broadly we interpret the term {{tq|gender-related dispute or controversy}}. By and large most of the disruption we see in GENSEX is restricted to content relating to trans and non-binary people and topics, with some spill-over to GamerGate and related articles. The last non-trans, non-GamerGate GENSEX sanction I can quickly spot in [[WP:AELOG]] was the semi-protection of [[Manosphere]] and [[Men Going Their Own Way]] in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#GamerGate_(superseded_by_Gender_and_sexuality)|June and July 2020]] respectively. If other editors agree with my reading of the 2015 clarification request, I'd say that this TBAN violation is a plausibly an accidental one. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 03:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I don't have an opinion on whether this violates any specific editing restriction, but I think it would be odd to say that content related to debates about systemic sexism '''don't''' fall under {{tq|gender-related disputes or controversies}}. Restricting the scope to the four clarifications would seem to open up a pretty big loophole in the topic, even if it's in a subsection that doesn't see a lot of admin action. [[User:CarringtonMist|CarringtonMist]] ([[User talk:CarringtonMist|talk]]) 12:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::&lt;p&gt;I have to agree with CarringtonMist, I didn't participate in any arbcom case and as a non-admin I don't have to be that familiar with the details. But I've always understood that it was decided in the GamerGate arbcom case that because it was primarily about harassment arising due to commentary sexism and portrayal of cis-women in games with criticism over feminism etc; with a less focus on other issues like LGB, race etc and other so called social justice issues, arbcom wanted to ensure that if similar issues cropped up in other areas they would be covered. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I mention cis-women and LGB, because AFAIK at the time there was only very little focus on transgender and non binary characters. So I'm fairly sure the concern was about issues like misogyny, sexism and the portrayal of women etc with the gender related wording and little to do with transgender issues. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Eventually the GamerGate decision was merged with the Sexology one which had dealt with transgender issues since it was decided it would be simpler to deal with them with one DS area. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It does seem to be true there has been little dispute outside of transgender related issues recently, but that applies even when we consider GamerGate until the recent blowup with Sweet Baby. Note there was a recent case which dealt with the restriction on MGTOW [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&amp;diff=1195025878&amp;oldid=1195025792#GalantFan] but outside of that from what I saw in 2023 until this year, the only non transgender related example was 3-5 stuff all to do with Brianna Wu. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also I had a quick look at the comments here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision&amp;oldid=645127421] seem to agree with my view about fears this sort of stuff would spread to other areas. I think the current extreme focus on transgender issues is sort of reflective of the modern world especially US-UK but Sweet Baby shows it's not the only possible area where stuff can happen. While Sweet Baby might be fairly tied to GamerGate, I don't think it's actually that easy to separate these sort of sexism issues even if the particular case of Tim Hunt is maybe somewhat disconnected. However it's the sort of thing where I suspect there could easily be a similar blow up especially if things had been different e.g. more recent, in the US and the person who made the comments had doubled down on them. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 17:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/p&gt;<br /> :::For the record, I looked again at the text of [[WP:GENSEX]] before posting, and didn't see anything relevant to the [[Tim Hunt]] discussion at [[WP:BLPN]]. <br /> :::(Also, I don't know whether {{u|GoodDay}} intended an oblique reference to me by raising his question at ANI, but if he did, that seems to me to be worth discussing.) [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::The question was for myself. As I was debating on whether or not to get involved in the content being discussed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :If this is considered covered by GENSEX, I propose that rather than sanction NewImpartial we narrow their topic ban to &quot;transgender issues, broadly defined&quot;. To the best of my knowledge, the issues that resulted in the topic ban did not extend beyond that, and I see no reason why they can’t participate in this debate and others like it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support'''. &quot;Transgender issues, broadly defined&quot; is broad enough. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 09:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support''' as well. The edits are plausibly in violation of the &quot;GamerGate part&quot; of GENSEX, but that's also clearly not what NewImpartial's topic ban was actually about. [[User:Endwise|Endwise]] ([[User talk:Endwise|talk]]) 09:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support''' an explicit narrowing of the topic ban as described above. The conduct that warranted the ban was in a specific area, and it doesn't make sense to impose a rule more broad than that. Edit-warring and bludgeoning behavior on articles about trans or anti-trans activists should not disqualify an editor from, e.g., wiki-gnoming edits to biographies of long-dead cis women mathematicians. [[User:XOR&amp;#39;easter|XOR&amp;#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&amp;#39;easter|talk]]) 16:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support''' narrowing the topic-ban. None of the discussion when the topic-ban was placed touched on any part of the topic area except transgender issues, so a ban that goes beyond that seems punitive. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 05:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose any action''' - I'm not certain if the page-in-question falls under the GenSex area. PS - My question was based on whether or not I wanted to get involved with the topic being discussed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose''', because the whole Tim Hunt discussion on Wikipedia has been a shambles dominated by forum-hopping, unpleasantness, bludgeoning, inability to listen, and attempts to get the other side banned. And to be clear I'm talking about behaviour on both sides of the argument. It has been so unpleasant that I dropped out, for fear of landing up here myself. Regardless of the good or bad motivation of the current ANI, it is vital that ANI is not permitted to become a weapon in a content dispute. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 13:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose''' per Elemimele, I shouldn't have peeked, I am on a break mainly because of this toxic environment. Though I did wonder myself whether perhaps a warning was warranted that this was a violation of the topic ban, albeit inadvertent. As I note above, ANI is being abused as a weapon to remove opposition. Intervention is badly needed to fix this toxic editing before it results in an arbcom case. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 13:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|ANI is being abused as a weapon to remove opposition}} [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_removal_of_NPOV_tag_by_JayBeeEll|Astonishing]]. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : '''Oppose''' action except for '''Support narrowing of topic ban'''. I voted against imposing this topic ban in the first place but if it's going to exist it should at least be targeted a little more narrowly than ''this''. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose action''' except for '''Support narrowing of topic ban'''. There's enough ambiguity here that if there is a TBAN violation, it's an entirely unintentional one. I also would support narrowing Newimpartial's topic ban to just &quot;transgender issues, broadly construed&quot; as that is more representative of the specific issues raised in the discussion that lead to it being placed. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :It seems pretty clear that participating in a discussion about Tim Hunt's sexism allegations fall squarely within {{tq|Gender-related disputes or controversies}}. That's been the scope of the topic area as far back as the Gamergate arbcom case, which included {{tq|any gender-related dispute or controversy}} as a separate item from Gamergate itself, along with people associated with either of them. There's also a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 122#Clarification request: Gender and sexuality|2022 ARCA]] initiated by {{u|Sideswipe9th}} that confirms the scope includes non-trans/nonbinary people, and those four numbered points are only there to preserve previous clarifications rather than being the whole scope. That said, I agree it seems plausible that this was a misunderstanding by Newimpartial. Absent any evidence of further violations, or that the edits themselves were disruptive, I don't think any sanction stronger than a reminder/warning is needed. As a side note, if {{u|Newimpartial}} would like to appeal part or all of their sanction, they should make a specific request in it's own discussion thread. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 21:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : I agree with others that this discussion is inside the locus of the CTOP, but also I think Newimpartial's behavior in the discussion has been exemplary and I think that the natural response to this pair of facts is the narrowing of the topic-ban. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support reminder/warning''' at most. '''Oppose narrowing of the topic ban'''. Broadly per the rationale provided by {{noping|The Wordsmith}}, above. Clearly within scope of the topic ban; and reasonably expected to be understood to be so. Unconvinced that skirting the fringes (from the inside) should result in reducing the scope. Behaviour in the linked diffs is verging towards that which resulted in the ban. Not particularly enamoured of the tone nor personal focus of this [[Special:Diff/1215740145|diff]]. But do not believe that the evidence presented warrants sanctions beyond a reminder/warning. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 01:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Hello, Rotary Engine. I have pasted the entirety of the diff you cite into the collapsed section here:<br /> {{Cot|content of diff Rotary Engine linked juat above}}<br /> Thomas B., you haven't produced any support for your opinion that &quot;Hunt is not sexist&quot; beyond your own interpretation of primary source opinions quoted by Fox. That simply isn't a reason to insert any such statment in the article, which appears to be your goal here.<br /> I know you believe that Hunt is not sexist, but that opinion simply is not relevant to article content which must be based on independent, secondary sources to the greatest extent possible. What is more, you insert into your latest comment the [[Gävle goat|straw goat]] question whether Hunt has &quot;hindered any female scientist in her career&quot; - which isn't really relevant to this article or even the controversy, as far as I can tell.<br /> Inserting editors' opinions into article text is a violation of [[WP:NPOV]] and also [[WP:BLP]]. Contrary to the impression some editors seem to hold, BLP policies do not encourage a treatment of living people that says the nicest thing possible about them, but rather they must be treated according to the [[WP:BALANCE]] of [[WP:HQRS]], and the current article appears to so so.<br /> {{cob}}<br /> ::I would appreciate, as a neurodivergent editor, if someone could explain to me what about the {{tq|tone}} or {{tq|personal focus}} of the diff seems problematic. Is it the use of the second person in the first two paragraph, for example? Or my word choice at {{tq|There simply isn't a reason}}? I am here to learn and to do better. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Your tone was proportionate, I think I would tone it similarly if I were you. People should be confronted over disruptive editing if softer means fail to carry the point across, which certainly has been the case here. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 12:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This seems like a stretch to put Tin Hunt's topic under a topic ban on GENSEX that was born from trans related topics. It seems that most here feel that the edits in question were not a violation of the tban and I suspect it's because most editors, like I do, see a big gap between the topics that resulted in the tban and the Tim Hunt topic. My proposed solution would be to say the GENSEX topic doesn't cover the Tim Hunt discussion. Alternatively perhaps the GENSEX topic should be split up a bit. Denying an accusation of sexism is quite a bit different than arguing if someone/thing is transphobic. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I agree that GENSEX should be split up just in general. Disruption about feminism, feminist issues, and sexism is not the same thing as disruption about LGBT issues. Editors with a history of disruption in one area can certainly contribute productively to the other. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:Springee|Springee]] I don't think the whole of [[:Tim Hunt]] falls under GENSEX; just the bits that relate to a {{tq|gender-related dispute or controversy}}. And, for mine, arguing if someone is sexist is ''very'' similar to arguing if someone is transphobic.<br /> ::@[[User:LokiTheLiar|LokiTheLiar]] A well phrased request at ARCA might result in such a split; though I would consider that on more than a few occasions, editors disruptive w.r.t. the feminism aspects are also disruptive w.r.t. the sexuality aspects. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Warning''' I've always considered based on the wording that contentious topic restriction is intended to apply to stuff like this, and so would think any topic ban from the whole area is the same. I have no comment on whether it's need, and if someone wants to ask arbcom to clarify/limit it to only the Gamergate style stuff I have no problem with that. Likewise I agree it might have made sense to limit NewImpartial's topic ban to only gender-identity and sexuality related issues, but that wasn't what we did. So until any of this happens, NewImpartial needs to stay away from the dispute. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Inappropriate comments ==<br /> <br /> Could an admin review these two comments here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn#March_2024] -[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 03:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> As well as this comment here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADreameditsbrooklyn&amp;diff=1206421399&amp;oldid=1201187430] (Context: [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/deez-nuts]) -[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 04:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brigham_Young&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215782221 this one]. The only reason I'm not blocking immediately is the tenure of the user. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''&lt;span style=&quot;color:#8b00ff;&quot;&gt;Eve&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#6528c2;&quot;&gt;rgr&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3f5184;&quot;&gt;een&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#197947;&quot;&gt;Fir&lt;/span&gt;''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 04:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Note this is one of the two comments I referred to above. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 04:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Perhaps [[Special:Diff/1215175271|&lt;this&gt;]] might have something to do with it, admittedly not the same days. &amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8093:5F01:AD1F:D79E:FFC5:945B|2804:F1...C5:945B]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:8093:5F01:AD1F:D79E:FFC5:945B|talk]]) 04:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I recommend ignoring this unless there is evidence of an ongoing problem. {{user|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} wrote &quot;this guy liked to fuck, huh?&quot; on an article talk page. That very inappropriate comment was quickly reverted. It relates to [[Brigham Young]] (1847–1877) who had at least 56 wives and 57 children. I would not write the comments seen at [[User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn#Stubs]] but they are ok. If there is some problem regarding edits at stubs, that problem should be spelled out. The glowing signature comment is again ok: it's an understandable reaction to an inappropriate signature. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The comment on the user talk page is concerning to me as I interpret it as disrespectful and it pertains to personal religious beliefs. Also the fact that the user the comment was directed towards is going through a difficult time right now — in a situation involving their religious affiliations — is a compounding factor for me, although it's unclear if Dreameditsbrooklyn was aware of this. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 05:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Maybe I'm being too dramatic; the user seems simply immature and not malicious after all. But still, comments like these have to stop. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 05:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The &quot;deez&quot; remark is an obvious reference to &quot;deez nuts&quot; memes which derive from the lyrics of a 30 year old [[Dr. Dre]] gangsta rap song that discusses a woman's facial contact with testicles while performing fellatio. It is an inappropriate allusion to use while interacting with another editor. The question to a self-identified LDS church member about what it feels like to be Mormon is creepy, intrusive and inappropriate. The comment about Brigham Young's enthusiasm for intercourse is unnecessarily profane, unproductive and provocative. None of these remarks was intended to help improve the encyclopedia, and instead serve to unnecessarily irritate people. I was inclined to block Dreameditsbrooklyn, but decided to ask for input from other editors, and a statement from Dreameditsbrooklyn. I would expect a commitment to refrain from such provocative comments in the future, since they do not help to improve the encyclopedia in any discernable way. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I sincerely apologize for these remarks. It will not happen again. I am sorry for causing other editors to waste their time addressing the matter. [[User:Dreameditsbrooklyn|Dreameditsbrooklyn]] ([[User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn|talk]]) 11:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Don't sweat it, I don't think you had bad intentions. But don't let it happen again though and hopefully we can all walk away from this having learned something; Dreameditsbrooklyn learning to be more professional, especially when it comes to sensitive personal matters like a user's religious beliefs, and myself having learned the history — in great detail — of the deez nuts meme. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 12:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Selo007 are using talk pages to attack BLPs ==<br /> {{user|Selo007}}<br /> <br /> * {{pagelinks|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability}}<br /> * [[Special:Diff/1215793401|Comment]]<br /> This does not contribute to the project--[[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 05:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Indef''' This person seems a key example of [[WP:NOTHERE]] - Wikipedia is not a place to obsess over microscopic details of photographs of BLPs. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I used Verifiability (V) and Neutral point of view (NPOV)<br /> *:unlike the editors<br /> *:Im currently requestion a second opinion based on bias [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 00:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::We used verifiability and NPOV. You used [[WP:BLP|BLP]] violations. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:default;color:#246BCE;&quot;&gt;Liliana&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;&quot;&gt;UwU&lt;/span&gt;]]''''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])&lt;/sup&gt; 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Still not blocked--[[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 22:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Clearly and unambiguously [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Seems to have mistaken Wikipedia for Reddit. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 00:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Indeffed for competency, IDHT, RGW, using WIkipedia as a forum, and imagining that Wikipedia evaluates sources based on close examination of someone's tattoos. This is a regular admin action, not an arbitration enforcement action. '''&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Arial;&quot;&gt;[[User:Acroterion|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black;&quot;&gt;Acroterion&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;[[User talk:Acroterion|&lt;span style=&quot;color: gray;&quot;&gt;(talk)&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 12:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Editor Rhain, Aquillion and Dumuzid missuing power to shut down peoples opinions. ===<br /> <br /> <br /> Missuse of [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view|NPOV]] and [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability|V]]<br /> On [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Baby_Inc.]] &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Selo007|contribs]]) 01:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;<br /> <br /> Ignoring fact given by other non elevated editors.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Using non verifiable information. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Using hearsay. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Taking one side. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Refuse to listen to other side. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Dont add factual information. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Locks talkpage so people cant dispute editors (not just me) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Would like a third opinion to check without relying on opinions from a newsarticle that is written by a arguably biased person.<br /> &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Selo007|contribs]]) 00:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;<br /> <br /> :{{ec}} @[[User:Selo007|Selo007]], you are '''required''' to notify editors when you take them to ANI. I have done so for you. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;'''—asparagusus'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#682&quot;&gt;(interaction)&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Asparagusus/Sprouts|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;''sprouts!''&lt;/sup&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Also, do you have any [[WP:DIFF|diffs]] that prove these editors have violated policies? Making a new section will not help with you potentially being blocked. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;'''—asparagusus'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#682&quot;&gt;(interaction)&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Asparagusus/Sprouts|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;''sprouts!''&lt;/sup&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Its all covered by people in talkpage<br /> :::Its very long to list all of them<br /> :::Some things include adding that harrassment started with attacks from SBI against an individual called Kabrutus, with evidence.<br /> :::And that the harrassmentclaims againt Kotaku can not be verified and instead added as facts. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 01:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Instead they insist on using quotes from a journalist that has a questionable racist agenda (evidence) and that tries to harass and doxx people for writing hitpieces. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 01:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::thank you [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 01:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I guess I have so much power that I can't keep track of it all, because I don't recall being able to lock talk pages! I am pretty powerful when it comes to hearsay, though, if I do say so myself. The gravamen of the complaint here seems to be that I like to stick to Wikipedia's policies of preferring reliable secondary sources, and to that accusation, I admit my guilt. Cheers, all. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I take the blame. I forgot to mention that to him [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 02:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::&lt;small&gt;[[User:Trade|Trade]], that's okay! They should've read the guidelines and huge banner anyways. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;'''—asparagusus'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#682&quot;&gt;(interaction)&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Asparagusus/Sprouts|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;''sprouts!''&lt;/sup&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (reposting because I accidentally made half of ANI smalltext haha)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :For the record, I am not an administrator and (obviously) was not the one who ECPed the talk page; although I queryed ArbCom to make sure it could happen, it occurred independently of that. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> There's nothing actionable here, and this report by Selo007 appears to be an abuse of process that frankly merits [[WP:BOOMERANG]] sanctioning. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :At it's core there is an fundamental misunderstanding on how Wikipedia articles are supposed to work and how RS works on Wikipedia [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 02:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * As far as I can tell, I've never interacted with Selo007 before directly, but I'd agree a boomerang of some sort (at least a topic-ban from this topic area) is called for based on their repeated BLP violations, eg. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215797429&amp;oldid=1215793401&amp;title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Reliability][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215781814&amp;oldid=1213261466&amp;title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Reliability][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215413986&amp;oldid=1215409250&amp;title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.]; they seem to be basing this on YouTube videos (the second-to-last diff) and Twitter posts (the last diff). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215799757&amp;oldid=1215732825&amp;title=User_talk:Blaze_Wolf This] isn't great either. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Feel free to block me, im not that active anyways. &lt;br&gt;<br /> :All i want is for third opinion to take a second look at that wikipedia page since its riddled with reliable sources (Kotaku is case to case and the one writing the article should be taken under consideration when the person its doxxing, harrassing, asking people for fights and is using questionable racist slurs)<br /> :* Using hearsay such as &quot;Sweet Baby's employees faced harassment and attempted doxing in response to the backlash,&quot; when there is no evidence of such its a breach of NPOV and V.<br /> :* &quot;Others who faced harassment included Kotaku's reporter who first highlighted the backlash&quot; also hearsay and breach of NPOV and V.<br /> :* &quot;Ash Parrish felt the Discord members were not attempting to &quot;create meaningful change for their cause&quot; but were &quot;simply there for the vibes, rancid though they are&quot; again, should be questioned if its a reliable source when Parrish ha admitted she writes articles based on the own agenda even if its not true, even going against her editors But i guess you will just use BPL to shut that down.<br /> :* &quot;Bryant Francis urged Steam and Discord to clarify their policies to avoid similar incidents and further harassment.&quot; again, no evidence of harrassment.<br /> :* There’s no mention it started with Sweet Baby inc employee Chris Kindred starting an actual online harassment campaign to cancel the Steam Sweet Baby Inc. Detected group to get them shut down and attacking an individual to harm them.<br /> :* There is no mention of Chris Kindreds twitter account getting blocked by Twitter for said harrassment.<br /> :[[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 06:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I can assure you, this noticeboard [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Eyes needed at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.|is]] [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive479#User:TE(æ)A,ea. reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Page protected)|well]] [[WP:ANI#Discriminatory behavior from Mechabot5 at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.|aware]] of the article. The examples you're referring to are not &quot;hearsay&quot;, and they ''do'' have &quot;evidence&quot;: the references. Wikipedia is not a courtroom. We don't need to see [[WP:PRIMARY|examples of harassment]] to determine if someone was actually harassed (that would be [[WP:OR|original research]]); if [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] say they were, then we say they were. The same goes for Kindred's activities: if they are detailed in reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]] sources, then they will likely be detailed on Wikipedia as well; until then, there is no place for that information here.{{pb}}If you feel the article is unbalanced or incorrect, that's fine, but unless you can point to actionable changes based on policy and guidelines—and especially supported by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]—then there's nothing to be done. Wikipedia is not the place to [[WP:RGW|right great wrongs]]; it is just here to report information as the sources do. If those sources are wrong, it's not our job to correct them. Nor is it our place to [[Special:Diff/1215799757|make]] [[Special:Diff/1215967983|claims]] about [[WP:BLPREMOVE|other people]], no many how strongly [[WT:FACT#Alyssa Mercante|you disagree]] with their tattoos or personal tweets. &lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;– [[User:Rhain|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #008;&quot;&gt;'''''Rhain'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Rhain|☔]] &lt;small&gt;([[he/him]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 07:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Your own page [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] states &quot;editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, '''and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering'''<br /> :::The writer of the Kotaku article is very biased.<br /> :::Questionable sources also says &quot;Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for '''checking the facts''' or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and '''publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist''', that are promotional in nature, or '''that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions'''. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.<br /> :::Any reliable sources that people try to add are shut down by the same editors of the page that is beeing critisized.<br /> :::When one is added, they want another, moving the goalposts. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 09:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::And where exactly, beyond some forum for drool-covered semi-literate conspiracy theorists, would we find evidence that Kotaku content is &quot;widely acknowledged as extremist&quot;? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Isnt Kotaku supposed be &quot;case by case&quot; and not Kotaku as a whole.<br /> :::::The writer of the article is known for having extremist views.<br /> :::::WOuld like to be clear im not for extremism be it right or left. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 09:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Please either provide actual verifiable evidence, '''citing published reliable sources''', that either Kotaku, or one of its contributors, is &quot;widely acknowledged as extremist&quot; or withdraw the allegation immediately. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::I would say saying &quot;you cant be racist against white people&quot; is quite an extreme opinion. [[Special:Contributions/2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F|2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F]] ([[User talk:2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F|talk]]) 00:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Your opinion is not a &quot;published reliable source&quot;. &lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;– [[User:Rhain|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #008;&quot;&gt;'''''Rhain'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Rhain|☔]] &lt;small&gt;([[he/him]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::As Rhain, says, of course, but substantively, this is actually a known opinion, and often provokes outrage without full understanding. The basic concept is that while people can be racially prejudiced against white people, the lack of a systemic power structure means it is not 'racism.' No one has to agree with that, but I would not describe it as an extreme opinion. A fuller discussion can be found here:[https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism]. Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *What power? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 07:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:With apologies to David Bowie, the power of voodoo! [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 14:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm a necromancer myself. And you? '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:default;color:#246BCE;&quot;&gt;Liliana&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;&quot;&gt;UwU&lt;/span&gt;]]''''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])&lt;/sup&gt; 21:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Blocked user spamming their own talk page ==<br /> <br /> <br /> *{{userlinks|YuseraRCL}}<br /> Recently blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —[[User:Bruce1ee|Bruce1ee]][[User talk:Bruce1ee|&lt;sup&gt;''talk''&lt;/sup&gt;]] 09:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :YuseraRCL added advertising spam to their talk page three times after their advertising block. I've removed their Talk page access. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: tahoma;&quot;&gt; — [[User:CactusWriter|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#008000&quot;&gt;Cactus&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CC5500&quot;&gt;Writer &lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:CactusWriter|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 16:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == MateuszCOMPANY - edit warring, copyvios ==<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|MateuszCOMPANY}}<br /> <br /> This user has taken ownership of [[FSO Polonez]]. While their English is limited that is easily fixed. However, they also insist on uploading a loooong list of how many cars were exported to each country, which I consider [[WP:CRUFT]]. More problematic, they've also uploaded dozens of copyvio images to the Commons and insist on placing them in the article. I started a [[:Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_MateuszCOMPANY|deletion request at Commons]], but it moves slowly and the user also has problems with [[WP:CIVIL]] in my estimation.<br /> <br /> Requests to heed [[WP:BRD]] are ignored, their only response so far was {{tq|Please find something else to do. I spend my time and knowledge to do something good for Wikipedia and people which want draw knowledge. If you have problem with that, report it to administration}} and continuing to restore their edits. So here we are. &lt;span style=&quot;background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;&quot;&gt;[[User:Mr.choppers|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#FDEE00;&quot;&gt;'''&amp;nbsp;Mr.choppers&amp;nbsp;&amp;#124;&amp;nbsp;'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Mr.choppers|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#FDEE00;&quot;&gt;✎&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 12:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::User continues to edit-war and is immune to reason. [[User:Ybsone|YBSOne]] ([[User talk:Ybsone|talk]]) 21:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::And still edit warring past final warning. Warned by 4 users. [[User:Ybsone|YBSOne]] ([[User talk:Ybsone|talk]]) 21:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 194.66.191.22 vandalising over 20 years, requesting perma-block ==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[User:194.66.191.22|194.66.191.22]] (HOPEFULLY I DON'T MESS UP AND POST ALL OF HIS USER TALK PAGE MESSAGES AGAIN) has been vandalising [[User talk:194.66.191.22|over a 20 year period]], and it even shows the old block notices! I'd like this IP to be perma-blocked. [[User:Waylon111|Waylon]] ([[User talk:Waylon111|was]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Waylon111|here]]) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :We don't permanently block IPs. That IP is registered to a college in the UK, as noted on their talk page. We tend to get intermittent disruptive edits from schools (as well as public libraries, Dunkin Donuts wifi, etc.) and it's not uncommon for elementary and high school IPs to be blocked for long periods of time because of this, but I would be hesitant about placing a lengthy block on a post-secondary institution over occasional vandal edits, as there's a chance that the students might be able to contribute something of value someday. [[User:Spicy|Spicy]] ([[User talk:Spicy|talk]]) 16:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Last edits were from February 1, so there's nothing actionable here at all, and they had already been warned for those edits, so your re-warning was pointless. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:SergeWoodzing]] repeated incivility at [[Talk:Where is Kate?]] ==<br /> <br /> I've stopped editing this topic area, but I can't help notice {{u|SergeWoodzing}}'s comments at [[Talk:Where is Kate?]] are breaching [[WP:CIVIL|civility policy]] and have been downright rude and unconstructive. SergeWoodzing has not edited the article once, but has posted several talkpage comments including:<br /> # {{tq|'''Shame on all of you''' who have tried to exert your own prissy importance over the Princess of Wales...'''The article must be deleted''' if you all have a single bone of decency and propriety in your bodies. With this article, English Wikedia descended to the level of the tackiest, sleaziest, most deplorable and digusting tabloid press. '''Shame on you who did that!'''}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhere_is_Kate%3F&amp;diff=1215105957&amp;oldid=1215103490 source], a comment later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2024_March_21&amp;diff=1215170208&amp;oldid=1215161835 repeated] in the DRV discussion)<br /> # {{tq|'''Oppose''' all of this. '''Delete this article!''' One brief paragraph in the article on the princess will suffice, rather than all this shameful disrespectful gossip fanaticism.}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhere_is_Kate%3F&amp;diff=1215354727&amp;oldid=1215346312 source], in reply to a requested move)<br /> # {{tq|<br /> '''The existence of this article is a horrifying embarrassment to Wikipedia!''' The question has been answered. The article title is obsolete and reads like some sort of nasty BLP harrassment, a persecution of the ill woman covered. '''WAKE UP PEOPLE''' and change this '''NOW!'''}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhere_is_Kate%3F&amp;diff=1215849769&amp;oldid=1215838763 source])<br /> The emphases are in the original. Were it not for the third comment having been posted today, suggesting continued disruption, I would not have felt compelled to file this ANI.<br /> <br /> I respect that SergeWoodzing is a highly experienced editor. Their concerns with the article are not only valid, but have been expressed several times in different venues by a broad cross-section of editors. The article is currently pending deletion review, after which it will most likely return to AfD. Nonetheless, these repeated comments feel unnecessarily uncivil and disruptive to editors working on the article in good faith.<br /> <br /> Insofar as this topic area is concerned, SergeWoodzing is [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Consider, for example, the second comment above: saying 'delete' in an RM discussion is just unhelpful, and also doesn't square with their third comment on the article's title. SergeWoodzing is experienced enough to know that these comments are best expressed at AfD, and general shaming isn't constructive, let alone when it is repeated multiple times. To that effect, I'd like to suggest a topic ban on [[Where is Kate?]] and the article talk page, while encouraging the editor to contribute, in a civil manner, to any future AfD or related process concerning the article. [[User:IgnatiusofLondon|IgnatiusofLondon]] (&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:85%;&quot;&gt;he/him&lt;/span&gt; • [[User talk:IgnatiusofLondon#top|☎️]]) 16:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Kind of hesitant to get on someone for being too vocal about raising valid BLP concerns, but SergeWoodzing's outbursts are becoming unhelpful [[WP:OWN]]ership. That said, I'm not sure a topic ban is super necessary while the deletion discussions are ongoing. Others may disagree with my take here, but I don't get the feeling that the impact of his actions is actually disrupting the process in any significant way other than perhaps being annoying to read. {{yo|SergeWoodzing}} -- you've made your position sufficiently clear. Please tone it down and maintain civility. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 19:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you! I never could have dreamed of experiencing anything so embarrassing and disagreeable and shameful, after all these years of being a proud contributor, as the way English Wikipedia has adopted the same methods and tone as the sleaziest tabloids in dealing - with the utmost disrespect - with the Princess of Wales and continuing intentionally to do so after she disclosed that she is seriously ill. To my knowledge I have never attacked any user by name, having given my opinion about shame to be taken at will by whomever chooses to to feel targeted and ignored by anyone who feels faultless. I believe that any article like [[Where is Kate?]] about a living person, no matter whom, is clearly denigrating and must be deleted without further delay. Aware of stretching text guidelines with capital letters and bold type, in my desparation to get all the many good users to react and act, I am willing to apologize sincerely for that part of it. I feel no need to comment again on those articles beyond these words. Whatever more I might have to say can never have a more constructive effect that what I already have tried to do. If it can be considered disruptive to object as vehemently as possible (i.e. without personal attacks or foul language) to very serious BLP problems, that is beyond my comprehension of one of the Wikimedia Foundation's most important rules. Sincerely, --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 20:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::PS the fact that I have not otherwise participated on these articles or talk pages, not even read most it all, has only been due to my abject fear, if seeing more than I already had, that I would be driven even more crazy than this. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 20:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Just so that I don't come across as sneaky or underhanded, I wish to put on the record that I thanked [[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] for edit number 3 above. I am no royalist (my genuine first reaction on seeing this article was to ask, &quot;Kate who?&quot;), but I too am embarrassed to be associated with an encyclopedia that has such an article. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Question''' Is this a pattern or an isolated incident? &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 04:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *[[Talk:Where is Kate?]] has a total of six comments by SergeWoodzing. None of them violate [[WP:CIVIL]] or anything else. I understand that it might be upsetting to know that someone on the internet disagrees with you, but six comments is pretty reasonable by comparison with many cases reported here. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Given that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the 'Where is Kate?' article is both a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy and an unmitigated crock of shite, it would be grossly improper to sanction anyone who points this out. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 10:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;small&gt;Perhaps they should get a Royal barnstar? [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 10:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *And I really don't get this obsession with British royalty by Americans, which is the only thing I can think of that both led to this article being created and to it being kept at AfD. Surely you/they got rid of kings about 250 years ago, and we Brits should be the only ones bothered about them? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC) {{small|P. S. I remember visiting America when the dispute between Charles and Diana came to light and those few people who believed me when I said that I didn't know either of them personally thought that I must have an opinion about the issue.}}<br /> *:Yes it's certainly the Americans' fault when your favorite family acts suspiciously and your tabloid culture subsequently makes a spectacle of it. They should really know better than to pay attention to you. The untold death wreaked in the name of that family really was all so long ago, it's just terrible they're now being gossiped about on the internet. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865|2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865]] ([[User talk:2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865|talk]]) 01:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Gossip about them all you like on the Internet, but that doesn't make what you are gossiping about a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. And, as I said above, they are far from my favourite family. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *SergeWoodzing is being vocal but is not being disruptive and no action is needed.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *The remarks complained about all seem to be fair comment to me. The proper place for an article such as this is in a tabloid newspaper, not an encyclopaedia. All that is displayed by SergeWoodzing is a bit of passion for maintaining some sort of quality standards in Wikipedia{{snd}}which is surely a desirable quality in any editor. [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] ([[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|talk]]) 22:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Sock/meat-puppetry and COI concerns regarding [[User:Guswen]] ==<br /> <br /> [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guswen|This SPI]] has been open for a couple weeks, and while I'd normally be inclined to let the specialists in such investigations get to it when they get to it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FGuswen&amp;diff=1215887284&amp;oldid=1215690899 there is a new COI concern] that, I believe, makes the situation more pressing and also suitable for having attention called to it here. [[User:XOR&amp;#39;easter|XOR&amp;#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&amp;#39;easter|talk]]) 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :In addition to sock-puppetry and COI issues, there's also recent edit-warring going on at [[Assembly theory]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assembly_theory&amp;action=history history]). I second the request for administrator attention! --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:LeeWeathers1986AV]] reported by [[User:Mvcg66b3r]] ==<br /> <br /> Disruptive editing; edit warring; uploading logos with no source or licensing info. Initially reported at [[WP:AIV]] but rebuffed.<br /> <br /> Logo examples:<br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Univision_Washington_DC_2019.png]<br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMDO-CD_(2021).png]<br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMDO-CD_(2021)29.png]<br /> <br /> Reversions of my removal of said logos: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WFDC-DT&amp;diff=1215888242&amp;oldid=1215887604] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WFDC-DT&amp;diff=1215890345&amp;oldid=1215889095] [[User:Mvcg66b3r|Mvcg66b3r]] ([[User talk:Mvcg66b3r|talk]]) 19:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :More sourceless logos: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyla_in_the_loop_logo.webp] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KFRE_2024.webp] And they're refusing to respond to my warnings on their talk page. I think this user's [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:Mvcg66b3r|Mvcg66b3r]] ([[User talk:Mvcg66b3r|talk]]) 03:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :: Most of those logos can be tagged {{tl|PD-textlogo}}. He is overusing the thank function, which is causing friction, so I left him a note about this. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 19:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Thomas B forum-shopping, circumventing page ban, refusing to drop the stick ==<br /> <br /> About a month ago, as an outcome of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207014593 ANI thread], [[User:Thomas B]] was page-blocked with strong consensus from pages [[Tim Hunt]], [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], [[Online shaming]], [[Talk:Online shaming]] for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]], [[WP:STONEWALL|stonewalling]], [[WP:BLUDGEONING|bludgeoning]], [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]], and [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING|forum shopping]] over the topic of Tim Hunt's 2015 controversy.<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, after the blocking and a monthly hiatus, the first edit Thomas B made to Wikipedia was the creation of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt yet another thread] about Tim Hunt, for the second time on [[WP:BLPN]] already. The thread resulted in another editor getting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#NewImpartial_-_BLP_discussion_touching_GENSEX reported to ANI].<br /> <br /> Comments made by Thomas B indicate an intention to continue participation and failure to understand why own behavior is disruptive. Here's two examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomas_B&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214802498] &quot;{{tq|I won't be participating '''too actively''' in any further discussion.}}&quot; and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214880952] &quot;{{tq|I looked it up before doing it. Because I'm blocked (not topic banned), this is actually '''perfectly fine'''.}}&quot; (boldings mine). &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NicolausPrime|contribs]]) 20:04 27 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :He wasn't ''banned'', he was [[WP:PB|blocked]] from 4 pages. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :[[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Article_ban_or_page_ban]] uses the term &quot;page ban&quot;, but I may be missing something so I changed this as you suggested. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You may have missed [[WP:BP|the blocking policy]]. Note that the [[User Talk:Thomas B#February 2024|notice]] on his talk page says &quot;blocked&quot;, not &quot;banned&quot;. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to get around his block. As such, both the quotes supplied seem reasonable to me. How is his participating in the discussion at BLPN disruptive? Has he reverted anyone (or was accusing him of {{tq|edit warring}} a mistake)? Could you elaborate on the forum shopping accusation? <br /> ::I can see an argument for bludgeoning, however; Thomas B had 20 replies out of 60 comments at the time of this post. More to the point, in his opening statement to the BLPN thread, he writes, {{tq|For (somewhat doggedly) insisting on this [change], I have been indefinitely blocked from editing the page myself. I bring it here in the hope that others will take a look.}}. That sounds to me like it's very close to [[WP:PROXYING]]. Combined with their [[WP:IDHT|refusal to listen]] to other editors telling them that what they're doing is bad, I think an argument could be made for their editing being disruptive. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 21:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'm not sure it's quite that simple. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207014593#Proposal_for_page_ban The original proposal] was for a &lt;s&gt;topic&lt;/s&gt; ''page'' ban, explicitly, with at my count 9 !votes in support and 3 in opposition. When the discussion was closed, however, it was closed as a &quot;block&quot;, despite the proposal having been for a ban and seemingly gained limited consensus for doing so. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Maybe I'm missing something. The section you linked was for a page ban. {{tq|To avoid spending even more time on this, I propose for Thomas Basboll to be '''page-banned''' from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages per above evidence.}} (Bolding mine.) Which, granted, means confusing a block and a ban is more understandable, but 1) the only talk of topic bans I see in that discussion is ''opposing'', and 2) even if the close was improper, I hardly think we can sanction an editor for violating a restriction that was never formally imposed, could we? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::That's my mistake -- I said topic, but meant page (edited to fix). Regardless, I agree with your point.[[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thomas B is forum-shopping because: first, after an edit war, there was an [[WP:NPOVN]] discussion started by [[User:LokiTheLiar]]. After this discussion and [[Talk:Tim Hunt]] reached a consensus Thomas B didn't agree with, Thomas B started a new thread on [[WP:BLPN]]. In the meanwhile Thomas B was reported to [[WP:ANI]], which prompted an RfC about the contentious section's content and later also the page ban (or however this should be called, I'm lost). The RfC later concluded. However Thomas B, instead of accepting the now-RfC-backed consensus, created a second [[WP:BLPN]] thread. As far as my knowledge goes, this should constitute forum shopping. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you for elaborating; I appreciate you making things clearer for me. I can see where you're coming from re: Forum Shopping. I still feel like, unless it's been done many times, the better first step is to tell the editor, &quot;Hey, this is Forum Shopping, don't do it.&quot; The solution that allows productive editing with the minimum of administrative intervention is often the best one, after all. If he continues to forum shop, then there's a solid case (with a warning!) to point to. That said, in the context of the other issues in that BLPN thread, it does make a compelling reason for a topic ban. Thanks again for elaborating! [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Thomas B was warned about own behavior multiple times, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214873854 after the page ban], and the previous ANI thread should have sent a strong signal that raising the same issue over and over again in multiple threads across multiple pages is sanctionable. The page ban vote was without consensus at first, until it changed because the disruption continued. It was all gradual, there definitely were many occassions for Thomas B to change course. I can try to be more eager to post warnings to user talk pages next time something like this happens, but this comes with its own set of problems. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Statement by Thomas B ===<br /> <br /> I thought that S Marshall's close of the RfC was sensible. I interpreted it as '''requiring''' (&quot;In practice '''the only way''' that I can see to do this...&quot;) a proportionate expansion of the rest of the article. Since I had by then already been blocked, I could not myself contribute to this work, but watched on the sidelines.<br /> <br /> After about a week, it seemed clear that the editors working on the article were ignoring Marshall's advice and had settled on a version in which the event would occupy over 20% of the article. I then checked whether a page block implies a topic ban, found it did not, and therefore raised the issue on BLPN. Since then, I have posted only in response to other editors, in many cases because they asked questions or wanted sources.<br /> <br /> While I'm happy to grant that this could have happened in any case, the immediate effect of my intervention appears to be to have brought the controversy section down to under 15% of the total word count, at least for the time being, with some editors adding material outside the section and others trimming it a little. It has certainly not led to any disruption of the article or its talk page (i.e., it has not attracted disruptive editors nor stoked up controversy there). While I still think the content decisions are unwise and contrary to BLP policy, work there seems to be proceeding in a calm and orderly manner.<br /> <br /> Editors who simply want to improve the article are entirely free to ignore me. I do not contact them on their talk pages and I have not appealed my block. The only nuisance I'm causing seems to be mediated by actions like this proposal for a topic-ban and (remarkably) a site-ban. Obviously, I would appeal any such action, leading to more time wasted by administrators, perhaps even arbitration. As in the case of the original block, this all seems very over-the-top to me.<br /> <br /> Finally, I want to say that part of the problem is that I've been away from protracted controversies here for a long time, and there appears to have been a change in the way content disputes are resolved now. In particular, I was suprised to be blocked not by '''policy''' but by '''consensus'''.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScottishFinnishRadish&amp;diff=1207382381&amp;oldid=1207380789] Most of the people who contributed to that consensus were also involved in the content dispute. It does really seem like a group of editors showed up on an article to which I have made substantial contributions[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Tim_Hunt] over many years[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Thomas+B&amp;page=Tim_Hunt&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max=], took it over and forced me out, because there was '''one thing''' they wanted to make sure the article said. I don't remember it working that way in the past.<br /> <br /> Anyway, thanks for hearing my side. I hope it is clear that my aim here is, not to be annoying, but to ensure the intergrity of Wikipedia's BLP article on Tim Hunt and, of course, in line with our policy, to prevent its subject any unnecessary pain. Best,--[[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 06:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Proposal: topic ban ===<br /> <br /> I propose for Thomas B to be topic-banned from the subjects of Tim Hunt and Online shaming, broadly construed, replacing the previously mentioned page bans. The purpose of this ban is to prevent any further skirting around the page ban.<br /> <br /> * '''Support''' as proposer. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' per my above comment. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' as my interpretation of the original block was that there was consensus for a &lt;s&gt;topic&lt;/s&gt;page ban before, and there's no indication that anything's changed. Extending that to a topic ban across a narrow set of topics isn't an unreasonable next step [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Support: the interaction [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&amp;diff=1215873249&amp;oldid=1215863476 here] is illustrative of the fact that Thomas B simply does not exhibit the capacity to comprehend that anyone could hold views different from his own on this matter; this is incompatible with constructive discussion and consensus-forming. Moreover, it is clear that Thomas B lacks the self-control necessary to stop bludgeoning discussions on this issue. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' I think Thomas B's concerns regarding the Tim Hunt page are legitimate. That doesn't mean they are the consensus view but I can see how they can make their case in good faith. I would suggest they back away and let others reply and if others don't then they need to accept that they don't have consensus. I think this sanction is counter productive as it tells someone who is concerned about a BLP issue that they should just shut up and not have brought things up. I get that sometimes editors feel like someone is objecting too much. However, editors are also free to not reply. No one is going to think a 3:1 (or what ever it actually is) consensus against Thomas B's proposed changes will magically be closed as &quot;consensus for&quot; if Thomas B is allowed to have the last word. So long as the discussion doesn't leave BLPN (a legitimate place for the concern) and the discussion is civil I don't see why this needs admin action. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:We had extensive discussions on [[WP:NPOVN]], [[WP:BLPN]], [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], [[WP:ANI]], the RfC, and now yet another one on [[WP:BLPN]]. The previous BLPN thread was started by Thomas B after NPOVN reached a consesus against Thomas B's position. The current BLPN thread was created by Thomas B after the RfC concluded also against this user's position. Which is [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. In every case the discussion concerned the same thing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hunt#2015_controversy a single subsubsection] in Tim Hunt's biography, and each time consensus emerged against Thomas B. Which is [[WP:STICK]]. In every discussion Thomas B's made an excessively large amount of posts as compared to others, often reiterating the same arguments. Which is [[WP:BLUDGEONING]].<br /> *:This has been going on for over a month and has been draining a considerable amount of attention from me and other editors. Isn't this disruptive and draining our community resources? Are you sure that this doesn't need admin action, and this typical topic-ban sanction would be as far as ''counter productive''? [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Speaking of Bludgeoning [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&amp;target=NicolausPrime&amp;namespace=all&amp;tagfilter=&amp;start=2024-03-23&amp;end=2024-03-28&amp;limit=50] Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked. Its almost a single-minded obsession. As regards [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]], this is repeatedly raising the same topic at multiple forums. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&amp;end=&amp;namespace=4&amp;start=&amp;tagfilter=&amp;target=Thomas+B&amp;offset=20240206075305] Reviewing Thomas B's contribution history demonstrates that he raised the issue at [[WP:BLPN]] ''once'' before the ANI thread started that led to his block and that was the sole time he had raised it in any forum outside of trying to discuss the topic on the article talk page. He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at [[WP:BLPN]]. There was in fact no discussion at [[WP:BLPN]] See [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt]]. Your allegation of [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] is demonstrably false. Rather we constantly have the same [[WP:TAG]] team of editors lobbying loudly to have editors blocked but offering no real evidence and what little evidence is offered, when you look closer doesn't support the allegation of misconduct. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 15:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&quot;{{tq|Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked.}}&quot;<br /> ::::This is false, as directly contradicted by the following edits, unrelated to Thomas B, that I made between March 23 and today: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215654047] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NicolausPrime/sandbox&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215762490] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compact_Disc_subcode&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215768058] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215654745] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etymological_fallacy&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215747100].<br /> ::::&quot;{{tq|He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at WP:BLPN. There was in fact no discussion at WP:BLPN See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt. Your allegation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is demonstrably false.}}&quot;<br /> ::::The very discussion that you link, [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim_Hunt]], immediately reaches the conclusion that the filing constituted forum-shopping. We can disagree, maybe, whether the second BLPN thread created one month later constituted forum-shopping or was just beating a dead horse, but it evidently was at least one of that as it had been shortly preceded by extensive discussions that I noted above. And no, the issue is not distinct, it's a yet another, ad nauseam reiteration the same arguments about the article being unfair to Tim Hunt, to address which the RfC was created and have thus resolved.<br /> ::::&quot;{{tq|we constantly have the same WP:TAG team of editors lobbying loudly}}&quot;<br /> ::::This is the third or fourth time I see you making this accusation. I can't say for others, but I'm definitely not a member of any tag team. Except for commenting once in an earlier RfC started by LokiTheLiar, I don't think I've ever interacted with any of the editors involved in the Tim Hunt discussion and its offshoots before the NPOVN thread, where my involvement began. I started the original page-ban vote because I wanted the disruption to end, and I've started this thread because I felt responsible for failing to prevent further disruption due to my choice of a page ban instead of a topic ban. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> *'''Support''' This is clearly what the original consensus intended and Thomas B's behavior since then is a clear example of [[WP:GAMING]]. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 01:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. Seems the only way to prevent this (part of the) disruption continuing. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 09:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose''' Thomas B has raised legitimate concerns about [[WP:BLP]] policy, in the close of the RFC it was noted his concerns were legitimate and could not be ignored. Per Springee he is entitled to raise those concerns at [[WP:BLPN]]. I see someone has suggested he is bludgeoning the discussion and I acknowledge he has made a number of contributions. However, most are replies in a discussion with {{U|Newimpartial}} e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&amp;diff=1215687478&amp;oldid=1215683633]. There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it. It is Kafkaesque to suggest an editor is sanctioned as the result of an [[WP:ANI]] thread raised against another editor who has an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor's excessive posts. {{ping|EducatedRedneck}} I presume your support vote reflects your satisfaction that [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] is an issue, may I draw your attention that the NicolausPrime considers that I have raised an issue in a forum once as forumshopping. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Tq|There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often}} - in the ANI section above, the only evidence presented in support of this assertion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215783375] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215788924] includes (succinct) responses to direct questions as though they could be violations, although such are explicitly excluded by the terms of my restrictions (as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215784194 was noted by SilverSeren] above). <br /> *:No other editor in &quot;my&quot; section, aside from the OP, has suggested any possible violation of my anti-bludgeon restriction, and many editors have participated above. I would therefore appreciate if you would strike your assertion here that I am {{tq|breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it}} - there is no suggestion that I have broken my anti-bludgeon restriction nor is there a suggestion that I be sanctioned, so I'd rather not see that inaccurate statement left in this other section (where I randomly happened to see it).<br /> *:You also imply (when you refer to {{tq|an WP:ANI thread raised by an editor already under an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor}} (1) that I raised a thread at ANI (since no other editor here is under a restriction for number of posts per topic) and (2) that Thomas B. is facing sanctions here for responding to my comments. So far as I can tell, neither of these assertions is accurate, since I didn't bring anything to ANI and sanctions proposed here are about forum shopping and have nothing to do with any interaction between Thomas B. and myself. Perhaps you were confusing me with NicolausPrime, an editor I had never been aware of until the last day or so on this page.<br /> *: Anyway, I'd appreciate you striking the second reference to my editing as well; I'd rather not see spurious statements be made about my conduct even incidentally (and possibly based on mistaken identity). Thanks. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I didn't mistake your identity, I mistakenly pasted the wrong name but that's fixed now. I do believe you have broken your anti-bludgeon restriction but you've obviously missed that I opposed any sanction. I am not the only editor to think that way, so I will respectfully decline that request. I had also noticed it myself but chose not to report it - I usually try to avoid the drama boards until after I try and discuss with editors first. I will revise my wording to make my meaning clearer; Nicholas started this thread as a result of the thread raised about you and that is what I meant. I was also responding to the bludgeoning accusation against Thomas, which is largely responding to posts you made requesting a reply from him. Which is not to accuse anyone of misconduct and I have not sought any action against anyone including you. I trust that clarifies the matter? &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::Your !vote above doesn't refer in any way to my anti-bludgeon restriction, nor do those of any other editors apart from the OP and Silver seren, who corrected the OP's misinterpretation of the restriction (Silver seren quoted the actual text of the restriction, above).<br /> ::::If you still {{tq|do believe [I] have broken [my] anti-bludgeon restriction}}, I'd appreciate you documenting that in the relevant section above, preferably with the evidence you consider relevant, so the question can be addressed by other editors - at the moment, that view seems to have been rejected by all editors contributing to the discussion besides the OP. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I have already declined to report your violation of your anti-bludgeon restriction, I do so again. If I had felt it needed action I would have already discussed it with you. Now having had to give the same reply effectively twice, may I draw attention to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1141126946&amp;oldid=1141118949&amp;title=User_talk:Newimpartial this]. Please take the hint. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::If you're not going to report it, then ''stop bringing it up''. This is staring to look like [[WP:HOUND]]ing. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::WCM, I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I don't think you're suggesting that someone making a spurious accusation against you therefore determines the legitimacy (one way or the other) of an accusation against Thomas B. Are you saying NicolausPrime fabricated the claims of the five involved fora (talk page consensus, NPOVN, BLPN, RfC, 2nd BLPN)? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose'''; {{u|Springee}} put it perfectly. I appreciate the ban is supposed to reflect bludgeoning and failing to drop the stick, but it also looks uncomfortably close to a ban for having the &quot;wrong&quot; opinion, an attempt by one side to undermine the other. The harm done by such a ban - the chilling effect on future debate - greatly exceeds the mild inconvenience of an editor writing a bit too much about their viewpoint, in too many fora. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 11:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' - Per Springee, Thomas B should back away, but I would suggest the same for the editors interacting with Thomas B. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 13:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' Run-of-the-mill response to an example of the kind of forum-shopping and stick-grabbing that the project has seen time and time again as the years have rolled by. Any &quot;chilling effect&quot; on editors expressing opinions vaguely aligned with Thomas B's is purely speculative. If we stopped doing topic bans because of such speculation, we'd have to find a whole new way of dealing with a very real problem. [[User:XOR&amp;#39;easter|XOR&amp;#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&amp;#39;easter|talk]]) 14:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' Though i agree with {{U|Springee}} and others about the concerns, i believe that Thomas B has shown/is showing a startling lack of ability to read the room and work within a community. If the several editors above who also agree with his point (though not his methods) are representative of a portion of the community then that point will be discussed and taken into consideration ''without'' Thomas B's disruptive behaviour. Happy days, ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''&lt;sup&gt;'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' Whilst I understand what the opposers are saying, this isn't a proposed ban for having the &quot;wrong&quot; opinion, it's a ban for being ''utterly and completely unable'' to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] even after a previous block. It would have been simple to walk away and edit one of the other 7 million Wikipedia articles, but ... no. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' formal topic ban. This user apparently cannot comprehend the idea that [[First law of holes|he should stop digging]] after the initial page block, and is carrying on the arguments in other locations. A topic ban is the only way we can move forward without Thomas dragging this out across the wiki. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Is the problem my inability to drop the stick or a number of editors inability to ignore a quite tame posting to BLPN? Other than this very strange ANI, what disruption has my post caused? What effect has my post had on the editing of the Tim Hunt article? [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|a quite tame posting}} You have made approximately 20 comments in the discussion at BLPN; all other editors combined have made about 40. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 21:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You understand that I have mainly answered their questions, right? I should have &quot;dropped the stick&quot; and ignored their direct questions? [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::You're still digging... — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::You understand that your response is evasive, that your original comment is dishonest, and that you are demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to exhibit the self-control necessary to participate in an acceptable way, right? --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 23:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::I think the accusation of dishonesty is unfair and uncivil, so I'm not responding to this comment. [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 08:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' This is a transparent refusal to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] combined with [[WP:IDHT]]. I am sure that the concerns are genuine, but they have already been discussed and addressed. At this point Thomas needs to leave this to other editors and [[WP:AGF]] (saying things like {{tq|they want to paint Hunt as a sexist}} when someone disagrees about anything is not what I would consider good-faith). In terms of dropping the stick, we can all see the responses at BLPN and they have not been {{tq|mainly answer[ing] their questions}}. See for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215520494] (repeating the same argument from when this all started) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214835462] (continuing to double down) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214823751] (no one asked any question here either) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214976196] (example of [[WP:IDHT]], editors have repeatedly explained that no one is suggesting the article call him sexist, but Thomas is still arguing as if they are) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214981527] (accusing other editors of bad faith unprompted). This whole situation is getting ridiculous. The RFC is closed. The article is being edited productively. Let's all just move on. &lt;small&gt;(also this is my first comment at ANI so please let me know if I messed up formatting somewhere or need to change anything)&lt;/small&gt; [[User:CambrianCrab|CambrianCrab]] ([[User talk:CambrianCrab|talk]]) 22:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' – no harm is being caused to the encyclopedia by raising legitimate and genuine BLP concerns. If you don't want to interact with him, then don't. I believe there are legitimate BLP concerns as well about the Hunt article, but after seeing the way Thomas B has been treated in this whole shameful debacle, I'm afraid to say anything for fear of proposals like this being thrown my way.[[User:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue&quot;&gt; ''Isaidnoway'' &lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:black&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/b&gt;]] 00:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&quot;I don't think he should be blocked because I agree with him, and his behavioral issues are actually the fault of other people&quot; ok then. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Less sarcastically: Wikipedia operates on a consensus-based discussion model. Consensus models only work if (1) people are generally willing to accept when consensus is against them, and (2) people who refuse to acknowledge this can be prevented from disrupting discussions. The problem with Thomas B is not his views, it's that he's failing (1) and consequently forcing others to rely on (2). &lt;br&gt; Here is a very simple question you could ask yourself: suppose that there were a 60-comment discussion involving 10 or 12 participants; how many comments would you expect each person to be making under normal circumstances, if no one is bludgeoning or arguing just for the sake of arguing or exhibiting [[WP:IDHT]]? Personally, I think any time you see someone making 12 or 15 comments in those circumstances, it's a very bad sign. [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt|Thomas B has made 20.]] --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I would expect the person who started the discussion to make significantly more comments than anyone else in the discussion. It would not surprise me if they replied at least once to each of the others, sometimes merely to grant a point, clarify a statement, or answer a question. So, in a discussion with 10-12 participants, that 12-15 number seems conservative to me. Your reasoning, however, certainly explains the hostility against me if it has become the general view at WP. Like I say in my statement, things do seem to have changed since I was last involved in a big controversy. I mean, people have taken even my participation in this ANI proposing to ban me as a sign that I can't drop the stick (or shovel, per Hand). It's just peculiar, frankly. [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 08:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{tq|if it has become the general view at WP}}<br /> *::::This has been the general view for a long, long time, hence [[WP:BLUDGEON]], which has existed since 2008. Responding to every single comment is the very heart of BLUDGEON. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' By the time the post was made to BLPN {{u|Hemiauchenia}} had already been working on the issue of implementing the RfC result. {{u|Firefangledfeathers}} trimmed the controversy section, tho i'm not sure if this was in response to the posting. {{u|S Marshall}} was providing some valuable comments. {{u|Morbidthoughts}} and {{u|Hemiauchenia}} started a good discussion which probably could have been very useful. Could have been better if more editors would have kept their eyes on the ball, but not the worst WP noticeboard discussion ever. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' It's become clear that Thomas B really can't drop this issue. Even if the BLPN thread has resulted in some constructive changes, his responses in the BLPN discussion make it obvious that he just cannot accept that the majority of people don't agree with him on what the section should look like, and that he's just going to keep causing disruption regarding this issue unless he is topic banned. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It's entirely correct that in my opinion the majority is wrong and that I think the article is currently misleading. I've added an update to this effect at the BLPN post.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard#Tim_Hunt] But expressing this opinion is not in itself a disruption. I've been puzzled at the amount of annoyance (and administration) I've caused simply by posting things that could easily just be ignored, especially since I'm working within the contraints of a block that I have not appealed. [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 11:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Thomas B, you may wish to reread [[WP:IDHT]]. I feel encompasses why this {{tq|amount of annoyance}} is being had from your conduct. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 17:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. Consensus at this point on the article is clear (and has been for a long time); Thomas B's continued refusal to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], his [[WP:IDHT]] response to months of discussion and attempts to [[WP:FORUMSHOP]] the dispute are long past the point of being disruptive. Simply believing that the majority is wrong doesn't allow someone to endlessly raise the same issue in every possible venue available to them forever - we don't write articles or reach consensus via filibuster. The fact that his responses, above, show that he ''still'' doesn't get it even after an article-level block and after numerous people here have explained to him shows that nothing but a topic ban is going to work here. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 05:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Proposal: additional two-month ban from English Wikipedia ===<br /> {{atop<br /> | status = <br /> | result = This is unnecessary, against policy and clearly will not achieve consensus. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I propose for Thomas B to be banned from the English Wikipedia for two months, independently and additionally to the above topic ban. The purpose of this ban is to act as a deterrent from any further [[WP:GAMING|gaming]] of the sanctions.<br /> <br /> * '''Support''' as proposer. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' as unnecessary and punitive. With a topic ban in place, escalating blocks may be imposed as necessary. Let's extend more [[WP:ROPE]] so they can contribute helpfully to other areas. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' premature. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' I haven't seen any indication of disruption outside of this topic area. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' Clearly unnecessary. It also would be easy for editors to presume the motive in suggesting this block was to be punitive. As I said above, if Thomas B's arguments aren't shifting consensus then why worry? If they are shifting consensus then this sort of block looks more like gaming than protective. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose'''. The issue seems to be contained to the topics proposed to be banned for the accused, and this proposal goes beyond reasonable prevention. If the topic ban above becomes enforced, a block can be imposed if it gets contravened. —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 05:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose'''. Not necessary or warranted. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 09:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' Seems punitive. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> === Comment ===<br /> <br /> I note there are now 3 threads related to issues surrounding the [[Tim Hunt]] article, making 4 in less than a month. I like {{ping|Elemimele}} and {{ping|Fiveby}} are concerned about the toxic nature of the discussion surrounding that article. I am no longer editing there like those two editors and don't intend to return. I suggest {{ping|Thomas B}} stops as well, not because he is wrong but for his own well being and mental health. Rather than being guided by sources, looking at what the prevailing views are in the literature, the discussions have descended into editors looking for sources to validate their own opinions. ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents in the discussion rather than addressing urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Notably, accusations of disruptive behaviour are unsupported by evidence, scratch the surface of what little is offered as evidence and it crumples. I haven't called for any sanctions, I opposed a proposal yesterday and still urge that as {{U|S Marshall}} suggested that an intervention by an uninvolved SySop may be required to stave off an arbcom case. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 10:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :{{tq|ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents}} You have moaned about this in two or three places now, but oddly you have not noted that ''you'' started one of the threads, nor have you apologized to me for doing so; odd, that. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Do you intend to do anything about these accusations that {{tq|ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents}}, or are you going to keep posting this in some vague [[WP:FORUM]] manner? — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Note that I am not involved in the Tim Hunt article, BLPN discussion, or this issue anywhere that I can tell. I don't think it's productive at this time to cast this as an &quot;us vs them&quot; situation. Rather, this should be looked at on its own merits. To me, the question is: Does Thomas B's conduct help or hurt the encyclopedia? In my mind, it hurts it by draining the other editors' time and energy over an issue that seems to have already reached a consensus. I believe he's acting in good faith (honestly trying so solve what he views as a BLP issue), but we all need to accept that consensus is sometimes against us and move on. You may disagree that the harm outweighs the good, and that's also completely valid; answering that question is a judgement call, not a matter of fact.<br /> :I'd also posit that those editors not engaging on BLPN does not remove the problem; if nobody dissents to Thomas B there, it seems to me that a new consensus could be formed there which is not truly representative of the community's opinions. Maybe it wouldn't happen, but the fear of having to go back and sort out the two opposing consenses makes doing nothing less palatable. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 23:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 158.223.0.0/16 and 2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64 ==<br /> <br /> <br /> *{{userlinks|158.223.0.0/16}}<br /> *{{userlinks|2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64}}<br /> <br /> I previously raised concerns on [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#158.223.0.0/16_and_2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64|18 March 2024]], and the [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]] editing is continuing. <br /> <br /> The very latest example is yet another modification of a direct quotation ([[Special:Diff/1215894901]].) I tried pointing that out the last time it happened (see [[User_talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct#HGV20]]) but whether the editor just ignored it or just flat out doesn't understand is difficult to say. Their English comprehension seems limited; a number of haphazard edits (like [[Special:Diff/1213373005]], [[Special:Diff/1215867316]], [[Special:Diff/1215727741]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shi_%28rank%29&amp;diff=1215693311&amp;oldid=1215637799]) make it look like that they don't understand what was written before or the effects of their own changes.<br /> <br /> Combined with their talk page interactions (including on [[User_talk:158.223.122.211]]) my impression is that they tend to miss the point a whole lot and are quite oblivious to it. - [[User:RovingPersonalityConstruct|RovingPersonalityConstruct]] ([[User talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/RovingPersonalityConstruct|contribs]]) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == user:Zack097 adding unsupported categories ==<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|Zack097}}<br /> <br /> Noticed a few additions of categories which were not supported by article contents. User has a history of adding poorly or unsourced content, with numerous level 4 warnings. Some examples include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spies_in_Disguise&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215901686], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_2&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215901539], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eternals_(film)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215901826].--[[User:Loriendrew|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #005000;&quot;&gt;☾Loriendrew☽&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Loriendrew|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #000080;&quot;&gt;☏''(ring-ring)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 22:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This user has done almost nothing constructive in the many years since they created the account. Indefinitely blocked.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == IP Repeatedly Disrupting Table Formatting ==<br /> <br /> *{{vandal|2804:14C:128:270D:0:0:0:475}} &amp;ndash; On {{No redirect|:Kingsman (franchise)}} ({{diff|Kingsman (franchise)|1215922664|1214567618|diff}}): vandalism after final warning. Repeated disruptive changes to content and removal of formatting across a variety of articles. Majority of edits have been reverted. The IP has also repeatedly performed such disruptive behaviors on the [[Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One]] and [[Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Two]] articles, among many other franchise-related tables. This is getting quite annoying to revert each time they return and they ignore any warnings given, and have edited as such through different IPs. The reach of their edits is problematic, though individual page protection for every article may be too extreme. I previously took this issue to AIV though they recommend I bring it here instead. [[User:Trailblazer101|Trailblazer101]] ([[User talk:Trailblazer101|talk]]) 01:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Improper close ==<br /> {{atop|Reported editor blocked indefinitely by {{noping|Dennis Brown}} per [[WP:NOTHERE]]. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) {{nac}}}}<br /> * {{Userlinks|Candied Taters}}<br /> I reverted this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1215965720 close]. Can someone review the account which made the close. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 06:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I also notice that Candied Tater's userpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Candied_Taters&amp;redirect=no redirects to an admin's user page] (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACandied_Taters&amp;diff=1215965100&amp;oldid=1215959997 here] is the diff where they created that redirect). Seems like the user picked out the longest thread, or saw it [[Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Administrative_discussions|at WP:CR]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests&amp;oldid=1215947052#Administrative_discussions permanent link]). Whatever the user was trying to do, it seems disruptive. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 06:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I blocked him under [[WP:NOTHERE]]. The user page (now deleted) sealed the fate, redirecting to an admin's page ([[User:Red-tailed hawk]]) after that admin changed it so they don't redirect their user page to a Guideline. Troll like behavior, obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. [[User:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;Dennis Brown&lt;/b&gt;]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;2&amp;cent;&lt;/b&gt;]] 06:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I went ahead and deleted their 2 !votes on this page. If someone objects feel free to restore. But seems like [[WP:DENY]] is the best approach here. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 06:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == [[User:99.209.199.62]] Keep vandelzing Wikipedia ==<br /> <br /> Hi I just saw a ip keep vandelzing the page [[Final Fantasy XVI]] can you please block the ip since he continued after the final warning [[User:Fixer332|Fixer332]] ([[User talk:Fixer332|talk]]) 16:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Fixer332|Fixer332]] The IP has now been blocked for a week. Next time, a better place to report this would be [[WP:AIV|AIV]]. [[User:Kline|Kline]] • [[User talk:Kline|talk to me!]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kline|contribs]] 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:8diq]] and disruptive editing ==<br /> <br /> {{User2|8diq}} has <br /> * repeatedly inserted a large amount of inline images (which is basically the only type of edits they did) despite [[MOS:IRELEV]] and other editors' warnings on their talk page<br /> ** first warned on December 2023, around ~25 edits afterwards<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delhi_Republic_Day_parade&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1189195027 posted copyrighted materials] on articles and cross-wiki-[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/8diq uploaded] copyrighted images to Commons tagged as &quot;own work&quot;<br /> * not even one edit that is not reverted<br /> [[User:Northern Moonlight|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,Inter,-apple-system,Twitter Color Emoji,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap&quot;&gt;Northern Moonlight&lt;/span&gt;]] 00:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Barr Theo]] and bot-like mass creation of articles ==<br /> <br /> [[User:Barr Theo]]'s only contributions have been to create many new articles in batches, often several in less than one minute, and always at timestamps ending in :59 or :00. This pattern of mass-creation, as well as the total unresponsiveness on their talk page regarding their behavior, makes me believe they might be running an unauthorized bot creating these articles for them. [[User:Chaotic Enby|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#8a7500&quot;&gt;Chaotıċ &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1&quot;&gt;Enby&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 01:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :*'''Blocked''' until he explains this bot-like activity. [[Manuel María Smith]], [[Manuel Rodríguez Arzuaga]], [[Manuel de la Sota]], [[Manuel del Castillo]] and [[Manuel Gallego]] were all created within the exact same minute. There's no way those were done manually (or is it [[WP:ASSPERSIANS|Manuelly]]?) &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 02:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:{{tq|(or is it [[WP:ASSPERSIANS|Manuelly]]?)}} Boooooo. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:default;color:#246BCE;&quot;&gt;Liliana&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;&quot;&gt;UwU&lt;/span&gt;]]''''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])&lt;/sup&gt; 04:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::Bot-like? Or butt-like? [[User:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:red;&quot;&gt;E&lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:blue;&quot;&gt;Eng&lt;/b&gt;]] 06:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:Hi, I am [[User:Barr Theo|Barr Theo]]. I am currently unlogged because I do not want to break my &quot;insane streak of creations for March&quot;, which is also the reason why I did not answer [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]]. (The last time I used an IP address was in 2022 by the way, and this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat).<br /> :*:Regarding these wild accusations of bot usage, I must say that I am very disappointed with your conclusions... No, I do not use &quot;unauthorized bots&quot;, I simply create the articles that I have scheduled for the day and then wait for :59 to click on publish, usually at 23:59. Why do I do it? Because I am obsessed with details (grouping individuals by name, such as Luises and Manuels) and with symmetry (I always edit in pairs, and very often two or four pages per day), and also because I am a perhaps slightly stupid and crazy. But one thing that I am not is a criminal and I have never used &quot;unauthorized bots&quot;; in fact, I do not even know how to do that and I am not even sure if there is any kind of bot that can do what I have been doing. <br /> :*:Perhaps my insane levels of consistency and tiredness lead some of you to believe that I am being aided by machines, or that I am machine myself, but I ain't. I am just a human being, a very relentless and determined one. Sorry, Chaotic Enby, but there are no shortcuts for greatness.<br /> :*:Now that this miserdustanding has been clarified and now that I have explained by &quot;bot-like activity&quot;, I need to be unblocked as soon as possible because my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today (two of which are already done since 21 March, but that I will only publish at :59 of today).<br /> :*:Kind regards (waiting for 14:59 to upload this). [[Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D]] ([[User talk:2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|talk]]) 14:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Block evasion, isn't going to help, in fact that makes the situation worse. {{tq|my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today}} what schedule? [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|The Wordsmith}}, self admitted block evasion above. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I see it, thanks. I've responded at [[User talk:Barr Theo]] and blocked the /64. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barr_Theo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216190435 {{tq|I really didn't wanna break my streak nor use IP addresses due to my previous problems with multi-accounts}}] doesn't fill me with enthusiasm. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I'd guess they are referring to their previous unblock conditions: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABarr_Theo&amp;diff=1160765567&amp;oldid=1160703744]. &amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8093:5F01:91C5:7125:1875:DAC1|2804:F1...75:DAC1]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:8093:5F01:91C5:7125:1875:DAC1|talk]]) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *As much as {{u|Barr Theo}}'s explanation here and on their talk might be unusual, I don't see reason not to believe it. Unless there are any substantive issues with the pages that would warrant administrative intervention (and nobody has raised any), I don't think we should be keeping them blocked, and I don't think we should be weighing their evasion against them, since all they've been doing is appealing, albeit in the wrong place. {{u|The Wordsmith}}, are you okay with an unblock? --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I mean, they admit they're just creating/posting these articles rapid fire to meet some sort of self-imposed schedule. And then failing to respond to inquiries on their Talk page when people asked what they were doing. If nothing else, they need to acknowledge that this is a collaborative editing environment and just ignoring concerns is a bad idea.<br /> *:More concerning, this isn't the first time they've resorted to sockpuppetry. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|I mean, they admit they're just creating/posting these articles rapid fire to meet some sort of self-imposed schedule.}}<br /> *::I don't think people's &quot;internal schedules&quot; are something we should be concerned with (or concerned by), provided that their scheduling doesn't lead to problematic ''behaviour''. The problematic behaviour raised here so far is them not responding to [[User talk:Barr Theo#Mass creation of articles|a single query]]. I agree that's something they need to change in the future, but it's not a what I'd consider a major offence, and neither is their logging out to respond here. If they had done (or were to do) anything other than trying to engage with community concerns while logged out, it'd be a very different story, but they haven't. This is what I'd essentially consider a &quot;good faith&quot; SOCK violation, as opposed to &quot;proper&quot; socking. <br /> *::All that said, I'm a bit concerned by the &quot;line-pulling&quot; referred to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barr_Theo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216209252 in response to The Wordsmith's query], and concur that this should probably be cleared up before proceeding. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 23:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't really care about the block evasion, since it clearly wasn't intended to actually be ''evasive''. I see we've had an explanation about what this project is for, and I find it unusual but plausible. I'm satisfied that there's no unauthorized botting happening. I've asked one more question, about whether the text for these articles is original or translated/copied from somewhere (which might require attribution or checking for copyvio). If that's answered, and {{u|Barr Theo}} agrees to be reasonably responsive to the questions/concerns of other editors in the future, I'm fine with any admin unblocking if I don't get to it first. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Personal attack by {{u|ජපස}} ==<br /> <br /> I believe that I should be able to discuss the reliability of sources without being called an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216111388 ideologically-driven antiwokist]. Please do something about it. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 03:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :That seems to be the upshot of your argument. I look at impact of your rhetoric and cannot judge the intent. I have no way to judge what your mindset is. Shall I add something to that effect? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 03:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I shall! [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216113708]. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 03:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::That's scarcely any better. Frankly, any accusation related to &quot;[[woke]]ness&quot; (supposedly for or against) is inappropriate and poisons a topic. On any culture war-adjacent topic where it might be invoked, it could be hurled against any participant (again, supposedly for or against). As [[WP:NPA#WHATIS]] says, {{tq|Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden.}} &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Palatino&quot;&gt;[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : So jps decided to double down on his attack. Jps argues against the reliability of an academic journal mostly based on his own opinion of what he thinks is the ideology of the journal. This includes sweeping assertions about 60 academics: &quot;the members of this editorial board really are proponents of fringe theories&quot;, BLP be damned. My argument is that the reliability of a journal doesn't depend on whether jps or myself like what it publishes. I should be able to take that position without being accused of being a supporter of the ideology that jps abhors. I would take the same position if the ideology of the journal was the opposite. The fact is that jps doesn't have a clue what my ideological position is and I shouldn't have to take his ignorant insults. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 04:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@jps: There are times to go hard and pour buckets on opponents, but this is not one of them. The entire [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Journal of Controversial Ideas]] discussion is a waste of space because there is no actionable proposal. Is someone saying that journal can ''never'' be used as a source? Surely people know that explicit examples must be discussed before assessing whether something is reliable. Zero0000 is not playing a [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] game—it's actually you who are missing what Zero0000 has written. I am sympathetic to the view that some philosophers struggle to find interesting topics to discuss and they offer opinions on topics outside their expertise. We could chat about that but again it would be a waste of space. Please stop arguing there and wait until something actionable arises (should a particular claim in a particular article be sourced to the ''[[Journal of Controversial Ideas]]''?). And stop insulting valid comments. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I've blocked {{u|ජපස}} 1 week (as an Arbitration Enforcement action) for violating [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]]. There's a long history of warnings, sanctions and blocks for incivility in pseudoscience-related matters, dating back to at least 2006 with an Arbcom &quot;Caution&quot; at [[WP:ARBPSCI#ScienceApologist is uncivil]] up through a 2023 Arbitration Enforcement report [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive319#ජපස|where he was reminded]] to report pro-fringe disruption to administrators rather than being uncivil to them. Most recently, he was [[User talk:ජපස#Uncivil behavior|asked]] just a week ago to tone down the language and informed about [[WP:BRIE]]. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 05:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Although I consider myself a wikifriend of jps, and I tend to agree with his views on content matters, The Wordsmith accurately points to my warning about BRIE as part of that recent discussion at jps' talk page, and I endorse what The Wordsmith did. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::'''Good block'''. I encountered JPS here at ANI and through the Ammonihah page linked below. I'll add that JPS's behavior extends beyond the above thread. In this past month, he has [[WP:CIVIL|repeatedly chosen to express himself uncivilly]] on multiple pages (diffs provided below). As The Wordsmith points out, editors [[User talk:ජපස#Uncivil behavior|encouraged JPS to be more civil at his talk page]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;oldid=1216122139#Uncivil_behavior permanent link]) preceding the behavior at [[WP:FTN]]. JPS's acknowledgment that the thread had presented [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214739500 {{tq|a fair critique}}] apparently wasn't an indicator he would change his behavior.{{pb}}On user talk pages:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AViriditas&amp;diff=1214128433&amp;oldid=1213922579 {{tq|are you being petty? I don't see any substantive argument, just sour grapes}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214523384 {{Tq|profoundly weird sources you are demanding}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}In tags for Second Nephi<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214148955 {{tq|What in the actual fuck does THAT mean?}}; {{tq|You kidding me? Who wrote this? They need to be stopped.}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}At Talk:Massacre of the Innocents:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214212860&amp;oldid=1214211214# {{tq|that's just nonsense.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214213832&amp;oldid=1214213492 {{tq|::rolleyes:: This isn't serious}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214214550&amp;oldid=1214213931 {{tq|His bullshit needs to go too.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214214814&amp;oldid=1214214638 {{tq|Lol.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214217933&amp;oldid=1214216833 {{tq|Grow a thicker skin,}} and {{tq|If that offends a believer, then they need to leave this project.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1215521407&amp;oldid=1215520011 {{tq|Are you kidding?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214220315&amp;oldid=1214220053 {{tq|a charlatan. A hack. A biblical literalist who wants to play with the real scholars but can't because his faith requires him to believe absolute absurdities.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1216096055&amp;oldid=1216031705 {{tq|It looks like you are WP:POVPUSHing for your religious beliefs at this point.}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}In edit summaries for Massacre of the Innocents:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214194312&amp;oldid=1213785701 {{tq|This is not Sunday School. Take your biblical literalist whining elsewhere.}}] (Supposing editors are either not aware this is Wikipedia and not Sunday School (seems to be an implication of stupidity) or that they're acting in bad faith)<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214195168&amp;oldid=1214194881 {{tq|bullshit}}]<br /> ::* Stating that other editors are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214196547&amp;oldid=1214196395 {{tq|promoting lies in the encyclopedia}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1215406387&amp;oldid=1214982462 {{tq|ideology that is quite bizarre}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}At Talk:Ammonihah<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213721999 {{tq|why the hell did Joseph Smith bother to make up this silly story? Y'know?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213810626 {{tq|these &lt;s&gt;three&lt;/s&gt;two-and-a-half Mormons}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213906438 {{tq|They seem to say that, yes. That makes them Mormon apologists. Yep!}}] (said of [https://rap.wustl.edu/people/laurie-f-maffly-kipp/ Laurie Maffly-Kipp] and [[Penguin Books]])<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213909094 {{tq|LOL, WP:NOR isn't a suicide pact.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213912920 {{tq|This is Wikipedia. We don't play stupid games like this.}}]<br /> ::* When I asked if he meant to say that {{tq|Scholarship published in academic venues constitutes &quot;stupid games}}, referring in large part to [https://muse.jhu.edu/article/522405 an article from a secular academic journal published by the University of Pennsylvania Press that I was linking on the talk page], JPS answered, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213913325 {{tq|In most cases, absolutely}}].<br /> ::* When I asked if JPS meant to imply {{tq|&quot;Lunatic charlatans&quot; like professors of literature? Is that the implication?}} (literature professors like [https://www.uvm.edu/cas/english/profiles/elizabeth_fenton Elizabeth Fenton], whose research was cited for explanatory purposes on the talk page, a living person), JPS answered, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213917026 {{tq|Well, we had about a big long discussion about blacklisting those words, but it came up &quot;no consensus&quot;. Whachagonnado?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213940114 {{tq|Does it hurt your feelings or something?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214007074 {{tq|A bit sloppy there, old Joey S.}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}In edit summaries, body text, and tags for Ammonihah:<br /> ::* Inserted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213941828 {{tq|???}}] into the body text<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214001273 {{tq|This isn't Sunday School}}] (Supposing editors are either not aware this is Wikipedia and not Sunday School (seems to be an implication of stupidity) or that they're acting in bad faith)<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214003860 {{tq|Removing this section. It's a flight of fancy}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214003935 {{tq|some nonsensical readings}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214004257 {{tq|Removing this paragraph. I really hate it.}}] (a human editor wrote that paragraph; we can criticize with less hostile language)<br /> ::{{pb}}Here at ANI:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213600134&amp;oldid=1213599753# {{tq|This is an editor who can't follow a hypothetical}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213696119&amp;oldid=1213696098# {{tq|a complete clusterfuck.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213871517&amp;oldid=1213871371 {{tq|I think people like you are to blame}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214030158&amp;oldid=1214029645 {{tq|cult-like behaviors.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214095402&amp;oldid=1214093441 {{tq|absolutely atrocious edits}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214340841&amp;oldid=1214340684 {{tq|Forget it. At this point, you're running interference.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215421882&amp;oldid=1215418186 {{tq|I will not apologize for being a disruptive force in those places}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}I understand there's been a lot of ferment about articles in Mormon studies topic areas. I can accept if how I or others have contributed isn't what the community wants; I can accept articles like Ammonihah being revised, even drastically. But I'm unconvinced that JPS's behavior is necessary to accomplish that (to use the Ammonihah page as an example, other editors have been able to talk about revising the article without similar behavior; Ghosts of Europa, Steve Quinn). As Zero0000 said, editors shouldn't have to take JPS's insults. And this behavior is not limited to Mormon studies (as FTN and Massacre of the Innocents demonstrate). Maybe a one-week block will be enough to remind JPS of the ArbCom caution. But when this has apparently been going on for so long, and when JPS seems to react to concerns about his behavior with relative indifference (even when he invites discussion on his talk page about his behavior, he says, {{tq|You can even request that I reword things, if you like. I'm not saying I necessarily will agree to reword things}}), I'm left wondering whether this will stick and if some other sanction will be necessary to prevent more uncivil behavior in the future. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 08:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::: For record, I actually agree with much of jps's effort in keeping bible literalism out of the encyclopedia. He could do it with a lot less incivility though, as some but not all of these examples illustrate. Also, these examples don't sufficiently distinguish between robust discussion of sources (which is allowed and necessary within BLP limits) and insults and insinuations against editors which are not allowed. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 11:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yes, discussion of sources is allowed within BLP limits. The diffs pertaining to source discussion that I chose to include affect discussion and other editors in a way that I think is well characterized by this quote from the talk thread page that The Wordsmith linked above ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=1214739500&amp;oldid=1214681976 diff]): {{tq|I'm}} [Tryptofish] {{tq|not worried that you}} [JPS] {{tq|hurt the sources' feelings. But when you say these things about sources in a way that causes bad feelings among other editors, it's not necessarily those other editors' fault that they feel bad. If you think it's a source of pride to hurt other editors' feelings, well, that's both bullshit and baloney.}} [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 11:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :*I think this is a good example of &quot;it's not what you say, it's how you say it&quot;. I don't like to see jps blocked as I feel he's a tremendous resource when it comes to astronomy, astrophysics, and matters related to skepticism and paranormal nonsense. But when it comes to some topics, particularly religious topics, jps can get into a kind of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation, and his demeanor rapidly changes and he can get nasty. I can completely understand his approach because I have myself been there (as my block log can attest), particularly when it comes to political topics. I think what helped me loosen up and calm down a little bit was to remember two things: try to remember the human on the other side, and to acknowledge the ''coincidentia oppositorum''—that we can't have the black without the white, the light without the dark, and the religious without the non-religious. My goal is to try and remain civil within that tension of the opposites. I hope jps can do the same in the future as he's a valuable contributor. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*: If JPS's pattern of incivility crops up in certain topic areas, would focusing JPS's editorial efforts on other topic areas be a reasonable preventative measure to take going forward, in light of the long duration of this recurring behavior? Focusing on astrophysics and astronomy, for example, and avoiding religious studies. (Or, so as to also encompass the topic area of the thread at FTN—apparently about a philosophy periodical—avoiding the humanities?) [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 01:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::I was merely providing an example, but my guess is that the intersection between fringe theories, scientific skepticism, and other topics is quite large, so it can’t really be reduced to a single topic area. The best thing jps can do is to limit their replies (avoid bludgeoning) and allow their opponents to have the last word. This is something I’ve tried to bring to the table with my own contributions, and while I haven’t always been successful, it has personally helped me become more civil in my approach. In the relevant example, jps already had his say and didn’t need to keep replying to Zero. I think we have to try to avoid protracted discussions that have a tendency to become personal. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::That's good advice for all of us and could be a good thing for JPS to do. I do wonder, with this behavior having such a long history (nearly 18 years), wide breadth (multiple topic areas), and vitriolic depth (visible in multiple examples), whether as a community we should consider applying further formal measures designed to help JPS to do so and to avoid incivility and personal attacks. As much as [[WP:AGF|his goal is to help the project]], JPS has received warnings, cautions, advice, and blocks about this for more than a decade and a half, and he has evidently nevertheless kept resuming this pattern of behavior. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 07:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::::@[[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] you write {{tq|&quot;I do wonder ... whether as a community we should consider applying further formal measures&quot;}} and you write above {{tq|&quot;I'm left wondering whether this will stick and if some other sanction will be necessary&quot;}}. The read of the room here, for me, is that the current block is warranted but that further sanctions are not. Are you going to propose &quot;further formal measures&quot; or are you content to be left wondering? I am slightly concerned about what might amount to a desire to ''take an opponent off the board'', so to speak. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 09:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{admin note}} ජපස has asked that the his statement be copied over here, so I've done that below &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 13:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC):<br /> :Please copy my statement to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. I do apologize for personal attack offense. I tried to redact and am always amenable to discussion. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස#top|talk]]) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස#top|talk]]) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Emrahthehistorist17]] ==<br /> <br /> This emerges from [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Emrahthehistorist17 mass edits to infoboxes]]. While the discussion was active on AN, the mass edits to infoboxes stopped albeit with no response of any sort from Emrah. Mere days after it was archived, the mass edits described there promptly started up again. The exact same issues I noted previously which deal with [[MOS:INFOBOXFLAG]] and use of the {{parameter|result}} in {{t|infobox military conflict}} immediately recurred.<br /> <br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhus%27_invasion_of_the_Peloponnese&amp;oldid=1128963126&amp;diff=cur (inserting anachronistic infobox flags)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Sparta&amp;diff=1215622745&amp;oldid=1092629126 (inserting fictional and anachronistic infobox flags)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215737268&amp;oldid=1208663331&amp;title=Byzantine%E2%80%93Norman_wars (misunderstanding the article; inserting more flags)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&amp;diff=1216054692&amp;oldid=1213019550 (restoring partially [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&amp;diff=1211101487&amp;oldid=1193607582 previously reverted] edits that misunderstand the article – noting that Asiagenes and '''not''' Africanus was the main Roman commander – are inconsistent with use of {{parameter|result}})<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ecbatana&amp;oldid=1199556869&amp;diff=cur (misusing {{parameter|result}})<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_campaigns_in_Germania_(12_BC_%E2%80%93_AD_16)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215919875 (misusing {{parameter|result}})<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_Actium&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216062151 (misusing {{parameter|result}} along with unsourced additions)<br /> <br /> There have been multiple attempts to discuss this. I noted five previous attempts in my AN report:<br /> <br /> {{tq2|This behaviour has been consistent, with a long series of warnings from January 2024 to that effect on the user's talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#January_2024 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#February_2024 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Mass_edits_to_infoboxes 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#March_2024 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Warning 5]. I see no indication that the Emrahthehistorist17 has learnt anything from these discussions when replies therefrom can be generously characterised as emerging from a prosecutorial complex: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Mass_edits_to_infoboxes {{!tq|As long as you delete my edits like this, your website will never improve. It's done.}}], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mithridatic_Wars#Revert,_March_2024 {{!tq|I don't even have an idea about what are you talking about. But you seem like someone with authority on Wikipedia, and restricting me just because of your authority is a sign of injustice}}].}}<br /> <br /> There was absolutely no response to the notification of AN discussion. The only response I am aware of to anything since then was on [[User talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Roman–Seleucid war|Emrah's talk page]] yesterday where he simply responded with a curt {{!tq|Okay, I changed Hannibal and Ligustinus, but don't delete my other additions}} when factual errors were found. These edits to infoboxes are highly disruptive, especially when Emrah does not seem to understand that infoboxes are supplementary summaries of articles that reflect the contents therein and then misunderstands what is being summarised (as at [[Roman–Seleucid war]]). This has been made clear multiple times; to pause these edits while the behaviour was under discussion at AN, be entirely silent contra [[WP:COMMUNICATE]], and then restart them immediately after that discussion at AN was archived, feels akin to a sort of bad-faith gaming and at minimum a [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]]. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|talk]]) 05:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Its the same behavior of refusing to read what [[WP:MOS]] says and trying to push his views at whatever cost. When some points out that he has introduced an error its either [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]] or making minor modifications that do not solve the underlying problem and then saying: &quot;I changed it, it fine now.&quot;.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Nonsensical edit summaries ==<br /> {{atop|Dealt with. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> {{User4|Polavarapu Mokshith Sai}}: over 200+ nonsensical edit summaries like &quot;cv bnbv hftzgrzdcrfdcgert drfycjg h&quot; and &quot;yjtttttttt&quot;. They were warned 2 days ago and proceeded with 30+ more edit summaries with keyboard smashes. Bonus: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narayana_Group_of_Educational_Institutions&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215692360 promotional] edits. [[User:Northern Moonlight|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,Inter,-apple-system,Twitter Color Emoji,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap&quot;&gt;Northern Moonlight&lt;/span&gt;]] 07:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have indefinitely blocked Polavarapu Mokshith Sai as not here to build an encyclopedia for overtly non-neutral promotional editing, and hundreds of instances of gibberish in edit summaries. A toxic combination. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 08:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == Legal threats at Talk:Richard Huckle ==<br /> {{la|Richard Huckle}}&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> 2600:1700:3EC7:4150:CDF5:ECBA:20AF:BA6F making legal threats against the site. [[User:Gene Stanley1|Gene Stanley1]] ([[User talk:Gene Stanley1|talk]]) 08:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Yes. And I can't say I'm particularly surprised, when you see that someone had vandalised the article repeatedly to change the name of the article subject (a convicted serial child abuser) to the name of another individual - quite possibly the IPs. It is entirely unreasonable to expect anyone in that situation to engage in deep research into Wikipedia policy on what is or isn't permitted on article talk pages before responding. See [[Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats]]. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 09:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: Following this, is there any real benefit to letting IP users edit this article? [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Not particularly, though one could say the same about the many other biographical articles that see similar vandalism. The problem needs fixing properly: i.e. pending changes for all BLPs at minimum. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 10:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The benefit to letting IP users edit this article was demonstrated here. An IP user removed the serious [[WP:BLP]] violation. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I don't think that there's much more that we can reasonably do about this specific threat, given what [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] says and that this is an unregistered user. I get the impression that the editor simply wanted to correct an egregious fault on Wikipedia. I have left them a note explaining [[WP:NLT]] in case they come back. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Blocked two weeks.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Why? We have absolutely no reason not to assume that the contributor had a legitimate complaint about the content. Do you really expect individuals in such a situation to read through the entire corpus of Wikipedia guidelines and policies before responding? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Yes, that does seem a little thoughtless and heavy-handed. Surely some information about legal threats would have been better than a block in the circumstances. The originator of the threat, who seemed to be acting in good faith and for the good of Wikipedia, did not have a chance to retract it.[[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *The legal threat has been retracted. I hope that this editor is unblocked now. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I've just unblocked them a few minutes ago. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> The block was a good block -- it does not matter whether the issuer of a legal threat is [[WP:BRIE|in the right or not]]. The threat itself is [[WP:NLT|against policy]]; it creates a chilling effect on editors; and prevents the assumption of good faith. That's not an opinion -- that's [[Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Rationale|explicitly what our policy states]]. And the policy describes exactly how to handle this situation -- block them for the duration of the legal threat, and [[Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Conclusion_of_legal_threat|unblock them without prejudice or ill-will once they rescind it]]. We should also, if it hasn't been done, sanction the editor who made the offending statement in the first place. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Personal attacks at [[User talk:Anant-morgan]] ==<br /> [[User:Anant-morgan]] continues making personal attacks following a block [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anant-morgan&amp;curid=76144123&amp;diff=1216149802&amp;oldid=1216058086]. Please remove talk page access. [[User:JimRenge|JimRenge]] ([[User talk:JimRenge|talk]]) 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I heavily agree. They literally flipped Doug off after he blocked them. I honestly feel pretty bad for him. [[User:NoobThreePointOh|NoobThreePointOh]] ([[User talk:NoobThreePointOh|talk]]) 13:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Well, Ingenuity resolved our problems. [[User:NoobThreePointOh|NoobThreePointOh]] ([[User talk:NoobThreePointOh|talk]]) 15:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I have a strong suspicion that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anant-morgan&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214217589 {{tq|Are you restarted or something?}}] isn't what A-m meant. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == MisteOsoTruth and Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. ==<br /> <br /> <br /> * {{userlinks|MisteOsoTruth}}<br /> <br /> MisteOsoTruth is a single purpose account dedicated to the recent controversy surrounding Sweet Baby Inc, an area covered under contentions topics restrictions. They [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMisteOsoTruth&amp;diff=1215603055&amp;oldid=1215602860 have received notices about this]. They have been filling the talk page there with personal attacks on other editors and BLP violations (by accusing named individuals of committing harassment). Personal attacks: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Codename_Noreste&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213691434][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215673592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216160102] and BLP violations: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215674592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215675312][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215676001][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215850309][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215602536]. Here's a personal attack (against someone else) repeated on my user talk in response to a warning I placed about personal attacks: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215677916]. And here is the response to my efforts to warn them about this on their user talk page, repeating the accusations: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MisteOsoTruth&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216162074].<br /> <br /> This has gone on long enough, I would suggest a block as this user is clearly not going to stop and is clearly [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build an encyclopedia.]] - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 13:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :They have been given more than sufficient rope. I concur [[WP:NOTHERE]] applies. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support''' a NOTHERE block, the repeated BLP violations make it clear they're not going to adhere to our rules. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :They have contacted me though email to also discuss the same points they argue for in the talk page. I have emailed them back advising them to focus on getting RSs instead of tweets, youtube videos and screenshots while trying to explain why those are disallowed. I hoped that as someone who hadn't been very involved in the talk page (having only made one comment) I could advice them without any feelings of hostility. Seeing them continue their old ways without taking my advise saddens me but does reinforce my feeling that they simply refuse to learn the policies of wikipedia, instead of simply being ignorant of it.<br /> :[[User:Speederzzz|Speeder''zzz'']] ([[User_talk:Speederzzz|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Speederzzz|Stalk me]]) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Based on this user being an SPA, creating a significant amount of heat and not much light around a contentious topic page that's been immensely disrupted over the past several weeks, and the demonstrated lack of [[WP:CIR|competency]] and [[WP:NOTHERE]] concerns, I'm going to partial block MisteOsoTruth from the SBI article and talk page for 2 months. Because of the way the CTOPS appeals process works, and the fact that I'm editing on a laptop from out-of-town, I'm proactively giving my approval in advance for any uninvolved admin to modify or remove that block without needing to consult with me first. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Although I'm a bit late with this, I would also point out that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1213691434&amp;oldid=1213542170&amp;title=User_talk:Codename_Noreste this] edit (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215677916&amp;oldid=1215652642&amp;title=User_talk:MrOllie this] one from above) targets [[User:Ryulong]], who was blocked almost a decade ago as part of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate]]. It is simply implausible that a new editor could randomly decide to bear a grudge against someone who was indefinitely blocked nearly a decade ago. Their focus on him strongly suggests that this editor is either a sockpuppet or arrived here via one of the gamergate blogs or forums that still (to this day) regard Ryulong as something of a [[Bête noire]]; the nature of that focus suggests possible [[WP:MEAT]] / [[WP:CANVASS]] issues. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 05:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Molarinoye09 ==<br /> <br /> <br /> {{userlinks|Molarinoye09}}<br /> <br /> Since September 2023, Molarinoye09 has been disrupting [[Take That]] related articles by introducing unsourced material, or creating articles and using sources from Instagram, which aren't enough to go about on. When the article gets redirected due to [[WP:NSONG]], or if a link is removed due to said article being redirected like these articles [[You and Me (Take That song)|here]], and [[New Day (Take That song)|here]], they revert back and sometimes respond with &quot;{{tq|Don't do something bad.}}&quot; or &quot;{{tq|leave this article alone!}}&quot; and has even got to even posting those on the article talk pages of those redirects, as well as stating &quot;{{tq|This is an article, not a redirect.}}&quot; which also suggests [[WP:OWN]] issues. They have been previously warned multiple times, but they have [[WP:LISTEN|continued to ignore them]] as if the policies of Wikipedia do not apply to them, though they did state that they &quot;{{tq|would not be blocked}}&quot; when they were warned about missing copyright and/or source information for images they upload. [[User:HorrorLover555|HorrorLover555]] ([[User talk:HorrorLover555|talk]]) 14:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Their behavior to date unsuitable on multiple grounds--uploading fair use images without appropriate justifications, poor quality articles, bad sourcing. [[Special:Diff/1216135204|This]], created today, is obviously unsuited for mainspace. If this continues they're getting blocked, but I'd like to hear from them first. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 14:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::...aaand within 35 minutes of {{-r|You and Me (Take That single)}} being redirected to the band (09:26), they're back again with [[Draft:You and Me (Take That song)]] (09:59). [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 15:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Definitely no response to the ANI notice either. I think they are refusing to communicate. [[User:HorrorLover555|HorrorLover555]] ([[User talk:HorrorLover555|talk]]) 16:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Double check me on this, but based on the timestamps I don't believe they've edited since this discussion opened. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 16:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I created the page for the band's new album back in September, and I've been chasing after them and trying to fix their, to be frank, pretty poor edits. They are constantly trying to make new pages for singles which might not need them, and even when they're in draft form, add links to them on the actual wiki. You can see this on some of the edits they did to the page for ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wonderland_(Take_That_album)&amp;oldid=1192829324 Wonderland]''. I've helped out a little with these pages to make them a little more justifiable to exist, but even then they are purely stubs which are just on the cusp of notability.<br /> :Another thing I've had to deal with them (which I find particularly annoying) is they stole the description on my profile page, changed &quot;The Beatles&quot; to &quot;One Direction&quot;, replaced my name with their own and did nothing else. It does make it funny therefore that their profile page claims they are interested in 90/00s electronic music, and have been writing for a wiki about aviation accidents since 2020, when they certainly haven't. But still, it's annoying.<br /> :As to whether or not I think they should be banned, I think so, but only for a week at most. This person clearly doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and just telling them doesn't seem to be fixing it, as you mentioned. I think banning them temporarily will show them that they need to listen to us. [[User:Tedster41|Tedster41]] ([[User talk:Tedster41|talk]]) 17:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Based on their edits, I would say it would be a longer temporary block than just a week. I don't think a week is going to get them to hear us out, as they'll likely jump back to doing the same edits as before once it expires. [[User:HorrorLover555|HorrorLover555]] ([[User talk:HorrorLover555|talk]]) 17:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Block request ==<br /> {{atop|Dealt with. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> Can somebody please block this IP? [[Special:Contributions/170.231.85.132]] Petty vandalism adding fake death dates to BLPs. Thanks [[User:Jkaharper|Jkaharper]] ([[User talk:Jkaharper|talk]]) 14:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :There's someone in Brazil who does this frequently, using various IPs. Just revert/warn, revert/warn, report to [[WP:AIV]]. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 14:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::And they're blocked. Thanks, {{ping|Jauerback}}! [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == S201050066 once more ==<br /> {{previous discussion|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive357#S201050066 again}}<br /> <br /> Could we get a block on IP 64.229.35.200 ([[Special:Contributions/64.229.35.200|contributions]]) and {{U|S201050066 number 43.3}}, who posted [[Special:Diff/1216199096|some angry rant on my talk page]]? It looks like this user is being disruptive in COVID-19 articles again. —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Tenryuu all the rest of the Timeline Of The COVID-19 pandemics articles on our list to [[User:S201050066 number 43.3|S201050066 number 43.3]] ([[User talk:S201050066 number 43.3|talk]]) 18:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Indeffed by Spicy. [[User:Lynch44|Lynch44]] ([[User talk:Lynch44|talk]]) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{Non-admin comment}} And the IP's been blocked for 7 days by Nthep. [[User talk:Relativity|&lt;b style=&quot;border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#e82c52;color:white;&quot;&gt;‍ Relativity &lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I give thanks to all the admins involved. I don't suppose this is enough to merit semi-protection on COVID-19 timeline articles that S201050066 has edited? —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 00:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Sak7340 ==<br /> <br /> {{User|User:Sak7340}} has been edit-warring on [[Mohammed Zubair (journalist)]] and is on their 8th revert so far. There is a [[WP:EWN]] report but it hasn't been reviewed yet. They've now created a couple of retaliatory and incomplete reports there on DaxServer [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216202193] and myself [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216202864]. There is a discussion on the article talk page, but it's going nowhere fast. I'm hoping this will get some faster attention as they've continued the disruptive editing after all of the warnings and the original EWN report. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|&lt;span style=&quot;color: darkred;&quot;&gt;Ravensfire&lt;/span&gt;]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :The edits are a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Sak7340 has been blocked by ToBeFree for two weeks and the article ECP'd for a while. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|&lt;span style=&quot;color: darkred;&quot;&gt;Ravensfire&lt;/span&gt;]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 18:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Needs extending to indefinite, and talk page access removing, in my opinion: see this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sak7340&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216231118] [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 21:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I've increased to indefinite. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Vauban Books]] ==<br /> <br /> From [[WP:BLPN]]. {{uls|Vauban Books}}: {{tq|This page, and particularly its first paragraph, is gross libel [...] Failing to properly edit may well invite legal action.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216229796]. Does this post violate or come close enough to violating [[WP:NLT]]? Does the OP's username violate our [[WP:CORPNAME]], [[WP:COI]] or other policies? I'll note, this is apparently a publisher of the subject, [[Renaud Camus]]. See [https://www.vaubanbooks.com here] for the identically named publisher promoting the subject for commercial purposes. Cheers! [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 22:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :No, [[WP:NLT]] is not appropriate here. It's just someone wanting to correct what they regard as inappropriate wording in [[Renaud Camus]] and, as is typical for someone new to Wikipedia, they have no idea about how to phrase their thoughts. They need guidance. The user name is a problem but please let's not get hung up about that either. Their thoughts should be considered at [[Talk:Renaud Camus]] if they respond there. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> == [[User:Graywalls]] reported by [[User:72.83.72.31]]==<br /> <br /> '''Pages:''' See below &lt;br /&gt;<br /> '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Graywalls}}<br /> <br /> A few days ago, [[User:Graywalls]] started on a personal mission to attack a number of scouting related articles:<br /> <br /> *{{la|White Stag Leadership Development Program}} - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Stag Leadership Development Program]]<br /> *{{la|Béla H. Bánáthy}} - unilaterally removing large swaths of content<br /> *{{la|Boy Scouts of America}} - removing content repeatedly, and after being challenged ignoring the discussion started on the talk page<br /> *{{la|COPE (Boy Scouts of America)}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion<br /> *{{la|Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America)}} - unilaterally removing large swaths of content with no discussion<br /> *{{la|National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion<br /> *{{la|Philmont Training Center}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion<br /> *{{la|Scouting}} - unhelpful editing<br /> <br /> Graywalls ignored the discussion started on this page, [[Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America#Meeting_of_the_minds]], and moved the discussion to: [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Quotes_based_on_primary_sources_on_Boy_Scouts_of_America]]. <br /> <br /> It seems that whenever the discuss is not going their way they escalate the disagreement to another fourm. In the last day, this has happened:<br /> <br /> *[[American Heritage Girls]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[COPE (Boy Scouts of America)]] - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COPE (Boy Scouts of America)|Nominated for deletion]]<br /> *[[Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America)]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[Philmont Training Center]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[Philmont Scout Ranch]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> <br /> It's somewhat bewildering. On top of all that is Graywalls personal attacks against btphelps. You can find it here:[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Big Sur, California area touristy contents]], here [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User: btphelps with regard to Bél H. Bánáthy]], and then there is this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leadership_training_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215215397 personal attack in the edit summary]. I submitted the last item to the administrators to be removed.<br /> <br /> '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215082335]<br /> <br /> '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graywalls&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215438291]<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;'''Comments:'''&lt;/u&gt; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The following users may be able to help:{{ping|evrik|Jergen|btphelps|North8000|erp}}<br /> See: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive480#User:Graywalls%20reported%20by%20User:Evrik%20(Result:%20Declined)]]<br /> Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/72.83.72.31|72.83.72.31]] ([[User talk:72.83.72.31|talk]]) 02:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Long story short IMO definitely an &quot;axe to grind&quot; situation. Painful for several people and many articles. I wish this situation could get made better or fixed somehow. Maybe just a warning or something. Sincerely, &lt;b style=&quot;color: #0000cc;&quot;&gt;''North8000''&lt;/b&gt; ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 02:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == New attack account harassing GuardianH ==<br /> {{atop|Account blocked with promise of required SPI paperwork being completed shortly. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> [[:Special:Contributions/Iamguardiansguardian]] is a new attack account harassing {{ping|GuardianH}}. They have made 4 posts so far.&lt;sup&gt;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGuardianH&amp;diff=1216279273&amp;oldid=1215257056 diff]&lt;/sup&gt; [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#Single-purpose account devoted to attacking GuardianH]] identified similar accounts as socks of [[:Special:Contributions/Korensho|Korensho]].&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000&quot;&gt;--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]&lt;/span&gt; 06:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == [[Altay S.K.]] and [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] battleground behaviour ==<br /> <br /> <br /> Can I get a second (or more) set of eyes on the above.<br /> <br /> We've got an ongoing dispute between {{userlinks|Delbatros}} and various IP user(s). The crux of the matter appears to be of all things a logo/jersey design.<br /> Neither the IP(s) nor the registered editor is behaving particularly well and has resorted to edit warring and personal attacks towards each other, to add to the mix theres (potential) copyright concerns which dont appear valid false accusations of vandalism and definite ownership problems.<br /> <br /> Delbatros was blocked for edit-warring already and the Karşıyaka S.K. page semi-protected to try to resolve the dispute, the issue now appears to have migrated to Altay S.K. with similar behaviours from all involved, to prevent more damage at this point i've partially blocked Delbatros from the page and semi-protected it to prevent either user from further disruption.<br /> <br /> We do need a long term solution to this though and given the amount of action I've already done I'd appreciate wider opinions/assistance. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :As an aside the IP's appear to be too variable to realistically target/notify a single page so I haven't notified any of the IP editors but they seem to be quite good at locating posts related to Delbatros. If anyone can think of a good way of notifying them please let me know for future reference. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm trying to edit the pages of Turkish clubs in other languages ​​as well. I'm not making any wrong changes, I'm not vandalizing, I'm not a malicious user, I know Wikipedia rules, I'm just annoyed that the anonymous user (I know he has an existing wikipedia account) is following me with a different IP because he is wrong interfering with all my positive contributions. I started a new project to keep the jerseys of various branches of Turkish sports clubs up to date on other Wikipedias. We will design the jerseys with the support of relevant users, we will update the Wikipedia pages in other languages ​​of the relevant participants and branches of our sports clubs. (I will update most of the pages) [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::: Well, you'll only be updating them if they're correct. The IP, however, ''is'' correct regarding the away colours of [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] [https://www.footballkitarchive.com/karsiyaka-sk-2023-24-away-kit/] [https://scontent.fltn3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/417475928_908823971251092_512607324657550495_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&amp;_nc_cat=102&amp;ccb=1-7&amp;_nc_sid=5f2048&amp;_nc_ohc=yVzVYrdYXOIAX_Gyyyq&amp;_nc_ht=scontent.fltn3-2.fna&amp;oh=00_AfCt6Q_nWWTX6c-iv4F64ZIORZ2GsfYmhFDfcyDkhbp23A&amp;oe=660DC7C7 Image from a match from 25 February]. If you look at the version you have inserted, that ''can't'' be an away design because it's almost exactly the same as the home one. Google also suggests that neither of you are correct on the home shirts, they currently appear to be green/red halves [https://www.footballkitarchive.com/karsiyaka-sk-2023-24-home-kit/] [https://scontent.fltn3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/433860281_928137759319713_9132037574223492635_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x395&amp;_nc_cat=100&amp;ccb=1-7&amp;_nc_sid=5f2048&amp;_nc_ohc=U0oSIHy7uo0AX-B5IgI&amp;_nc_ht=scontent.fltn3-1.fna&amp;oh=00_AfBV1kfpxNQHjEq0Y4CI5NHf0qwmBC6PzkvlPC3JlvNdIA&amp;oe=660DA567 image from 24 March on the official FB page]. As regards [[Altay S.K.]], Adidas do appear to be their shirt manufacturers, so the IP appears to be correct there [https://store.altay.org.tr/ Altay's official kit store] though you appear to be correct on the kit colours (except that the away and third shirts should possibly be swapped). As regards behaviour, ''even if you were correct'' your behaviour on 16 March on [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] deserved a block (22 reverts!!) and you made 7 reverts today on [[Altay S.K.]] which deserved one as well, and I would be doing so if another admin hadn't partially blocked you. I suggest that this behaviour stops ''right away'' or you will find your ability to edit severely curtailed. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::A person who does not know what communication means, who only wants me to be blocked indefinitely, who does not dare to intervene or communicate with his own Wikipedia account (the same user who follows me with different IP numbers and tries to interfere with my contributions every time), is enough not to interfere with my contributions. You mentioned the jerseys of two clubs. Unfortunately, the current season jerseys of both clubs are not available on Wikipedia. I said that there is no harm in having the previous jerseys on the [[Altay S.K.|Altay SK]] page temporarily, and I say it again (the same jerseys are available on other Wikipedia pages). I cannot get rid of this anonymous user, I have to complain to the administrators about every intervention he makes against my positive contributions, but I do not want this because I do not want the administrators to waste their time. I think there is no harm in having the previous jersey on the page temporarily until we add the new jerseys. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]] ([[User talk:Delbatros|talk]]) 11:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1216308605 2024-03-30T09:10:31Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Altay S.K. and Karşıyaka S.K. battleground behaviour */Man, I need a some learn this language</p> <hr /> <div>{{Short description|Report incidents to administrators}}<br /> &lt;noinclude&gt;&lt;!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.--&gt;{{/Header}}&lt;/noinclude&gt;{{clear}}<br /> {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}<br /> {{User:MiszaBot/config<br /> |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}<br /> |maxarchivesize =800K<br /> |counter = 1151<br /> |algo = old(60h)<br /> |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c<br /> |archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d<br /> |headerlevel=2<br /> }}<br /> {{stack end}}<br /> &lt;!--<br /> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE<br /> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE<br /> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--&gt;<br /> <br /> == NoonIcarus and &quot;Failed verification&quot; ==<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|NoonIcarus}}<br /> <br /> Apologies in advance for the [[WP:TEXTWALL|wall of text]], but this is mainly due to having to outline and explain a list of concerning edits. NoonIcarus has inaccurately cited &quot;failed verification&quot; in an apparent effort to remove information from the project. This was addressed before by {{u|Mbinebri}} in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2002_Venezuelan_coup_attempt&amp;diff=1156165078&amp;oldid=1156111689 the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt article talk page], who said {{tq|&quot;In your recent edits, you removed info again, claiming failed verification because you couldn't access the two cited articles. I think this was inappropriate&quot;}}. More recently, I have noticed NoonIcarus performing this similar edit (and engaging in an edit war) to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=1211447585&amp;oldid=1210444201 remove information about leftists being tortured during a former Venezuelan government], arguing that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANational_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=1213263432&amp;oldid=1213263020 this was not presented in sources]. Well, this information is from the ''[[New York Amsterdam News]]'' article cited, where the paper writes {{tq|&quot;Posada worked as an official in Venezuela's DISIP ... where he participated in the torture of left-wing activists&quot;}}. So, instead of NoonIcarus actually not having access to information to &quot;verify&quot; source content, it appears that they are {{underline|''intentionally'' ignoring source content in order to maintain a particular POV}} on the project.<br /> <br /> After noticing this repetitive behavior, I reviewed NoonIcarus' similar &quot;failed verification&quot; edits, recognizing inconsistencies:<br /> *[[Carlos Vecchio]]: NoonIcarus removes information about Vecchio working for [[ExxonMobil]], saying it &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Vecchio&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212775596 failed verification].&quot; However, on [https://books.google.com/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false page 38 of ''Libres: el nacimiento de una nueva Venezuela''], Vecchio writes {{tq|&quot;Trabajo entonces en Mobil de Venezuela, la empresa petrolera, estaba ganando seis veces más de lo que ganada en PDVSA,&quot; (&quot;I then worked at Mobil de Venezuela, the oil company, I was earning six times more than what I earned at PDVSA&quot;}}, showing that he clearly worked for ExxonMobil. This may be an attempt to hide that a high-level Venezuelan opposition leader previously worked for an American company, which is controversial in Venezuelan politics. <br /> *[[2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum]]: NoonIcarus removes information about the [[Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies]] working with the Venezuelan opposition during the election, citing &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212425521 Failed verification, dead links]&quot;. {{strike|Strangely, these Stratfor articles were taken down after I added them to the election article,}} however they are still present in Google searches (as of now, though I took screenshots if necessary) and [http://blog.b92.net/text/1561/Dole-opozicija/ the article in particular can be seen mostly intact in this random 2007 forum]. And [https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/venezuela-new-player-mix here]. '''Edit:''' Links should work now. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1213326088&amp;oldid=1211357855 Thanks]!--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 10:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *[[Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies]]: NoonIcarus tags &quot;CANVAS is funded by primarily American organizations&quot; as &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centre_for_Applied_Nonviolent_Action_and_Strategies&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211946387 Failed verification]&quot;. However, if you look at the ''[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]'' article about the Venezuelan opposition's links to CANVAS, it says {{tq|&quot;Canvas wird wesentlich von amerikanischen Organisationen finanziert&quot; (&quot;Canvas is largely funded by American organizations&quot;)}}, showing that this can be verified.<br /> *[[Venezuelan opposition]]: NoonIcarus removed information about CANVAS training members of the Venezuelan opposition, saying &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuelan_opposition&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211946246 Failed verification. This information comes from a 2012 WikiLeaks piece]&quot;. This is entirely inaccurate and a falsehood as this information is sourced from [[Stratfor]], ''[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]'' and ''[[Le Monde diplomatique]]'', with these sources not citing Wikileaks at all.<br /> *[[Guarimba]]: NoonIcarus tagged the sentence &quot;Oxford Analytica wrote that half of the protest deaths resulted at barricades&quot; as &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199089123 Failed verification]&quot;. In the cited article, it clearly states {{tq|&quot;an estimated half of those killed losing their lives at opposition barricades&quot;}}.<br /> *[[Guarimba]] 2: NoonIcarus says &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1198710396 Failed verification]&quot; about the sentence &quot;Many families were confined to their homes as a result of guarimbas and in turn, children were prevented from attending school and individuals were unable to receive medical care.&quot; The source, the notable Venezuelan historian [https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/margarita-lopez-maya Margarita López Maya] [https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/403/40305606.pdf writes] {{tq|&quot;Las protestas, conocidas como el «guarimbazo», ... [resultaron con el] confinamiento de centenares de familias a sus hogares por los cierres de vía que impidieron llevar a los niños a las escuelas, acudir al trabajo, o llegar a centros de salud.&quot; (&quot;The protests, known as the 'guarimbazo', ... [resulted with the] confinement of hundreds of families to their homes due to road closures that prevented them from taking children to schools, going to work, or reaching health centers.&quot;}}<br /> *[[Guarimba]] 3: With the sentence &quot;At some guarimbas, protesters rob individuals who criticize the method&quot;, NoonIcarus said &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197831253 Failed verification. Nowhere to be seen in article]&quot;. The [https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/venezuela-deadline/534885/ cited article] by ''[[The Atlantic (magazine)|The Atlantic]]'' says {{tq|&quot;more radical elements of the party take to what’s called guarimba ... MUD supporters have stationed themselves at these ... shaking down people who don’t support the shutdown&quot;}}.<br /> *[[Protests against Nicolás Maduro]]: A sentence about opposition protesters attacking a government facility said &quot;President Maduro said the attack forced the evacuation of workers and about 89 children&quot;, with NoonIcarus saying that this had &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protests_against_Nicolás_Maduro&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1185537948 Failed verification, no mention of children]&quot;. The [https://web.archive.org/web/20140425021139/http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/protestas-en-venezuela/140403/maduro-revela-que-hay-un-detenido-por-ataques-a-ministerio-de-vivienda archived story], however, says {{tq|&quot;había 89 niños dentro de la sede, de los cuales 3 necesitaron asistencia con oxígeno&quot; (&quot;there were 89 children inside the headquarters, of which 3 needed assistance with oxygen&quot;)}}. One could excuse a potential lack of knowledge about [[web archiving]], but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuela_and_state-sponsored_terrorism&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211037807 NoonIcarus is very knowledgeable about web archiving when they want to be].<br /> <br /> This is just a small review of the last four months of editing by NoonIcarus, so again ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1183363529&amp;oldid=1182822268#Advocacy? see here] about the previous [[Wikipedia:Stable version#Inappropriate usage|inappropriate use of &quot;stable version&quot;]]), who knows how much they have removed using the &quot;failed verification&quot; method this time. Overall, NoonIcarus' editing behavior makes it clear that they are removing information not based on &quot;failed verification&quot;, but for other reasons; most likely related to seeing this information as a [[WP:BADPOV|bad POV]] about the Venezuelan opposition. This is further evidence to add to the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive editing by NoonIcarus|previous concerns]] about NoonIcarus [[WP:NOTHERE|not being here to build an encyclopedia]]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 06:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Wow. These &quot;failed verification&quot; lies (which is what these are) are so pervasive that unless NoonIcarus has a very good explanation for all of these, I'd go ahead with a site ban. &lt;span&gt;♠[[User:JCW555|&lt;span style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;JCW555&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:JCW555|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;(talk)&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt;♠ 07:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::All of these edits are recent or recent-ish (2024), and it's apparent from his userpage that NoonIcarus speaks Spanish. NoonIcarus isn't an inexperienced editor. I ''do'' find NoonIcarus' position defensible on the 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum; I could imagine that if I saw commentary I found suspicious that was sourced to a dead link, I might tag it with {{tl|fv}}. I also think he's got an arguable case on Guarimba 3 because &quot;shaking down&quot; doesn't necessarily mean &quot;robbing&quot;. On the other matters I fully side with WMrapids.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 09:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{re|S Marshall}} There was a URL issue,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1213326088&amp;oldid=1211357855][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213327198&amp;oldid=1213326269] though as I said, the articles were still easily accessible on Google. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 10:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yes, I can see your side of it. I just think it's only fair to note that it ''was'' a contentious claim sourced to a dead link.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 14:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::IMO the correct solution is to use {{tl|dead link}} for the link not working, and also {{tl|Verify source}} if you have doubts and cannot check the source due to the dead link. Failed verification implies that you checked the source and could not find the claim rather than you could not view the source. Note that the documentation for the failed verification template specifically says you should use dead link '''instead''' when the website is unreachable. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::While I didn't see anything in the documentation that I saw that says it's okay to use both the dead link and verify source template, I'd argue it's perfectly fine since they describe two related but separate issues. One is that the link is dead, so someone needs to either fix it in some way. E.g. they could find an archival link. Or alternatively replace it with a working source. Or in some cases if the source doesn't need a link ensure that there is sufficient info in the citation and possibly remove the link. The second issue is that an editor has doubts over the content but couldn't access the source to confirm it one way or the other. So wants someone who does have access to the source to verify it, perhaps providing a quote on the talk page to help or something. This isn't so different from a book or journal the editor doesn't have access to or a paywalled website, except here the problem is a dead link so fixing the dead link and confirming it verifies should be enough. If for whatever reason e.g. an editor gnoming a lot of related dead links doesn't have time to check, they're perfectly fine fixing the dead link, removing the dead link template and leaving the verify source for someone else to deal with perhaps even the editor who added it in the first place when they find the link was fixed. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Using {{tl|dead link}} is the correct option, but [[Template:Failed verification/doc]] only mentioned that in the body. I've made a slight change to reflect that in the lede of the documentation. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::The main issue with said sources is that their format ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;oldid=1211595977]) did not show how they were accessed in the first place. There weren't archive links, archive dates or quotes, and if they had been truly accessed just a few days ago they should have been available when I did. I want to leave clear that I oppose removing links for being dead as the only reason, and I have rescued several of these references when I have found the archives. I was unaware about {{tl|Verify source}}, and it looks like an useful tag that I will probably use in the future. Kind regards, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::It should be noted that {{tl|Verify source}} should only be used {{tq|only after you have made a good faith attempt to verify the information yourself}} if you are unable to find it, ''and'' still have doubts about its authenticity. You might also be interested in [[WP:IABOT]], which can often repair dead links. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::{{re|The Wordsmith}} Not trying to [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeon]] here, but &quot;good faith&quot; tagging has been a consistent issue for NoonIcarus as well.([[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#Tags??|1]],[[Talk:ZunZuneo#Drive by tagging|2]],[[Talk:Guarimba#Tags|3]]) {{ping|Boynamedsue}} even said &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGuarimba&amp;diff=1199140170&amp;oldid=1199098876 All of the in text tags here lacked justification. '''I am very concerned about Noonicarus'''… This is the diametric opposite of our actual policy]&quot;. Just wanted to share this to provide more context. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Response '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214571997 here]'''. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 19:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Sure thing. Thank you kindly, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Re Carlos Vecchio: The cited book says &quot;Mobil de Venezuela&quot; and in the previous paragraph it suggests that the date was [https://books.google.ca/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38&amp;lpg=PA38&amp;dq=%22mobil+de+venezuela%22+trabajo+vecchio&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=A2k2n37WUy&amp;sig=ACfU3U2bwYlwu_aQ-dZmPNmB8dZnqd5XCg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiS7YXn6-6EAxV4MjQIHcVoAdgQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%22mobil%20de%20venezuela%22%20trabajo%20vecchio&amp;f=false July 1998]. Wikipedia's [[ExxonMobil]] article says Exxon merged with Mobil to form ExxonMobil in November 1999. So I think NoonIcarus was correct, the Wikipedia claim that BLP subject Carlos Vecchio worked for ExxonMobil was poorly sourced. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 14:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::This is splitting hairs. Looking at [[History of ExxonMobil]], we do not simply say &quot;Mobil&quot; when discussing the company historically. If we want to be super specific, &quot;Mobil de Venezuela&quot; could have been edited as a redirect (like [[ExxonMobil|Mobil de Venezuela]]), but this still doesn't warrant NoonIcarus' removal of the information entirely. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 14:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::In fact Mr Vecchio did work for ExxonMobil a few years later, I was thrown off by your quoting of a passage that is not about that. Although I think the citing could have been more specific I was wrong to say it's poorly sourced. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 16:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}<br /> {{re|Nil Einne|The Wordsmith|Peter Gulutzan}} I'm appreciative of you all clarifying the appropriate usage of templates and the source content regarding Mobil (ExxonMobil). But, {{u|Mbinebri}} already warned NoonIcarus about inappropriately using &quot;failed verification&quot;, {{u|S Marshall}} notes that NoonIcarus has the experience to have known better and {{u|JCW555}} suggests a &quot;site ban&quot; since the user appears to be a deliberately removing unwanted information. We have been dealing with NoonIcarus' inappropriate edits for some time now ([[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions|block deletions and canvassing]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive440#User%3AOnetwothreeip_reported_by_User%3ANoonIcarus_(Result%3A_Filer_warned)|edit warring against consensus]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive_editing_by_NoonIcarus|activist/battleground edits]]). So, do any of you have suggestions on how to remedy NoonIcarus' [[WP:GAMING|gaming behavior]] that has continued (especially on Venezuelan topics) for years now? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1194288807&amp;oldid=1194288478 I previously suggested a topic ban], which is less severe than a full &quot;site ban&quot;.--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Such suggestions should wait until NoonIcarus has had some time to respond, I think. We normally give users a while to answer.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 19:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Pre-emptively, I would definitely support a TBAN, because I have watched NoonIcarus's behaviour for a long time, and it is absolutely unacceptable. To be honest, I am suprised they haven't recieved a ban or block of any sort regarding this issue. I fear that they might be one of the [[WP:UNBLOCKABLES|unblockables]], and that would be a great shame. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 05:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:JML1148|JML1148]] The reason this issue is getting little attention from admins is because of how verbose all of the participants are and how this dispute is outside of the knowledge of most people in the west, which is the English Wikipedia's main editor base. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I totally get the the thing regarding the conduct of the participants. I don't really think the issue is with it being outside the knowledge of most editors, though - there's been a few RfCs with widespread participation including the dispute between NoonIcarus and WMRapids. I definitely think a large number of administrators know about the dispute and the poor conduct involved, but aren't getting involved. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 06:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I didn't remember where we knew each other from, until I found the request for comment [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|RfC: VENRS]], which WMrapids started. If your understanding about my experience as an editor comes mostly from WMrapids, I kindly ask if you have a chance to take a look at the ANI own complaints against WMrapids below. Best wishes, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Currently writing a response to the accusations. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :If I understand this correctly, the allegation is that a user should be blocked for adding &quot;failed verification&quot; tags where other tags are appropriate? Isn't that a sledgehammer/nut response? As people have already shown the first two e examples aren't straightforward, I'm looking at the third example, the Frankfurter Zeitung source on [[Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies]]. The tagged reference is as follows: {{Cite news |date=1 April 2019 |title=Generation 2007 |work=[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]}} There is no link, so impossible for someone to verify without finding the 1 April 2019 edition of FAZ, something I couldn't manage to do easily. It looks like the complainant here has access to the text, as they quote it on this page, so why not just add a hyperlink, or at least give the full quotation and maybe a page number, and remove the tag? Maybe &quot;failed verification&quot; is the wrong tag, but surely the ref doesn't meet our standards of verification and therefore Noonicarus was correct to tag it? [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 06:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Now I'm looking at the fourth example, [[Venezuelan opposition]]. Here the sources were removed rather than tagged. All of the removed sources are problematic from a verification point of view: the same FAZ ref without a link, a Monde Diplo article that is paywalled but which in another edit Noonicarus says doesn't mention Venezuela, and Stratfor links which are dead. So it would have been right to tag it. The removal was part of what seems to be quite a lot of back and forth editing with the complainant here inserting very POV material and Noonicarus hastily removing it. Would have been better for both editors to slow down and talk it out, but this is not an example of one user deviously using &quot;failed verification&quot; as framed in the complaint. The fifth example, [[Guarimba]], is a bit like the third: the citation to Oxford Analytica doesn't have a hyperlink so is impossible to verify. The quote is too short to confirm it supports the text. Noonicarus tags it instead of removing it. It should be tagged in some way as it does indeed need more to verify it. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 06:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC) With the sixth example, also from [[Guarimba]], I agree with WMrapids that on the face of it this should not have been removed. Noonicarus' edit summary is &quot;Failed verification. Care should be also be taken, since unreliable government sources are frequently used, such as Venezolana de Televisión and Correo del Orinoco. It's clear that this is not the best source&quot; which doesn't seem to match the content removed, suggesting it may have been a mistake, and WMRapids was right to revert it. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 07:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) The seventh example, same WP article, was also a bad edit. Possibly Noonicarus searched the source without noticing the paywall half way down but the full article[https://web.archive.org/web/20170727021506/https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/venezuela-deadline/534885/] does include the &quot;shakedown&quot; passage. I'd say the removed content was a rather POV rendering of the material, so this may have provoked this excessive response. So far I agree with WMRapids in two out of seven examples. There doesn't seem to be the malignant pattern the complaint implies. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 07:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Last one, on the protests. It's true the second source, a dead link, contained text about children, so flagging as need verification or checking the archive would have been better than removal. However, the actual claim in the WP article text doesn't correspond to the sources as comments attributed to Maduro (including about children) weren't made by Maduro. Again, there was bad POV material to which Noonicarus overreacted. So three out of eight edits raised here are problematic, but not in a way that suggests a need to sanctions. Is there an 1RR rule on Venezuela articles? That might be a better solution, to calm down the editing in general. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 07:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|Bobfrombrockley}} I think you might be missing some of the context here. Although whether or not this specific incident warrants sanctions is debatable, according to your analysis, NoonIcarus has a history of POV pushing, incivility and assuming ownership of articles. There is a very long and detailed comment that WMRapids left on a previous ANI incident, found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1194288807&amp;oldid=1194288478#Disruptive_editing_by_NoonIcarus| here]. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 08:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::As I explained in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199976378 my own response to the comment], the problem is that there hasn't been much ''pushing'' from my part, but rather from WMrapids. They have aggresively introduced POV in several articles for months now: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207984331 National_Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuelan_opposition&amp;oldid=1185607237 Venezuelan opposition], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;oldid=1185456874 Guarimba], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211595977 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Venezuelan_blackouts&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211608041 2019 Venezuelan blackouts], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Venezuelan_parliamentary_election&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199025984 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary election], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Venezuelan_municipal_elections&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199019968 2013 Venezuelan municipal elections]. Most, if not all, of the recent disputes with WMrapids have resulted from me challenging the POV content and WMrapids' reluctance to change it. As of article ownership, it's enough to point out to articles such as [[Operation Gideon (2020)]], [[Rupununi uprising]] and [[Guarimba]] to show how difficult it has been to make any changes different from the editor's preferred version. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 02:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thank you {{u|JML1148}}. I wasn't aware of that context. Was WMRapids' last complaint supported by the community? It seems to me that WMRapids engages in exactly the same sort of behaviour that NoonIcarus is accused of in these same contentious topic areas, and if NoonIcarus has been a bit quick on the trigger with tagging WMRapids content (which often tends to POV), WMRapids is quick to revert NoonIcarus' edits without establishing consensus. Both of them do engage in discussion on talk pages, but often it is hard to get consensus due to a lack of un-involved editors. I don't think this is a disciplinary matter, and if it is then similar sanctions should apply to WMRapids. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Prequel to some of the tagging mentioned in the allegation above appears to be a request to the OP for info on the sourcing which was responded to rather brusquely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum#Stratfor [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{re|Bobfrombrockley}} It looks brusque and rude, but it actually isn't. OP pointed to dead links [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=1212425673&amp;oldid=1196506749 asking] &quot;How did you get the information?&quot; WMRapids [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213305378 replied] on 06:36, 12 March 2024 that the links came from Google and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1212425850 '''corrected the deadlinks'''] four hours later (10:45, 12 March 2024) saying, &quot;No idea how this happened. Links should be fixed.&quot; Six hours ''after'' the links were corrected (16:32, 12 March 2024), instead of thanking WMRapids for correcting them, OP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=1213365508&amp;oldid=1213305378 said], &quot;Rude. It's your responsibility to ensure the verifiability of the content.&quot; WMRapids already had, so if anyone was rude, it was NoonIcarus, not WMRapids. One wonders if OP even made a minimal effort to correct the links.<br /> :::::I will give WMRapids the thanks at that discussion that s/he deserved and so the context is clearer for anyone who reads the short back and forth.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212425673 My message] showing how the previous links gave no results in Web Archive should hint enough that I did try to fix the links. WMrapids fixed the references five days after the ping, &lt;s&gt;only after I pointed out this fact again in this ANI&lt;/s&gt;. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 23:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::{{tq|WMrapids fixed the references five days after the ping, only after I pointed out this fact again in this ANI}}. I don't believe that is true. WMRapids fixed the links on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1212425850 10:45, 12 March 2024] shortly after {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1213326088&amp;oldid=1211357855 explained] the link problem on 09:08, 12 March 2024. (Thanks.) From my review of [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=NoonIcarus&amp;page=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max= your contributions here at AN/I], your first comment here was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=1213483343 09:58, 13 March 2024]--a day after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1212425850 the links were corrected]. Please provide a diff showing where you pointed this out at this ANI ''before'' WMrapids corrected the link on 10:45, 12 March 2024. Providing a false timeline does not help your case.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 01:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::{{re|David Tornheim}} You're right. It was after ActivelyDisinterested told me that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213326088 I thanked them] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213326713 fixed the links about ten minutes later]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 02:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::I'm striking that specific part since you're correct. My main point stands, though: WMrapids provided this example to falsely accuse me of &quot;ignoring the content&quot;, when I showed in my comment that I tried accessing the references and that Web Archive did not provide any results. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|Bobfrombrockley}} As I said in the opening of this discussion, {{u|Mbinebri}} already warned NoonIcarus that a &quot;failed verification&quot; tag is inappropriate if the user didn't have access to the source. A source does not need a link to be included. Failed verification means that someone had read the source and the content did not match the source. So, no, many of the tags and edit summaries were not &quot;correct&quot; as you suggest and NoonIcarus was deliberately removing information without properly verifying it.<br /> ::I know that [[Talk:United States involvement in regime change#Trimming|you two have worked pretty closely together]] on removing some info from [[United States involvement in regime change]]. This is where NoonIcarus and I have had a conflict (their frequent removals), but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1209395892&amp;oldid=1209308986 I reached out to them in an effort to avoid edit warring], suggesting that we ''add'' to articles and discuss instead of constant removals. This worked for but a moment until they reverted back to edit warring. It crossed the line when they inappropriately began removing information citing &quot;failed verification&quot;, and now we are here. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 14:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::By &quot;worked together closely&quot;, I think you mean that we have at times agreed on what the content should look like and you've disagreed. On that page, you secured consensus for some of your preferred edits and not for others. It seems to me that you both engage properly in talk pages and I was surprised to see you escalate this to an incident for admins. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Same here, particularly since WMrapids never told me about the misuse of &quot;failed verification&quot; or claimed that I wasn't accessing the references. While I have been frustrated by slow progress, I felt that the conflict had escaled down until now. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 18:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::1RR is a solution that has been proposed previously and I have tried to abide by. It wouldn't solve all of the current issues, but it is not currently implemented and it probably would be a good first step. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 12:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I agree with this, this may help lower the temperature without an excessive overreaction. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Just remembering that this is an electoral year and there will be presidential elections in Venezuela. There will definitely be more traffic and more disputes. The 1RR general restriction should be helpful. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Again, NoonIcarus, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214766605&amp;oldid=1214764162 you exaggerate and seem to inaccurately portray yourself] as the {{tq|&quot;last one remaining&quot;}} for Venezuelan political articles when this isn't the case ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214797142][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214797142]). [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable#You can be replaced|We can all be replaced]] and your depiction of yourself performing some sort of last stand (as you seem to do, arguing that this is an election year), is literally [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable#Situations|an example of a situation]] that validates evidence of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]]. {{u|Number 57}} themself has [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Number+57&amp;page=2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max= consistently assisted with the election article] too, so it's untrue to suggest we don't have knowledgable users focused on the topic. You seem to be more concerned about someone with what you consider a [[WP:BADPOV|bad POV]] participating in articles that you are interested in. <br /> <br /> :::::An unofficial [[WP:0RR]] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1209395892&amp;oldid=1209308986 {{underline|already}} recommended] and you reverted back to edit warring (and inaccurately removing information citing &quot;failed verification&quot;). Given the previous sanctions ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|you {{underline|already}} had 0RR and 1RR restrictions placed upon you]]) and the multiple ignored warnings, we are well past the point of further reversion restrictions as you have {{underline|already}} crossed over [[Wikipedia:BRINK|the brink]]. {{underline|''Multiple'' other users have outlined many examples of [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]];}} I have showed how [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Repeating a penalised edit|you are repeating behavior you were penalized for]] and that [[WP:REMOVECITE|you delete pertinent cited additions of others]] (the &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1183363529&amp;oldid=1182822268 stable version]&quot; and &quot;failed verification&quot; methods), {{u|Boynamedsue}} and {{u|Mbinebri}} already discussed you [[WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH|disputing the reliability of apparently good sources]] and [[WP:RGW|your &quot;political activism&quot; or &quot;ideological rewriting&quot;]] in articles, while Number 57, {{u|David Tornheim}}, {{u|Goldsztajn}}, {{u|Lavalizard101}}, {{u|Simonm223}} and {{u|JML1148}}, have shared how you have consistently [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject|introduced undue material]]. After reviewing all of the above, it shows that on Latin American political topics, NoonIcarus, [[WP:NOTHERE|you are ''not'' here to build an encyclopedia]]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::::::You have already made your point, there's not need to repeat yourself. Don't bludgeon the process. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> How long are admins going to let this go? It has been obvious for some time that Noonicarus can not edit competently on Latin American political articles and they need to be topic-banned at the very least.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 06:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Another few days. The OP has had time to write a thorough and well-formatted complaint. We give their target the same courtesy.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 08:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === WMrapids and source misinterpretation ===<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|WMrapids}}<br /> <br /> :'''''[[Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read|TL;DR]]: WMrapids accuses me of &quot;ignoring source content&quot; but omits that I access said content and try to help with verifiability, such as by asking for quotes, which the editor never provided until now. WMrapids has a history of source misinterpretation that needs to be checked.'''''<br /> <br /> :I was hoping that with [[User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 10#Future collaboration recommendations|this exchange]] and more interaction in talk pages there would be less conflict but alas, we find ourselves here again. I have already made several complaints about WMrapids' poor behavior in the past, including but not limited to edit warring, blanking and hounding ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS|ANI#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:WMrapids (blanking)|ANI#User:WMrapids (blanking)]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids|ANI#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids]]). For the sake of brevity I will focus in the recent issues.<br /> <br /> :WMrapids has a history of reference misinterpretation, original research and poor sourcing, sometimes leading to BLP violations (eg: [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 106#Nelson Bocaranda|WP:NPOV/N#Nelson Bocaranda]] and [[Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis#Lancet editorial misrepresented]]), ''not to mention lack of attribution or personal interpretation, as with the &quot;shaking down&quot; example''. Controversial or fringe claims such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=José_Manuel_Olivares&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1180967211 a congressman leading an auto theft gang], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207984331 the CIA infiltration of Venezuelan intelligence services] or the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Venezuelan_blackouts&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211608041 opposition involvement in the 2019 blackouts] don't help either. The editor continues accusing me of bias, but with them casting doubts about Venezuelan torture victims testimonies [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorent_Saleh&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208811280][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorent_Saleh&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209208884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81ngel_Vivas&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208817265][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karen_Palacios&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208819970][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81ngel_Vivas&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209050808][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilmer_Azuaje&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208822867] and own removal of content[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207924351][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protests_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211596504][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1159024505][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuela_and_state-sponsored_terrorism&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209509663] shows that the editor does not hold all of the information to the same standard depending on its point of view. Another example of this is how they question the Organization of American States as a source in the Guarimba article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197738262]), but doesn't have to have an issue with using it at the [[Ayacucho massacre|Ayacucho]] and [[Juliaca massacre]]s articles ([[Special:Diff/1156851831|1]], [[Special:Diff/1156852169|2]]). To this date no explanation has been provided for this.<br /> <br /> :When I say &quot;failed verification&quot; it doesn't mean that I wasn't able to access the source or that I was too lazy to try to. God knows I have. Web Archive, Google Books, JSTOR, all the possible means available online if I don't happen to have an offline method to verify. Threads that include [[Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman)#CIA informant accusation]], [[Talk:National Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services#Luis Posada Carriles|Talk:DISIP#Luis Posada Carriles]], [[Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs]] and [[Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia]] show that I have accessed the references and that I am familiar with their content, if I had already not said it at the edit summaries.<br /> <br /> :WMrapids often doesn't include URLs, pages, quotes or other means to help with verifiability for bibliographical sources, even when they are easily accesible ''(just as BobFromBrockley as noted above)'', and have continued to do so even when other users that asked for them to be included. [[WP:BURDEN|The responsability to ensure the verifiability of the information lies on the user that adds it]], but the user shifts this burden onto other editors, best exemplified by one of the last responses to the source requests: &quot;{{tq|Google}}&quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213305378]. Talk pages such as [[Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor]] are witness that I have tried asking about the original quotes or learning more about the content in question, even when I haven't found it after accessing the source, and I often choose rewording or fixing the references instead of removal when I have the opportunity: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enforced_disappearances_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209604584][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enforced_disappearances_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213352590][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211455507][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thor_Halvorssen_(businessman)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208919306][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213212436].<br /> <br /> :I am very dissapointed that this is the first time that any of these quotes are brought up: not in its references, not in the talk pages, but to make a case against me, as they have with other editors that have challenged their edits, for requesting them in the first place. I don't want to speak on behalf of {{u|Mbinebri}}, but I believe that our exchange was a lot more open and amicable at [[Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt#Recent edits... with more to go(?)]] than the ones that I've had with WMrapids when I have challenged the content. <br /> <br /> {{collapse top|Responses to WMrapids accusations|indent=1.6em}}<br /> * The text's original source about Luis Posada Carriles ({{cite book |last=Bardach |first=Ann Louise |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780375504891 |title=Cuba Confidential: Love and Vengeance in Miami and Havana |publisher=Random House |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-375-50489-1 |pages=184-186 |url-access=registration}}), which describes the group saying {{tq|[he] immediately went to war against the leftist guerrilla movements supported by Castro in Venezuela}}. It directly contradicts the description of {{tq|he participated in the torture of left-wing activists}}.<br /> * [https://books.google.es/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=Exxon&amp;f=false Searching &quot;Exxon&quot; in Google Books] gives back page 56, whose preview doesn't mention anything about Qatar or Vecchio being a tax manager. Looking online, the main websites that have this information are outlets with a heinous reliability record, such as {{RSP entry|The Grayzone|[[The Grayzone]]|d}} [https://thegrayzone.com/2019/06/18/exxon-ambassador-carlos-vecchio-venezuela-coup-lobbyist/] and {{RSP entry|Telesur|[[Telesur]]|d}} [https://www.telesurenglish.net/opinion/Donald-Trumps-War-of-Recolonization-Against-Venezuela-20190201-0015.html], as well as Venezuelan state outlets. ''This was added to the article just months after these articles were published:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Vecchio&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=929539862]''. [https://books.google.es/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA56&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false Modifying the URL solves this issue].<br /> * See [[Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor]] for the CANVAS content. The provided links were broken, Web Archive [https://web.archive.org/web/20240303110440/https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/article/venezuela-marigold-revolution][https://web.archive.org/web/20240303110438/https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/article/venezuela-new-player-mix] didn't throw any results, and I asked for the specific quote. Nothing misleading here, the provided reference did not reflect the added content. I'm glad this has been fixed now.<br /> * The information about the alleged relations between the Venezuelan opposition, Otpor! and CANVAS comes from Wikileaks' &quot;Global Intelligence Files&quot;. This is even mentioned by a source that WMrapids provided:[https://inthesetimes.com/article/wikileaks-docs-expose-famed-serbian-activists-ties-to-shadow-cia Wikileaks Docs Expose Famed Serbian Activist’s Ties to ‘Shadow CIA’]. Stratfor links were broken (see above) and ''[[Le Monde diplomatique]]'' didn't mention Venezuela, something I also asked at [[Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs]]. {{RSP entry|WikiLeaks|[[WikiLeaks]]|gu}} is an unreliable source per [[WP:RS/PS]].<br /> * See S Marshall's comment regarding &quot;shaking down&quot;. I'm not the only person that does not think that &quot;extortion&quot; is the same as &quot;robbing&quot;<br /> * If I recall correctly, I removed the information about children because the sentence talked specifically about evacuation. Yahoo's source was also dead, but can be accessed through Archive and says: {{tq|Several people, including a young girl, have been rescued from Venezuela's Housing Ministry after it was set on fire by anti-government protesters.}}[https://web.archive.org/web/20140425004926/https://uk.news.yahoo.com/venezuela-ministry-torched-protesters-094601485.html#ugF7qD3] If I had removed content simply because the links are dead and I didn't bother trying accessing them, as WMrapids claims, I would have deleted the whole statement, which is clearly not the case.<br /> The only exceptions that I can see are Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung's and Oxford Analytica's sources; in both cases I tagged the sentences accordingly and did not remove the content. I'm finding out about &lt;nowiki&gt;{{verify source}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; due to this thread, and I will probably use in the future in this context. As of López Maya's source, I simply did not find the original source. It is a 25 pages document and WMrapids usually doesn't provide quotes for the references, as I mentioned above.<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> <br /> :I cannot stress how exhausted I am of this. It will be almost a year since this pattern has started since WMrapids started editing in Venezuelan topics. I don't know what to ask anymore besides for the community to make up their position based on this information and to propose a solution. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :&lt;ins&gt;PS: I don't want to delve too much into the POV pushing accusations to not make the thread longer than it already is, and that it is neither the main topic at hand nor diffs have been provided to justify them, but in turn I want to provide a few in response:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209296860][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211821592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209088145]. I don't care about any specific point of view, just about the quality of the sourcing.&lt;/ins&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 18:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{collapse top|&lt;ins&gt;Response about POV&lt;/ins&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)|indent=1.6em}}<br /> :I'll provide more information about the POV, since it is one of the two main topics at hand but I haven't provided a response, although I will collapse this.<br /> <br /> :To describe my editing scope, in en.wiki I'm more interested in updating articles or current events, while in the es.wiki I'm more interested in created new content and starting articles, unless we're talking about translations into English or biographies for [[Women in Red]]. What I wouldn't want is that, given that writing about the current situation in Venezuela reflects negatively on the government, that automatically means having an anti-government POV, which in turns means having a pro-opposition POV. However, I want to leave clear that I am aware of my biases, as they're intrinsic to every person. I'm Venezuelan, which means that I have a different background and experiences from people from the Anglosphere, which is why I also understand the position of many of the participants here.<br /> <br /> :To provide an overview, I was the first person [[Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis#End date|to suggest an end date for the presidential crisis article]]. Since the Punto Fijo governments were brought up, though, as examples, in Spanish I have created the article about the 1969 [[:es:Operación Canguro|Operación Canguro]], the intervention of the Central University of Venezuela by President Rafael Caldera; the 1984 [[:es:Masacre de Tazón|Tazón massacre]], when National Guard soldiers shot at students from the same university; the 1986 [[:es:Masacre de Yumare|Yumare massacre]], during Jaime Lusinchi's government; the 1992 [[:es:Masacre del Retén de Catia|Retén de Catia massacre]], during Carlos Andrés Pérez's second term; and the [[:es:Incendio de Sabaneta de 1994|1994 Sabaneta fire]], the worst prison tragedy in Venezuelan history. I even created an article about a student from the University Simón Bolívar that was killed by the police in 1989, [https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Registro&amp;page=Gonzalo+Jaurena Gonzalo Jaurena], which at the end was ultimately deleted. At es.wiki I likewise used to patrol for vandalism in articles about government officials ([https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=122334298][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=122402239][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=124982674][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=124992363][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=128851475] and trust me, there were plenty) until it became too time consuming.<br /> <br /> :Given that we're discussing a general Latin American topic ban, it should also be useful to discuss other articles from the region. I have likewise edited about human right abuses by right-wing groups (or against left-wing followers) and I think it's important for them to be documented in Wikipedia: Argentina's [[Cecilia Cacabelos]], disappeared during the last military dictatorship; Mexico's [[Halcones (paramilitary group)|Halcones]], responsible for the [[Corpus Christi Massacre]] during the [[Mexican Dirty War|Dirty War]]; the [[1963 Dominican coup d'état]], where leftist President [[Juan Bosch (politician)|Juan Bosch]] was deposed; [[Chile truckers' strike]], supported by the CIA, and the [[2017–2018 Honduran protests]], after conservative [[Juan Orlando Hernández]] was declared elected among irregularities. In Spanish, I have also written about several cases about other countries in the Inter-American Commision of Human Rights: [[:es:Caso Artavia Murillo y otros vs. Costa Rica|1]], [[:es:Caso Barrios Altos c. Perú|2]], [[:es:Caso Bulacio vs. Argentina|3]], [[:es:Caso de la Masacre de Mapiripán vs. Colombia|4]], [[:es:Caso González y otras (Campo Algodonero) vs. México|5]], [[:es:Caso Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica|6]], [[:es:Caso Masacre de Santo Domingo vs. Colombia|7]], [[:es:Caso Masacre Plan de Sánchez vs. Guatemala|8]], [[:es:Caso Montero Aranguren y otros (Retén de Catia) vs. Venezuela|9]], [[:es:Caso Myrna Mack Chang vs. Guatemala|10]], [[:es:Operación Génesis vs. Colombia|11]].<br /> <br /> :I don't want to be defined by my worst moments or mistakes, or that the most recent editorial disputes. 2020, 2021, 2022 and early 2023 were relatively calm years overall. Regardless of the perceived POV, I'm knowledgable in general and I'm really looking forward improving articles. If there are issues in articles, including about neutrality (from human rights to corruption), it's something that can be discussed and I will probably have something to be able to help. Best wishes, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> <br /> ::Given that you are [[Wikipedia:Unblockables#What to expect|attempting to boomerang this back onto me]], as {{ping|JML1148}} mentioned this &quot;unblockable&quot; behavior, I will try to provide a short response.<br /> ::Yes, I may forget to include specific quotes and page numbers on occasion, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that you inaccurately designated content as &quot;failed verification&quot; and removed it inappropriately.<br /> ::You also failed to justify any removal based on &quot;failed verification&quot;:<br /> ::#The Posada information was based on the newspaper article, not the book.<br /> ::#You're attempting to deflect the information on Vecchio to Grayzone (who you personally and understandably have a beef with) instead of ''actually verifying the source itself''.<br /> ::#We can understand that this was an accident, yet this could have been easily verifiable doing an internet search for the article title.<br /> ::#Regarding CANVAS, you inappropriately said the information was from Wikileaks when this was not the case.<br /> ::#The &quot;shakedown&quot; appears up for debate, though looking at [[extortion]], it seems like protesters forcing disapproving people to give them belongs seems like a robbery to me.<br /> ::#The information about children was removed, period. You could have looked at the archived link to El Universal.<br /> ::#Finally, you use the excuse of not being knowledgeable of &quot;verify source&quot;, which seems like a cop out for a ten-year Wikipedia user.<br /> ::So, it still is clear to me that you are deflecting blame and making excuses for your inappropriate behavior on the Project instead of listening to the ''years'' of warnings from other users. I admit to not being a perfect user and [[Talk:Guarimba#Gara|you yourself have clarified things for me]], but I never went as far as being dishonesty. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 17:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I wrote a response towards your accusations. Nothing more, nothing less. You're accusing me of deliberately ignoring the content in the references, and the diffs I provide show this is clearly false. Your lack of URLs, pages and quotes has been the norm, not the exception.<br /> :::If we want to talk about dishonesty, it's probably best to ask: [[WP:IGNOREYOU|if for weeks I had asked for quotes or on what the changes were based]] ([[Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman)#CIA informant accusation]], [[Talk:National Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services#Luis Posada Carriles]], [[Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs]], [[Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia]] and [[Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor]]), why is it only now that you're providing them for the first time? You once said {{tq|it is becoming exhausting that we are arguing over the definition of a shake down now}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1198726221]. Do you find these questions annoying? That is something different and that you can say, but saying that I'm ignoring source content is deceptive. <br /> <br /> :::By providing the sources only now, it shows how easily and accessible it is for you, but here it looks not as an attempt to help with the content verifiability or address my behavior, but rather to sanction me. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :::&lt;small&gt;And talking about the &lt;nowiki&gt;{{verify source}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; tag, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. One thing is tagging, another thing is contesting and removing. I only said that I'll be looking using it more in the future. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Topic ban from Latin American political articles for NoonIcarus===<br /> '''Support topic ban:''' After reviewing the response from NoonIcarus, it appears that they will continue to deflect their misbehavior onto others and have not learned from the years of warnings they have encountered. Again, while I am admittedly not a perfect user myself, it does not justify their [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|dishonest editing]], frequent edit warring and their [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]] in apparent acts of [[WP:ACTIVIST|activism]].--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *No. Proposals are needed here but it's best if they come from uninvolved people.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 18:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Ah, agreed then. I was following [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213458134&amp;oldid=1213457340 the proposals already shared above], so no bad intentions here. Thanks for keeping this discussion in line! [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to WMrapids|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *[Later] This is complicated and hard to resolve. There have been previous reports by both parties and they've often been archived without result. That shouldn't happen again this time, and I've used {{tl|DNAU}} to make sure it doesn't.{{pb}}Aside from the conflict of views about Venezuela, there's an ongoing issue that reduces to citing sources with sufficient precision. NoonIcarus expects citations to be rather precise, and he tags citations he sees as vague. WMrapids' citations are less precise, and he objects to NoonIcarus' insistence. From WMrapids' point of view, NoonIcarus looks like he's [[griefing]]; while from NoonIcarus' point of view, WMrapids is adding material that isn't properly sourced. WMrapids expects NoonIcarus to fix imprecise citations when he finds them; while NoonIcarus wants to tag them for someone else to fix.{{pb}}I think part of what we need to do here is to define good sourcing practice and set expectations about how to deal with citations that have poor precision.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Well, I want to clear this up now. ''My'' point of view is that others shouldn't have to clean up after citations. Now, I get it, my citations weren't exactly the most detailed, but this is something that I can and will improve upon (this also could have all been solved on my talk page if there was actually a sincere concern). The issue I {{underline|''and'' others}} have is that NoonIcarus disingenuously marked content as &quot;failed verification&quot; and removed it, with most of this content being controversial towards the Venezuelan opposition. This is a clear behavioral pattern that NoonIcarus has continuously participated in, which is the true issue before us. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I have asked you countless times for content and sources when in doubt, and both SandyGeorgia and I have asked you to add links in your references previously. This is not a new issue. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 02:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::If editor X adds citations that are hard to verify and Y editor tags them, I'm not sure it's clearcut which editor is expecting others to clean up afterwards. Tagging seems to me the right approach, so the community can improve it. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I want to clarify that I don't mind fixing the references if I have the opportunity, it is something that I have done in the past: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lina_Ron&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1176734099][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Pitazo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1170068469][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Efecto_Cocuyo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1170066080][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Últimas_Noticias&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169968967] I just think this should not be the norm, or at least that the editor can help improving the format if possible. Too much precision probably isn't needed either. Just an URL should work in most cases, as it usually does, but if one isn't available, at least a quote and page. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|S Marshall}} Many thanks for the mediation, by the way. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> * '''Support topic ban on Latin American politics''' -- a wider TB to include politics in general might protect us from possible similar behavior in U.S. politics--especially those that might tangentially overlap with the interest this editor has in Latin American politics. I do think this ban should be extended to Spanish Wikipedia and WikiMedia files, but my understanding is that other languaged Wikipedia have their own judicial proceedings.<br /> :I don't think a site ban is necessary, as I don't think the editor has shown much interest in anything else, and maybe if s/he works on other subject matter might eventually understand just how problematic the behavior has been.<br /> :I agree with other editors that TL;DR is a real problem in this subject area. I think the reason for that has a lot to do with the fact that mainstream RS that is critical of [[United States involvement in regime change]] has been blacklisted on Wikipedia, by citing the mainstream U.S. sources that tend to parrot the U.S. State Department perspective (as I explain at [[WP:RS/N]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&amp;diff=1213759985&amp;oldid=1213754708 here]).<br /> :I remember {{u|NoonIcarus}}'s behavior under the former name {{u|Jamez42}}. In January 2020, s/he received a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions 1-year editing restriction] for behavior like the above. After the editing restriction expired, at some point the behavior returned. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1205311327&amp;oldid=1201962959 warned] him/her on 2/9/24 about repeated reverts of the same material, and s/he immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1205352399&amp;oldid=1205311327 deleted] it without archiving with the edit summary &quot;A single revert does not warrant this warning. Stop this harassment.&quot; --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to David Tornheim|indent=1.6em}}<br /> :*{{comment}} Linking this February thread between the filer and you, for context for the participants: [[User talk:WMrapids#Allegations against NoonIcarus]].<br /> ::I think it would also be helpful if you could specific ''which'' critical mainstream RS sources you're referring to. In {{RSP entry|The Grayzone|[[The Grayzone]]'s|d}} request for comment, you supported that it be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=933946722 categorized either under option 1 or 2], and I supported its deprecation (a decision I wholy stand by, by the way). [https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/ Grayzone's rant about the decision] and their attack against editors, including myself, was one of the reasons why I requested a change for my username. The RfC was also opened three weeks before you filed your own ANI against me four years ago. I really hope this decision of mine is not part of the reason why you're supporting a topic ban. Best wishes. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 23:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No. It's not because of a difference of opinion at a single RfC. It's the POV editing which has gone on for years, which I and numerous other editors have observed and expounded upon here and elsewhere: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoonIcarus&amp;oldid=1205311327#Edit-warring_on_President_of_Venezuela], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive_editing_by_NoonIcarus]. If the warnings were heeded, we would not be here, and I would not be advocating for a topic ban.<br /> :::<br /> :::To give an example of this POV-editing, and what prompted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoonIcarus&amp;oldid=1205311327#Edit-warring_on_President_of_Venezuela this warning]: NoonIcarus kept reverting to his/her preferred claim that the [[President of Venezuela|Presidency of Venezuela]] was disputed. This was no longer tenable ''after'' 30 December 2022, because &quot;Venezuela's opposition national assembly voted...to remove interim President Juan Guaido [and] dissolve his government...&quot; [https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-opposition-removes-interim-president-guaido-2022-12-31/]<br /> :::<br /> :::When at least four editors (one me) tried to remove the claim that the Presidency was still disputed (after 30 December 2022), NoonIcarus reverted, and kept citing an obsolete [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1213024450#RfC:_Is_the_presidency_of_Maduro_currently_disputed? RfC from 10 September 2021] and also despite [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Guaid%C3%B3/Archive_5#RfC:_Is_Juan_Guaido_still_interim_president_of_Venezuela? this RfC closed 3 December 2021] that determined &quot;There is a clear consensus that Juan Guaidó isn’t the interim president of Venezuela.&quot; (In the 3 December 2021 RfC, of the twelve !votes, NoonIcarus was one of only two editors claiming Guaido was still &quot;interim president&quot;.) It wasn't until I filed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1213024450#RfC:_Is_the_presidency_of_Maduro_currently_disputed? this RfC on 9 February 2024] that the matter was settled. It is not surprising that of the eight !votes, NoonIcarus was alone in claiming the Presidency is disputed. I don't consider that cooperative editing and the ability to judge the [[WP:RS]] with [[WP:NPOV]]. It's more like [[WP:OWN|ownership]] and advocacy for the opposition. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 08:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1205354029 A RfC that I suggested myself], about a change that had been disputed by at least two other editors: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=890150780][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131070148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131200793]. It's simply not as you're painting it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209480230 As I said in the RfC itself], if the community is clear on the position, I don't have any issues with the outcome.<br /> ::::I asked before you have been inactive for nearly four years, until WMrapids left a message in your talk page ([[User talk:David Tornheim#Operation Gideon (2020)]]). The actions you're describing are from 2020 and before (already dealt before in the specific ANI) and from this year, not a pattern that has continued over four years. <br /> ::::With that being said, I wonder once again why [[WP:RS/N]] was mentioned here to begin with. Regards, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 12:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You already provided those exact same three diffs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=890150780] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131070148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131200793]) on the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1214192465#Related_RfC here]. My reply included this text from the [[WP:LEDE]] of the [[President_of_Venezuela |article]]: ''&quot;The Venezuelan presidential crisis was a political crisis concerning the leadership and who holds the office remained disputed till 5 January 2023.” '' All three diffs are ''before'' 5 January 2023.<br /> :::::The last two diffs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131070148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131200793]) were from {{u|TEMPO156}} (fka {{u|25stargeneral}}) who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1158279306 reversed] saying “Consensus on the Maduro and Venezuela pages that this can no longer be considered current.” You were already shown that those diffs do not support your insistence—which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1214192465#RfC:_Is_the_presidency_of_Maduro_currently_disputed? no one else shares]—that the Presidency is ''still'' disputed. Yet, here you are showing those same three diffs again to defend your edit-warring ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1178536520&amp;oldid=1176760058 4-Oct-23], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1179611690&amp;oldid=1179610598 11-Oct-23], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1204670549&amp;oldid=1199503956 7-Feb-24], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1204947051&amp;oldid=1204734755 8-Feb-24]) post 5 January 2023 as acceptable. It’s more evidence of your inability to work collaboratively, listen to reasonable concerns, and objectively assess the RS. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::[[Talk:President of Venezuela#Should we stop claiming the status of the Venezuelan presidency is &quot;disputed&quot;?]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 21:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::{{ping|NoonIcarus}} Do you really feel that an RfC from 2021 takes precedence over the changing circumstances described by the [[WP:RS]] that I mention above? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]], your support of Grayzone, a deeply problematic media entity that has even gone after Wikipedia, is rather troubling here. Could you explain your position here? [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&lt;s&gt;i do not wish to become involved in this thread even in the slightest but David supported the ''deprecation'' of Grayzone; evidently he does not support the site itself.&lt;/s&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::He supported &quot;Option 1 or 2&quot;, which suggests we was in favor of keeping it as a source and furthermore says: &quot;Those raised eyebrows are the result of Blumenthal and his writers at Grayzone telling uncomfortable truths that need to be told.&quot; So I'm pretty sure he wasn't exactly supportive of the effort (unless I missed something somewhere else?) [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I misread the comment - {{self-trout}}. Ignore me! &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|David Tornheim}} While we're at it, I also recall that one time, when discussing images for [[Nicolás Maduro]]'s infobox, you described him as follows ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicolás_Maduro&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=933863374]): {{tq|The second image has none of those problems. He is evenly lighted and looks straight into the camera with a somewhat somber but friendly face ready to engage the reporter in an interview. He looks more humble and receptive.}}, and {{tq|Maduro consider[sic] himself to be a man of the people, including the working class, the poor, and the indigenous population, rather than a representative of the elites, as part of chavismo.}}, while also commenting: {{tq|This is problematic given that he is often characterized in the U.S. and Western media--and especially by U.S. officials--as a &quot;dictator&quot; to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives of regime change.}}<br /> :::You have already mentioned your concern about possible disruptive editing by me, but I want to clarify if your POV concerns are because it can differ from yours. Could you provide more insight into these comments? --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> * '''Support topic ban on Latin American politics''' Noonicarus' editing is, in large part, political activism. Noonicarus' is here purely to ensure that articles on Latin American topics have an anti-socialist bias in general, and an anti-Venezuelan-regime bias in particular. While these opinions are perfectly acceptable, in my view, their editing on this topic runs foul of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. All editors, including myself, have political biases, but I am 100% sure that Noonicarus views their contribution to wikipedia as part of the struggle against the Venezuelan regime. <br /> <br /> :They have explicitly declared that they believe &quot;mainstream news sources&quot; to be superior to academic scholarship, which is the opposite to our actual policy. For example, they [[Talk:Caracazo#POV_tag|recently]] spent a long time arguing against the inclusion in the text of the term &quot;massacre&quot; (used by many academic sources) to describe the killing of thousands of civilians by Venezuelan security forces in 1989. Their justification was that some Venezuelan news sources do not use the term. They have also dedicated a massive amount of time to attempting to enforce [[WP:VENRS]], which is an attempt to exclude any news sources from Venezuela which do not have a pro-opposition bias. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 20:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :&lt;small&gt;{{comment}} Boynamedsue is involved in the dispute from this discussion: [[Talk:Guarimba#Tags]] --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 08:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Boynamedsue|indent=1.6em}}<br /> ::I agree with ''all'' of your observations. Since resuming editing on 2/6/24, I have seen this troubling behavior in the articles you mention while it was happening (as well as back in 2019-2020), even if I did not comment on it.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Context here [[Talk:Caracazo#POV tag]] and here [[Talk:Caracazo#Sources]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 23:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] is well within his rights to enforce [[WP:VENRS]], it {{strikethrough|is a Wikipedia standard policy and}} should not be characterized as &quot;an attempt to exclude any news sources from Venezuela which do not have a pro-opposition bias.&quot; Frankly, I find that choice of characterization very concerning. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{Tq|it is a Wikipedia standard policy}}. [[WP:VENRS]] is not a [[WP:POLICY]]. It is just an essay documenting the WikiProject Venezuela local consensus on those sources. That is useful, and I think the fix there if the list is wrong is to talk it out on the VENRS talk page and then update VENRS. But let's be careful of the terminology we use. VENRS is definitely not a Wikipedia policy. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 19:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Commented [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215643191 below]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' I have many South American election articles on my watchlist and I have regularly seen NoonIcarus making POV edits over a period of several years, mostly to Venezuelan articles, but occasionally to other articles where there is a prominent leftist candidate/party. This has often involved selectively removing information that is inconvenient to their POV with somewhat dubious reasons (which is the original complaint here). Frankly I'm amazed they have lasted this long on Wikipedia given their long history of POV-pushing. [[User:Number 57|&lt;span style=&quot;color: orange;&quot;&gt;Number&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Number 57|&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;5&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;7&lt;/span&gt;]] 00:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN''' per my previous comments. It's very clear NoonIcarus needs something to restrain their blatant NPOV editing. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 05:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to JML1148|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:I assume you mean &quot;POV-pushing&quot; editing, because &quot;blatant NPOV&quot; editing would imply he was doing a blatantly good job. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support TBAN''' at the absolute minimum with the information provided by {{u|David Tornheim}}. There's [[WP:ROPE|no more rope]] here. – [[User:The Grid|&lt;span style=&quot;color:navy&quot;&gt;The Grid&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:The Grid|&lt;span style=&quot;color:navy&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 16:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' as target. WMrapids accused me of intentionally ignoring content. The diffs that I provided not only show my attention to the sources, but in many cases asking for even further information ([[Special:Diff/1208181859|1]] [[Special:Diff/1210109390|2]] [[Special:Diff/1211947657|3]] [[Special:Diff/1212414419|4]]). These charges against editors that have contested their changes aren't new ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#WikiLeaks edit|1]] [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#RfC: La_Patilla|2]] [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Take a break|3]] [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Ownership edits on Venezuelan topics?|4]] [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#User:Elelch|5]]), and the archived ANI complaints show this has been a long standing and unanswered issue ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS|1]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:WMrapids (blanking)|2]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids|3]]). WMrapids' bludgeoning has driven active participants from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela|Wikiproject Venezuela]] away ([[Special:Diff/1183391428|1]], [[Special:Diff/1185249115|2]], [[Special:Diff/1185571771|3]], of which I'm apparently the last one remaining) and the community shouldn't forget either about the excessive RfCs ([[Talk:La Patilla#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|1]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|2]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Source description dispute|3]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 415#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|4]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#WP:VENRS|5]]) that exhausted unrelated contributors ([[Special:Diff/1159504696|1]] [[Special:Diff/1159920143|2]] [[Special:Diff/1160230663|3]] [[Special:Diff/1159529215|4]]). A TBAN won't solve the underlying issues nor provide an answer to previous complaints. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to NoonIcarus|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:Responding to your claims of being a target, it is ridiculous as it is plain to see in the responses above that ''multiple'' users have had issues with your editing behavior across the project. It appears that your edits have a POV bias towards maintaining the positive image of the Venezuelan government following the signing of the [[Puntofijo Pact]] (while I have seen a similar description occasionally in sources, you frequently describe it as the &quot;democratic period&quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1211821592&amp;oldid=1211362450][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AHistory_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1211463049&amp;oldid=1208843652] or similar) and [[WP:BADPOV|discounting human rights abuses]] performed by the &quot;democratic&quot; government ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caracazo&amp;diff=1210485863&amp;oldid=1210441857], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enforced_disappearances_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1212418745&amp;oldid=1212418411], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_massacres_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1197735324&amp;oldid=1197689368], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caracazo&amp;diff=1206271251&amp;oldid=1203757558]) while overtly promoting a negative image of the government following the [[Bolivarian Revolution]]. This is even more clear with your repeated dismissal of academic sources, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APuntofijo_Pact&amp;diff=1213233281&amp;oldid=1204958950 minimizing them as &quot;opinions&quot; for the Puntofijo Pact article], something already mentioned above by {{ping|Boynamedsue}}.<br /> *:Further, while reviewing your edits some more, I even {{underline| found ''another'' &quot;failed verification&quot; edit from 2022 performed by you that was inaccurate}}; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1122685006&amp;oldid=1117054689 you removed] {{tq|&quot;President Maduro denied the allegations, saying torture had not occurred in Venezuela since Hugo Chávez became president&quot;}} when [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-protests-allegations-idUSBREA1P1AF20140226/ the Reuters article] ''clearly'' states {{tq|&quot;MADURO DENIES TORTURE ... The president says torture ended in Venezuela with the arrival of President Hugo Chavez, his socialist predecessor and mentor, in 1999. 'Commander Chavez never gave the order to torture anyone. We came from that school of thought,' Maduro said.&quot;}} Such repetitive behavior of participating in (using [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213308839 the description] of {{ping|JCW555}}) &quot;'failed verification' lies&quot; over ''years'' raises questions of whether an even more severe ban from editing is justified.<br /> *:Regarding the further [[Wikipedia:Unblockables#What to expect|boomerang attempts]], I learned from my mistakes with feedback from other users, which I have accepted, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1179130217&amp;oldid=1179019455 especially regarding RfCs] (which were mainly opened due to [[WP:STONEWALL|stonewalling]] from NoonIcarus). As for other users not participating, Venezuelan politics are ''very'' contentious and are obviously exhausting to edit about (I feel it, trust me), so of course users will come and go. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Members|Other WikiProject Venezuela members]] are still clearly active and choose not to participate in the articles that you are interested in, which is their own decision, but if there were an issue with my behavior in particular, they could have raised concerns on my talk page or on this very noticeboard. So, exaggerating and saying {{tq|&quot;I'm apparently the last one remaining&quot;}} shows how you view yourself as making some sort of last stand, which is further evidence that you are engaged in [[WP:ACTIVIST|activist]] edits to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|right great wrongs]] and clearly demonstrates that [[Wikipedia:NOTHERE|you are not here to build an encyclopedia]].<br /> *:After seeing the further deflection, your continued editing behavior that has not improved over years of warnings (especially after [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|the ANI]] raised by {{ping|David Tornheim}} in 2020) and the additional &quot;failed verification&quot; edit mentioned above that occurred years ago raises the question; '''is a {{underline|permanent ban for NoonIcarus}} more appropriate?''' [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 06:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213949723] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214571997] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209296860][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211821592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208764769], see response above). --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No, a permanent ban is certainly not appropriate, and even a topic ban is marginal. This whole things seems to be a rather roundabout way of you saying you disagree with NoonIcarus about what constitutes NPOV. The best thing to do would be to talk about your differences with respect to what you think NPOV is on these articles in some section of WikiProject Venezuela and come to an NPOV consensus there. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 04:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I see that once again, the sheer volume of text we've produced deters uninvolved people from reading it, and I hope that any further contributions from involved people are both (1) absolutely necessary and (2) very succinct indeed.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I have a question here. Would it be a good idea to call in other editors of [[WP:WikiProject Venezuela | WikiProject Venezuela]] to get a second opinion on these charges. I'd like to get people who know a lot about the subject to comment, and I feel we're missing a significant portion of the community here who might know a lot about the topic, but at the same time, I don't want to accidentally [[WP:CANVAS]]. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 14:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{re|Allan Nonymous}} NoonIcarus [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|did this in a former ANI]] and some saw that as inappropriate and borderline canvassing, so we should avoid doing this again. It is also better that we have users independent of the topic who can make their decision solely based on reviewing behavior and edits. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 20:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Probably nobody would answer, at any rate. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' I'm involved to the extent that I am a participant to an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venezuela and state-sponsored terrorism|open AfD discussion]] initiated by VMRapids on an article created by NoonIcarus, otherwise, to the best of my memory, prior to that AfD, I had not edited articles related to Venezuelan politics. &lt;small&gt;(Subsequent to participation in that AfD I made some edits [[InSight Crime|to a US thinktank]] cited in the discussion).&lt;/small&gt; The key question here is whether there is a pattern of POV editing favourable to the Venezuelan opposition being masked by claims over source veracity. As the Venezuelan government seeks to delegitimise the opposition because of its so-called &quot;foreigness&quot; or so-called &quot;terrorism&quot;, it is understandable that it will be contentious the extent to which the opposition is depicted as lacking endogeneity or engages in actions which may be deemed criminal. Nevertheless, with the evidence presented as it has been, the approriate response would not be to (a) throw accusations back at the filer and (b) to relitigate every edit, but rather to present evidence that one's editing is NPOV via a pattern of equal concern with the veracity of all sourcing in the subject area, not just the veractiy of sourcing which suits the editor's POV. Yet, the attempts to do this show a pattern of edits which reinforce negative aspects of the government or people associated with it and favourable aspects of the opposition. There is a consistent pattern of POV editing in the topic area. There does not appear to be any substantial reflection of a even a single mistake made or a point in time where the editor could have approached issues differently (reducing this to a &quot;technical&quot; issue of incorrect tagging avoids the core issue). FWIW, I think it is reasonable that the community draws VMRapids' attention to a lack of precision regarding their citations and a requirement for pinpoint referencing when possible (ie books, journal articles), especially given many elements of this are broadly wihtin a contentious topic area (post-1992 US politics). Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 23:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''', stonewalling, general combativeness, POV issues, etc. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 11:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''&lt;s&gt;STRONGLY&lt;/s&gt; Oppose topic ban''', while I personally agree that NoonIcarus seems to not have edited in the most consensus seeking way he could, it is clear that these are highly opinionated articles where the interpretation of sources is widely disputed. Hence, he seems to be following one interpretation, and WMrapids seems to be following another. As a result, I believe the best approach is for there to be a general discussion about the factual issues at hand and the sources somewhere to resolve this rather than using topic bans. --[[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous#top|talk]]) 21:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Allan Nonymous|indent=1.6em}}<br /> ::The problem is the consistent rejection of sources which disagree with them, to the point where they edit with an inverted hierarchy of sources: Noonicarus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGuarimba&amp;diff=1185626988&amp;oldid=1185457033 specifically states] that academic journals are inferior to Venezuelan news sources.<br /> <br /> ::They have also carefully curated a list of Venezuelan news ([[WP:VENRS]]) sources which excludes any source deemed to have pro-regime bias, but not sources containing pro-opposition bias, and frequently referred to it to support their arguments. They have shown no self-awareness or contrition here, no desire to change their editing style. Due to their prolific editing, they are, in effect, a one-user article-biasing machine.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :::This is not true. Unreliable anti-government listed in [[WP:VENRS]] include but are not limited to ''El American'', ''Factores de Poder'' and ''Periodista Digital''. You can see an example of me disputing said sources while citing WP:VENRS at [[Pablo Kleinman]], for instance: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Kleinman&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1068240983][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Kleinman&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1115210880][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Kleinman&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169647438] At any rate, WP:VENRS currently prioritizes descriptions from [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]], accepting the community's wider consensus. You can likewise see me recommending academic sources here: [[Talk:Caracazo#Sources]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::If you think that's an issue take that up with [[WP:VENRS]]. He's within his rights to enforce a Wikipedia policy. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 13:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::[[WP:VENRS]] is not a wikipedia policy, it is an essay written largely by Noonicarus.--[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 15:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Ah, I see. Well, in that case, an RfC concerning [[WP:VENRS]] might be a good idea. I think it would be greatly beneficial to get a consensus reliable sources list here given the issue. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 16:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{ping|Allan Nonymous}} Hi. WP:VENRS has had at least three RfCs (where some of the editors here have participated in), all started by WMrapids, of which the first two were withdrawn, in part due to the amount opened at the time and their broadness ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|RfC:WPVENRS]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#WP:VENRS|WP:RS/N#WP:VENRS]] and &quot;[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Source description dispute|Source description dispute]]&quot;). I don't want to speak on behalf of other participants, but from what I gather the consensus was that it was better to discuss the reliability of the sources in a case to case basis, if there were any doubts, which is what happened with {{RSP entry|''La Patilla''|[[La Patilla]]|nc}}. One of the points of contention was that I removed many state-owned sources from several articles and cited WP:VENRS as a justification, which is what Boynamedsue is probably referring to. I want to leave clear that I have never claimed that WP:VENRS should be applied as a policy, citing it instead as an example of [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] (just as the list of sources that other WikiProjects have), and since it is clear this has been controversial, I have not done this again since December and don't intend that to do it again. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::@[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]], Why did you ever think it appropriate to remove material and sources on the basis of an article which is clearly marked as &lt;b&gt;opinion&lt;/b&gt;? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::{{ping|TarnishedPath}} I'm not sure if I follow. Do you mean WP:VENRS or the sources themselves?<br /> ::::::::There were to main reasons for this. I mostly focused in references from the [[Bolivarian Communication and Information System]] state media conglomerate (but not limited to it; I also removed scores of references from [[EcuRed]] because its content is user generated, but I did open a thread at the RSN when there was opposition to it), including [[Venezolana de Televisión]], whose comments can be found here: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Bolivarian Communication and Information System|Talk:WP:VENRS#Bolivarian Communication and Information System]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#La Iguana|Talk:WP:VENRS#La Iguana]]. The first reason was [[WP:TELESUR]]'s deprecation at RS/P, because Telesur is part of the conglomerate and other of its outlets routinely cite it for fact.<br /> ::::::::The second reason are the sources individual histories with reliability, including {{ill|Alba Ciudad|es}} (discussion here: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Alba Ciudad|Talk:WP:VENRS#Alba Ciudad]]), besides the ones mentioned above. The sources lack editorial independence overall or fact checking.<br /> ::::::::I did not remove the sources merely because they are state-controlled or pro-government, but because of the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability principles]] and of their reliability track record, or in other words, per [[WP:GUNREL]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Boynamedsue and Novem Linguae clarified that it was an essay from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela|WikiProject Venezuela]] before I could. However, I'll link its talk page ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|Talk:WP:VENRS]]) and note that a rationale and a description are usually offered to justify the classifications, as it would happen in the RS noticeboard. The assesment is not capricious, and the description from [[WP:RS/P]] is always used first when available (which represents a wider community consensus). If anything, more people is invited to participate. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support tban''' as even the more &quot;defensible&quot; uses of failed Verification often seem a somewhat inappropriate and as it does seem like a pattern of POV pushing. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Simonm223|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:I think that NoonIcarus is largely editing in good faith here, and only about half (3/8, from sources cited as concerning by WMRapids) of his most troubling edits were deemed inappropriate. A warning and or 1RR for NoonIcarus seems more appropriate. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 14:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::FYI. I engaged in a brief discussion with {{u|Allan Nonymous}} about the numerous posts at this [[WP:AN/I]] [[User_talk:Allan_Nonymous#Comment_from_David_Tornheim|here]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Allan_Nonymous&amp;oldid=1215346160#Comment_from_David_Tornheim permalink]) --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 16:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks for adding this here! Is there a way you make sure to include the whole page in your link, just in case things things change there in the future? [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 16:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you, that provides additional context which reinforces my support for the tban as the most appropriate remedy. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support topic ban''': I guess I can't say I'm an uninvolved editor, as WMRapids cites me as the first one to bring to attention NoonIcarus' dubious removal of sourced content and NoonIcarus and I had many past debates over my bias concerns. It's been my long-held observation that NoonIcarus has been rewriting articles like [[2002 Venezuelan coup attempt]] to push an anti-government narrative using more subtle tactics like overweighting anti-government content/sources, using selective attribution to portray pro-government views as biased opinions (while anti-government views are portrayed as fact), as well as the at-issue tendency to challenge and remove ideologically-inconvenient sourcing and info on, to be generous, ''thin'' grounds. I'm not gonna lie though—it's been cleverly done and I burnt out trying to fight it, hence my lack of involvement in the current debates. I don't vote this way lightly, as NoonIcarus has always been cordial and willing to discuss things, and I certainly don't blame anyone for hating the Venezuelan government. But it seems I'm not the only one alarmed by NoonIcarus' ideological rewriting, and if it's spreading to articles across the entire topic of Latin American politics, I would say it's finally time to stop this. [[User:Mbinebri|Mbinebri]] ([[User talk:Mbinebri|talk]]) 16:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Mbinebri|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:This is a really compelling argument for a TBAN, and frankly, I share your concerns here. I think it's clear that NoonIcarus should consider making changes to his editing strategy, especially given that this has been raised as an issue before. For now, at least, I still feel that a TBAN is going too far, but these concerns will need to be addressed one way or another. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 16:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::You've made your vehement opposition to a tban very clear by now. But the thing is I remember run-ins with NoonIcarus under their prior handle going back years and it was, honestly, the exact same pattern. They should seriously consider finding some other area of the project to work on where they can operate more collaboratively and I doubt they will without some compulsion. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Personally, the arguments made here have, at least, reduced the intensity of my opposition here. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|Mbinebri}} This really chimes with me, Noonicarus is not here to annoy or troll anybody, and the origin of their bias is understandable. However, the volume of their edits and the lengths they go to in defending them means that very few users have the energy to confront them consistently. Overall this is leading to a bias problem spread throughout our Venezuelan politics articles.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 16:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::It seems that this describes [[WP:COMPETENCE]] more than disruptive editing. Still, I thank you for your comments. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I agree with you guys that the volume of the edits made and the aggressive reverts without seeking community consensus are a real concern. If anything this AN/I has taught me the importance of seeking consensus. NoonIcarus, is clearly falling short here often, and I feel a bit of understandable sympathy here (you should see the numbers I used to pull on old articles when I was younger, not my proudest work). At the same time, it is my opinion that NPOV is reached by taking the collective voices and perspectives of a wide variety of editors. My concern with a TBAN is, if NoonIcarus leaves, as a major contributor, could lead to a disproportionate under representation of his views among those who edit Venezuelan articles, leading to a worse [[WP:BALANCE]] overall, even if less edits are made disruptively by the remaining members. If there is evidence this will not be issue, I am more than willing to further reduce my opposition to a TBAN (as I have already done to some degree). This, I think cuts to the core of my concern here. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 17:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{re|Allan Nonymous}} I respect your sentiment and thought the same thing during my initial edits with NoonIcarus. They are fairly knowledgeable about such topics, but it depends on ''how'' you use such knowledge. It is important for us all to recognize that [[Wikipedia:YANI|we are not irreplaceable]] and our misbehavior on the project does have consequences. I've sincerely tried many things to avoid conflict with NoonIcarus ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1209395892&amp;oldid=1209308986 including this recommendation], though it returned to edit warring), but as you can see from other users, NoonIcarus' editing behavior has been a repetitive problem. While NoonIcarus portrays themself as {{tq|&quot;the last one remaining&quot;}}, I have shown that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214797142 WikiProject Venezuela members are still active] and others in this discussion (including myself) have shared their own unsympathetic feelings towards the Venezuelan government ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215354288&amp;oldid=1215353940], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215347521&amp;oldid=1215347383]). So rest assured, such topics will be okay, and I'm glad that you are using this opportunity to reflect on your own editing as well. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Links to some of the own olive branches I have extended to WMrapids in the past:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169157951][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1191955462], and linking full last talk page exchange: [[User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 10#Future collaboration recommendations]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|Mbinebri}} While I naturally disagree with your topic ban support, I want to thank you for your comments about our exchanges being cordial. Stay safe. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> :::::Here's what I feel might be a good compromise? '''Article Ban on Latam Politics''', with a possibility for review at some point. This allows NoonIcarus to participate in the topic through talk page discussions (i.e. to suggest changes in policy/flag sources he may find problematic) without disrupting the articles or leading to edit warring. This might allow NoonIcarus to participate, so long as he remains within consensus as other editors can take up his suggestions. If he shows signs of working well on talk pages, then he can be allowed back on the articles. So far, I have seen him work well in discussions. In addition to this, as a show of good faith, I would hope NoonIcarus would open an RfC with respect to [[WP:VENRS]] so that we could make it more clear which were good and bad sources,as well a more general policy with regards to academic versus media sources (in particular, we should be careful when the academic sources about current political events). This would help reduce a lot of future lack of clarity on vague sources and what sources we should be using which has been a major contributor to this. Let me know your thoughts on this people. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Allan Nonymous' article ban suggestion|indent=1.6em}}<br /> ::::::{{re|Allan Nonymous}} [[Wikipedia:AAB|Users can request to be unblocked on their own talk page]]. I might have seen custom restrictions before where administrators suggest against blocked users from making a block appeal for a certain period of time (For example: ''User banned from Latin American political topics: May appeal in one year''), but not too sure on this. Wanted to make sure that you know that not all blocks have to be permanent. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 01:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::I am aware here, but my hope is that this will prevent another case of &quot;this user gets TBAN unblocked after a year/two/three&quot; and goes right back to what didn't work before. This sort of approach would might help him and other people find a way to productively work together, instead of just creating a cycle. That's my thought, at least. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 02:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::That's why a topic ban is the right solution and your &quot;compromise&quot; won't work--the behavior extends to talk pages and the disruption would continue there. If NoonIcarus is going to learn proper editing behavior, they need to steer clear of politics.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::It is clear that the primary concern here are edits made to mainspace articles, and the vast majority of concerning edits are made there. I am disappointed to see that you seem to treating this as a punitive response given the general consensus that topic bans are not punitive. I am making an effort here to seek consensus, so I hope you are willing to do so as well. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 12:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::This is a misinterpretation of what has been said. Your continued response to every editor is verging on [[WP:IDHT]] and I would gently suggest your opinion has been heard and it would be wise to step back and allow a consensus to emerge. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::I'm a little confused by your concerns of [[WP:IDHT]] here? I agree that at the beginning of this discussion, I responded to a lot of different editors (this is my first AN/I so I didn't fully understand the discussion protocol and I apologize for that) but this was a response with regards to a consensus seeking solution and is is to an editor I have engaged with multiple times, as part of a discussion largely regarding an effort to &quot;step back and allow a consensus to emerge&quot;. If you could clarify a little more your concerns (maybe on a different page, as this may be off topic to the discussion), I would be more than happy to attempt to address them. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 18:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::Effectively half of this discussion consists of you replying to every other post to argue your case. You've been cautioned about [[WP:BLUDGEON]] once already. You don't need to reply to every post here. Doing so will do nothing more than raise questions about why you are so passionately defending NoonIcarus. So you should really stop. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::I apologize that at the beginning of this AN/I I replied over enthusiastically, this is my first AN/I so mistakes are bound to happen. At the same time, this section of the AN/I is mostly me asking [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] about my concerns about any action taken, and I was glad so see here that he mostly addressed those concerns. Hence '''I have significantly reduced my opposition to a TBAN'''. Furthermore, I did ask and still have actively raised serious concerns about [[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] citing [[WP:VENRS]] which I have continued to raise and hope he can make a good faith effort to address. I, personally, don't feel my recent efforts fit very well into a case of [[WP:BLUDGEON]] or [[WP:IDHT]], but I do appreciate your feedback here. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 14:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::@[[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]], I have been watching this thread and your replies have been coming up in my notices a lot. You should listen to Simon. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Notifying {{ping|Allan Nonymous}}, since it's their comment after all: do you agree that your comments in these responses to Mbinebri are collapsed? If so, do you have a preference if they are displayed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215867046 this way] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215873477 this way] (the current one)? --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> <br /> ===Indefinite block for NoonIcarus===<br /> *'''Support indef''' - per WMRapids’ opening statements and the statements of [[User:JML1148|JML1148]], [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]], [[User:Number 57]] and others here. This is a clear [[WP:SPA]] account with numerous examples of bad faith editing, resulting in a previous one year editing restriction. Now this. Enough is enough, I’m calling for an indefinite block. [[User:Jusdafax|Jusdafax]] ([[User talk:Jusdafax|talk]]) 23:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===TLDR===<br /> <br /> Disclaimer: I personally am not an &quot;involved party&quot; in the case however, I have interacted with several of the editors in other cases. My position on the topic ban proposed is &quot;STRONGLY oppose&quot;.<br /> <br /> This is an effort to provide a brief summary of the events leading up to and the part of the vast, wall-of-text dispute titled &quot;NoonIcarus and 'Failed verification'&quot; in an attempt to make it easier for other users whose eyes may glaze over at the sight of so many words, inspired by the suggestion of [[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]].<br /> <br /> The dispute here starts with a complaint from [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] concerning [[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] removing a variety of citations and associated text using the tag &quot;failed verification&quot;. Of these, NoonIcarus is a confirmed Spanish speaker and member of Wikimedia Venezuela, WMrapids is a member of English Wikipedia's Peru project. This notable here as the articles the two seem to primarlily edit concern latin american history, mostly, Venezuela. After consulting with members of the Wikipedia discord concernin the best editing practices, it is clear that this is generally considered acceptable within the confines of Wikipedia. Furthermore, in articles for controversial topics, it is considered standard practice (better to say nothing than something controversial). However, it quickly became clear that issue involved was not merely the use of &quot;failed verification&quot; efforts but whether these efforts systematically contributed to a POV. Some of the edits appeared more than defensible, others were significantly more dubious and it may have been possible NoonIcarus was removing sources that were in fact verifiable. From there, debate escalated to a wider debate around whether NoonIcarus' editing approach was approrpiate for the topic, particular concerns were raised about edit warring. A possible mitigating factor was raised that, if WMrapids was making unsourced edits, these may have been partially justifiable. There was no general total community consensus about the veracity of the allegations, but it does seem that at least some of the edits were to actually verifiable content. After this, NoonIcarus was given an opportunity to respond to the complaint. '''[This is Part 1 of a Multi-Part series, more to follow.]''' [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :NoonIcarus provided a report responding to the allegations made. The report was not directly responded to, but discussions on the original complaint did continue afterwards. Soon after, WMrapids, immediately made a request for a topic ban on NoonIcarus concerning Latin American political articles. This was immediately good-faith rejected (and the request was later voluntarily withdrawn) on the grounds that a complaint filer cannot be the one to initiate such action. Another user made supported the request which was then considered the initial request. Tensions at this point were high. NoonIcarus' response to this topic ban attacked WMrapids, claiming the user was a toxic influence on the English language Wikipedia's Venezuela project, and that additionally, a series of aggressive rolling RfCs he had made against existing policies on articles was &quot;exhausting and demoralizing&quot; members of the Wikipedia Venezuela project, as part of an effort to support his agenda. WMrapids and some other involved editors countered these claims with claims he was selectively ignoring evidence that went counter to positions amenable to his own agenda. '''[This is Part 2 of a Multi-Part series, more to follow.]''' [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{comment}} Just to mention that I'd be happy to answer any related questions. I don't want to cram this thread any further, but it could really benefit from clarification to non-involved editors, so they could be broken into sections or collapsed. WMrapids should be given the same courtesy as an involved user, as they probably and understandably will disagree with some of my replies. I'll provide an answer to the POV pushing accusations as a collapsed hatnote below my first response &lt;ins&gt;(added '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215919160 here]''')&lt;/ins&gt;. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 00:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Moved prior comment to correct section. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:Wrong place to put this, this is for discussion and summary, if you want to stake your position on the TBAN, post in that section. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 13:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::I really need to stop using the mobile interface. I intended to post there. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Can we close this?===<br /> Honestly I think this discussion has progressed as far as it is going to. I'd ask for an admin to review and determine appropriate consensus. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I provided one last response regarding POV '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215919160 here]'''. New participants can drop the last thoughts before closure. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 22:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I agree with {{u|Simonm223}}. Having those who have already commented continue to edit this thread and add more diffs and never-ending argument/counter-argument is tiresome for readers. I can suggest one admin who has already shown a willingness to review one of these lengthy discussions (about this topic) and make a final ruling. If another admin believes it is acceptable to ping them and ask for their help here, please advise.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It might be better, now that a request has been made (and given the fact that this is at the top of AN/I) for you not to ping admins, and for one to naturally come around and close this. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 03:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> '''SEND TO ARBCOM'''. I am not surprised to see a citation tagging incident escalating to a show of blatant and shameless partisan participation at ANI while I have been on a mostly-break since early December when two of my closest friends died coincidentally on the same day, and I knew that I could not reasonably deal with serious grieving and WMRapids' editing at the same time. Editing around WMRapids since I first looked in to these recurring issues in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids_and_WP:ASPERSIONS Aug 2023] and found few admins or independent editors willing to engage (for example, zero feedback at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_106#Nelson_Bocaranda NPOV noticeboard], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive352#Nelson_Bocaranda BLP noticeboard], and much more in other places) has required CONSTANT citation cleanup, correction of failed verification and flagging the use of non-reliable sources and much more, complicated by WMRapids' failure to engage collaboratively on talk, as documented in three full archives of one article only at least. {{pb}} When I engaged initially, I had hoped that the [[J. K. Rowling]] experience could repeat, via a combination of patience and demonstrating collaborative editing to yield good results, but that was not to be the case. {{pb}} When I had to also deal with serious real life loss and grief, I gave up and left Wikipedia almost entirely, because the situation has such a long history of diffs and behaviors and hounding and aspersions that have gone ignored at noticeboards, that it really belongs at ARBCOM where it can receive a dispassionate and non-partisan examination of long-standing behavioral issues and polite POV pushing, and I just have not been in an emotional place to be able to face the work required. There is plenty detailed in the talk archives of Operation Gideon ([[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5]], [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 6]] and [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7]]) and plenty at WMRapids' user talk, (samples, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;oldid=1180799100#Bludgeoning,_personalization,_and_multiple_faulty_RFCs] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;oldid=1180799100#Copyright_and_copying_within]) but I see (again) few people taking the time to understand the full situation.<br /> <br /> I found this thread because I received an email ping this week from Tornheim [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)&amp;oldid=1215578894#Do_we_still_need_the_POV_tag?_If_so,_why? here], on a page where Tornheim admits not reading the talk page, did not examine even the most recent edits, and the POV tag was clearly reinstated by WMRapids,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Gideon_(2020)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209503834] which is easily apparent in recent edits and detailed on talk. It is not surprising that anyone would give up in the environment I experienced in trying to edit around WMRapids, and simply tag their edits as failing verification, as they usually do, as seen in three archives on that talk page, because after months and months of dealing with similar editing behaviors, one tires of having to do all of the EXTENSIVE cleanup required from their style of editing. I am not yet ready to face situations like this again on Wikipedia, but I do have months worth of diffs showing recurring POV and failure to use and cite adequate sources (see the three pages of talk archives mentioned above, but there is much more and in more places). Should anyone take the time to send this situation to ArbCom where it belongs, I could eventually provide diffs including those showing why the community has not been able to deal with this, but I am now on an extended vacation visiting my children and have a long drive home next week. This thread is a fine example of using ANI to eliminate one editor with whom others disagree over something fairly minor in comparison to the other behaviors seen in several articles by other editors. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I wanted to propose this, but I'm unfamiliar with the requirements to start a case there. It will definitely help handling such a complex issue. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :When multiple users, who even state that they hold a similar POV to NoonIcarus (not being sympathetic to the government), say that there is a severe and consistent POV issue, that is not something &quot;fairly minor.&quot;--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I agree that this needs escalating to Arbcom. I think there's detectable brigading going on in this AN/I and that's why no uninvolved sysop has stepped up to deal with it.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 11:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't agree with your &quot;[[Wikipedia:Tag team|brigading]]&quot; assessment as it appears that the majority of these users have not been involved with one another. Being transparent, David did mention to me on how to correctly present an ANI somewhere before possibly, but this ANI seems clearly appropriate given that NoonIcarus disingenuously applied the &quot;failed verification&quot; tag and removed material.<br /> *::&lt;s&gt;That's not true, though. I've had editorial disputes with the majority of users that support a topic ban against me, which is understandable given how controversial the topic is. I haven't brought it up to not sidetrack the discussion, but I'd be happy to comment more about it if needed.&lt;/s&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::&lt;small&gt;Striking since I misread. Apologies. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *:SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus do have a history of collaborating together for years, however, which makes it interesting that SandyGeorgia began editing again at the same time this ANI was opened and became involved after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandyGeorgia&amp;diff=1213952863&amp;oldid=1213117743 NoonIcarus contacted them in their talk page.] Allan Nonymous' mention of discussing this ANI on Discord was something new to me, too.<br /> *:As for Arbcom, I'm open for whatever may aid with settling disputes, but there seems to be a solid consensus of users supporting a topic ban for NoonIcarus. MoneyTrees, who is a member of Arbcom, was involved earlier on in this discussion. Would it be appropriate to ping them and ask their opinion? [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 13:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I think the reason this hasn't been closed is because you're right. There does ''seem'' to be a solid consensus. People qualified to close this might be a bit wary of it, though. I very much doubt if MoneyTrees would oppose an escalation to Arbcom in the circumstances, but if you'd like to ask them, you're welcome to do so. SandyGeorgia edits widely in controversial areas and it's not at all unusual for her edits to intersect with someone else's, but if you have concerns or suspicions about her, feel free to raise them at Arbcom when I open the case, or here now, or in any other appropriate place of you choice. Sandy won't be angry or defensive if you do, but she might be amused.{{pb}}To be quite frank, the only reason I didn't open an Arbcom case this morning is because Sandy wants to be involved and this isn't the best time for her. So I'm holding fire.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 14:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I would appreciate feedback from at least one admin about whether they feel it necessary to escalate this incident to Arbcom before we just decide to supersede the obvious consensus here. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::We don't need an admin's consent to escalate to Arbcom, because Arbcom's where you go when uninvolved admins ''aren't'' stepping up to deak with the problem.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 15:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Then I trust, when you've created this arbcom case, it will accurately reflect that the core subject is NoonIcarus' edit history and will notify all editors involved in the AN/I discussion. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::That is one of the core subjects, yes, although I hope to persuade Arbcom to accept a case whose scope is ''Conduct in articles about the current politics and recent history of Venezuela.'' I certainly don't intend to make ''everyone'' who's posted here a party to the case, and it's not needful to notify non-parties. I'll notify parties to the case on their talk pages, and in the interests of transparency I'll also place notices here in this thread and on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela]].—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Butting in here; some three months ago, I was on the verge of taking these disputes to ARBCOM, because the conduct and content issues are inextricably linked, and there's experienced editors shielding disruptive editors on both &quot;sides&quot; of this dispute. I desisted largely because I wouldn't be able to participate in the evidence phase of such a case. It's been increasingly clear to me that that was a mistake, and I was waiting for the expected non-resolution of this thread - despite the numerous NPOV violations documented from multiple parties - to file a case. If nobody else does so, I intend to do so soon. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I've been caught up in some of the side discussions in this areas with multiple RFCs, or attempted RFCs, happening at RSN, and have thought that it might all end up at Arbcom. -- &lt;small&gt;LCU&lt;/small&gt; '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A&lt;small&gt;ctively&lt;/small&gt;D&lt;small&gt;isinterested&lt;/small&gt;]]''' &lt;small&gt;''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''&lt;/small&gt; 15:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{u|S Marshall}} thank you for that consideration, but frankly, there will be no optimal time for me. The vacation has somewhat helped me regain my bearings post-grief, but when I return home, I am scheduled for hand surgery for a pre-cancerous growth that needs to be excised, so I don't know what typing ability I will have. Growin' old ain't for sissies, but we all know the arbs are heaving a huge sigh of relief to hear that my typing might be affected, and my typical verbosity might be curtailed, but I will have timing issues regardless. The reasoning for opening the case is well summarized to the one sentence in this thread by Moneytrees; finding the extreme list of previous dispute resolution will be more time consuming, and unfortunately I have most of that back at home. The behaviors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard should also be within the scope of the conduct, and one can easily see in all of those threads who the other parties are. {{pb}} {{u|Dustfreeworld}}, thank you for the concern (I haven't actually read the majority of my talk page yet-- as I said, I came to this thread by looking in to an email ping from Tornheim when I was settled in at my son's house and able to review my email), but in the interest of length, the new casting of aspersions and failure to assume good faith re when or why I returned to editing are better explored with the facts and diffs in the arbcase, as they demonstrate a pattern. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::{{heart}} --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{re|S Marshall}} I'll trust your judgement on this then, though I do want to get the opinion {{ping|Moneytrees}} as well. I've always advocated for more involvement in these disputes, so the more the merrier in this case. I'm just glad that these issues are getting some attention. Thanks for guiding us through this. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 16:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Hi there, as an uninvolved editor, may I ask {{highlight|what’s the problem with a user (Noonlcarus) replying to my message expressing [[WP:Wikilove]] to a [[WP:Missing Wikipedian]]?|lightgreen}} Sandy already said that she had lost two close friends recently in the same day. May I also draw your attention to [[WP:Kindness campaign]] and [[WP:Editor retention]] as well? [[WP:ABF|Thanks]]. --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 14:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::There's nothing wrong with this, but the timing is curious to post something to a talk page which will be usually emailed. I don't know Sandy's personal background, so of course condolences to them, but I am more concerned about NoonIcarus' gamey behavior due to their history of unconventional canvassing. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 16:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I did email her months before all of this happened, because it's not the first time and she mentions she has gone through a difficult time. I found the WikiLove after looking for diffs to add to this case, and I'll remind that this is not the first time that you accuse me of canvassing for questionable reasons ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: VENRS|Talk:WP:VENRS#RfC: VENRS]], hence why the aspersions casting is also an important issue in all of this). I'll ask you again to not throw stone in a glass house after your own potential canvassing in previous and related move discussions. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::@[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]]. Thank you for the reply. I know nothing about your/Noonlcarus’s background either. I don’t know what do you mean by “usually emailed”. If user’s talk page can’t be used to express [[WP:Wikilove]], what is it used for? Used for arguing or [[WP:ABF|assuming bad faith]]? At least 10 users have replied to that [[User talk:SandyGeorgia|post]] of mine with messages such as “stay safe” already. What does that mean?<br /> *::::1. It’s not “usually emailed” as you said. 2. Sandy is a well-respected and much-loved user. {{pb}} &lt;small&gt;Aside, just curious, have you ever sent any Wikilove to other users on their talk page?&lt;/small&gt; --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 16:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::&lt;small&gt;Just for the record, I'll link once again the Wikilove I left for WMrapids in Christmas: [[User talk:WMrapids#Season's greetings]].&lt;/small&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::{{u|Dustfreeworld}}, just an FYI ... because of my dislike of the pingie-thingie, I have my preferences set so that I see pings only via email; that way, they don't disrupt my concentration when I'm in the midst of complex edits. For most of late December, and until early March, I wasn't up to even checking my email. I did see the Tornheim ping via email because it was the most recent when checking in after I arrived at my son's house for Holy Week, and I was finally feeling ready to see if the Venezuelan editing situation had improved during my absence. As this situation has long needed to go to ArbCom, now seemed to be the time to say so. I'm sorry I won't be able to help out at my typical rate for medical content for at least the near future; after a long absence, catching up can be daunting, and I'm not sure I'm ready, as I also see [[J. K. Rowling]] descending into non-collaborative editing, which is discouraging. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::{{u|SandyGeorgia|Sandy}}, no worries, RL is more important. I hope things will get better soon. People like you,[https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&amp;platform=all-access&amp;agent=user&amp;redirects=0&amp;start=2024-03-28&amp;end=2024-03-28&amp;pages=User_talk:SandyGeorgia%7CUser_talk:Jimbo_Wales] so please, be well and take good care of yourself. {{heart}} {{smiley|:-)}} --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC); edited 02:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{re|SandyGeorgia}} I know you have a lot going on, but I have to respectively ask since you have become involved; why haven’t you commented on NoonIcarus' behavior (either in support or opposition) and have instead focused on users who have had to deal with their POV editing? <br /> <br /> Now, I also have to respond to your accusations about my citing and copying within Wikipedia. Regarding the citations, your &quot;sample&quot; is from about ''6 months ago'' when I first was getting involved in controversial articles (I now know about exceptional claims needing exceptional sources, etc.) and we discussed above how I could be more specific when creating citations. Understandable. As for attribution, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_91#Attribution_edits I have already discussed this with a patroller and they said my edits have improved]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Rosales&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215951085 In a recent edit], I even made sure to attribute when it was my ''own'' original edit.<br /> <br /> So while you have tried to make the point that I am some sort of troublesome user, there is direct evidence that I have responded to the feedback and have improved my editing. This isn't the case for NoonIcarus, however, so that is why I have to ask, Sandy, why have you decided not to comment on their misbehavior? Why haven't you discussed on how they are removing information while making false &quot;failed verification&quot; edit summary claims? Again, my sincerest condolences for all that you’re going through, but this is something that needs to be discussed as well.--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 20:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Tornheim pinged me to an immediate question for which the answer is obvious, and that is what brought me to this ANI. You reinstated a POV tag that had been resolved, as you re-added UNDUE material that had been many times discussed, without engaging talk,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Gideon_(2020)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209503834] and that is the (immediate) pattern of editing behavior I've observed over the long haul, which hasn't improved. You take long absences, then don't engage talk at all or ignore requests and questions, and then come in to edit as you please regardless of what has been discussed on talk, sometimes having found sub-standard sourcing or sources that either don't verify content or conflict with higher quality sources, ([[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7#Use of scholarly sources]]) and then leave the citations and other cleanup to others until the next lather-rinse-repeat cycle, and don't appear at times to have read or digested what is written on the page (eg the most recent aspersion in this thread). And you can be extremely polite when under a microscope of scrutiny, but less so with the constant casting of aspersions in talk discussions, which derails productive discussion. {{pb}} As to whether your editing has improved, I haven't had time to check for good faith engagement on talk, but I see the same casting of aspersions as always in this very thread; you seek out obscure journal sources to back your POV (aka cherrypicking via apparently google searching on terms eg [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7#Use of scholarly sources]] rather than relying on a preponderance of higher quality sources); you leave the burden of discussion on others while the content you edit war in stands for months as others won't edit-war it out again; and the finger-pointing and the aspersions are persistent (see above), as is the tendency to not see that you do everything (and more) that you accuse NoonIcarus of doing.{{pb}} Beyond the immediate instance that brought me here, I haven't taken time to look at anyone's recent editing, because a) I am visiting my son, b) all of these matters should be examined before ArbCom, not here, c) the issues with NoonIcarus in this instance are already beaten to death, and d) discussions with you (as with me) tend towards verbosity that will simply exhaust other readers. I am well aware that at times NoonIcarus's editing is also sub-par in several ways, but he has a full command of the sources, context and history, and a full and fair airing of a complex situation is unlikely with an ANI pile-on. The aim of my posts here is only as is appropriate to outline why an Arbcase is called for and context for the immediate issue here (failed verification tags as cleaning up after your edits can be exhausting and it is difficult to get you to engage talk). And I note that, unlike you, NoonIcarus is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to his command of English and being able to explain himself (eg, the misunderstanding about his objection to how some scholarly sources are frequently misused in Venezuelan content, and he is not the only editor to have noticed that). There is no need to fill up this ANI with further analysis of NoonIcarus's editing; what was not represented here at all was both sides of a complex situation in which users with less command of the sources frequently show up. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::ArbCom. --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 22:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Now at Arbcom===<br /> Please see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Venezuelan_politics]].—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 10:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' - Please do not close this thread while ArbCom is considering whether to open a case. If ArbCom accepts the case, they will of course have the final say about NoonIcarus. If ArbCom declines the case, the community should take action, so that dummy edits will be useful to prevent this thread from being archived without action. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Follow up from [[WP:VPM#A personal analysis and proposal|VPM]] ==<br /> {{mbox<br /> | type = style<br /> | image = [[Image:Emblem-WikiVote.svg|50px|Not a vote]]<br /> | text = If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is '''[[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|not a majority vote]]''', but instead a ''discussion'' among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]] regarding the encyclopedia's content, and '''[[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]''' (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, ''not'' by counting votes.<br /> <br /> However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] on the part of others and to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]] on this page by adding &lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt; at the end.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;'''Note:''' Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|single-purpose accounts]]: &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:spa|spa]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt;, suspected [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] users: &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:canvassed|canvassed]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt;, accounts blocked for [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry|sockpuppetry]]: &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:csm|csm]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:csp|csp]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/small&gt;<br /> }}&lt;!-- This is the Not a ballot template --&gt;<br /> === Topic ban proposal for Rachel Helps ===<br /> <br /> :{{userlinks|Rachel Helps (BYU)}}<br /> :{{userlinks|Rwelean}}<br /> :[[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal]]<br /> <br /> Per the evidence I outlined at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal|this VPM discussion]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;oldid=1213522218#A_personal_analysis_and_proposal permanent diff]), Rachel Helps, the Wikipedian-in-Residence at [[Brigham Young University]] and operator of the above two accounts, has for years engaged in extensive undisclosed [[WP:COI]] editing on Wikipedia in collaboration with her employees and professional colleagues. This misconduct falls well short of what is expected of any editor, let alone a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence, and as I have been informed that en.wp has no ability to revoke said position, I propose that '''Rachel Helps be topic-banned from LDS Church-related topics, broadly construed''', which should achieve the same result. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Don't know if this is of any importance, but this sandbox page showed up just recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlomorrIDTech/sandbox Seems to have something to do with BYU, not sure if it's important [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 21:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Original page deleted, archive [https://web.archive.org/web/20240317214235/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlomorrIDTech/sandbox here] [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 23:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> &lt;small&gt;Pinging editors who participated in the prior discussions per [[WP:APPNOTE]]: {{ping|ජපස|WhatamIdoing|Horse Eye's Back|Rosguill|JoelleJay|Bon courage|Aquillion|Hydrangeans|BilledMammal|FyzixFighter|Levivich|Primefac|Vghfr|David Fuchs|Pigsonthewing|BoyNamedTzu|Fram|Certes|Naraht|Guerillero|Awilley}}&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> * How anyone can read Rachel Helps (BYU)'s user page (even before recent edits) and say her CoI is &quot;undisclosed &quot; beggars belief. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **Please take the time to reread the above post and the linked discussion. If you feel that everything outlined in that analysis is perfectly above-board, may I ask if you have performed comparable edits while a WiR? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **For example, taking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rwelean&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213525368 this recent diff into consideration], have you ever created a page for a friend while a WiR, and subsequently edited it after you had co-authored an article together and/or one of you had begun to supervise the other's education programme? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***Now try addressing what I said, rather than some other imagining. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *** And '''don't''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213531040 edit my comments]. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 17:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ****My sincerest apologies, I think that was an edit conflict (you added it in a separate edit presumably while I was replying to you). [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *****NP, I've also just had an EC with no notification. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. There seems to be some idea (such as advanced by Andy above) that merely disclosing ''a'' COI absolves you of any possible infractions; that is not the case, as the evidence at the VPM discussion amply demonstrates. There's apparent evidence of off-wiki coordination that obfuscates COI editing. I see the concern that there are much ''worse'' offenders here, and Helps' self-identification makes picking out the COI edits that much easier... but that doesn't materially change the problem, discussed at length [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Wikipedia_in_Residence:_is_this_a_way_around_conflict_of_interest_rules? in the wider VPM thread], that Helps and similar editors have materially distorted and overemphasized coverage of LDS topics in ways that are not keeping with due weight. This is probably an issue with a ''lot'' of GLAM/WIR stuff, so I'm not surprised Andy is circling the wagons, but this is a pretty egregious example. [[User:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **First you misattribute a view I do not hold to me, then you impugn my integrity. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Overwhelming Support.''' WP:COI editing is bad enough, but considering that WiR is involved and that the COI violations are related to religion (which is already a subject that requires great care to maintain NPOV), Helps should absolutely be topic banned from LDS articles. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:* And to further comment on this, these violations seem to be contrary to the purpose of WiR, which is for an existing editor to &quot;''accept a placement with an institution to facilitate Wikipedia entries related to that institution,''&quot; ''' ''not'' ''' to have an person with existing ties to the institution to &quot;facilitate&quot; Wikipedia articles on their institution<br /> *:[[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 16:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''', the disregard and disrespect this paid editor has for our COI expectations is staggering. The attitude is not that they should follow best practices, its that anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted and permitted in infinite quantities. An example of this attitude: &quot;Also, if something is &quot;strongly discouraged,&quot; it sounds like it's actually still allowed. A rule that can't be enforced is not really a rule.&quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zeniff&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213375632] So lets do what we have to do and enforce our community expectations, otherwise people will continue to ignore and disrespect &quot;A rule that can't be enforced&quot; [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''' I do see violations of COI policies but they are not an end in themselves and exist to protect the reliability of our content. So, can I get some examples of shoddy content being injected into our articles by Rachel Helps? Thanks, [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 16:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:jps wrote in the linked discussion, {{talkquote| I continue to find poor writing, sourcing, and editorial approaches on page after page dedicated. The cleanup that will be required to recover from this is tremendous ...}}Some diffs are in order? [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 17:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I listed diffs in that thread. Happy to list them again, but it may be a bit repetitive. Also, you can check my article space edit history from today as I’ve begun the long process of dealing with the fallout and that history may be illustrative. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose'''. Apparently Airship was posting this while I was posting my disagreement with the evidence presented in the other thread. Yes, she seems to have written an article about an (apparently notable) co-author. More than half the evidence presented is about other editors (how dare she help newbies?). There have been previous discussions about her editing, and they've agreed that [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board]] applies. She has [[User_talk:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)/Archive_6#c-Rachel_Helps_(BYU)-2020-12-03T17:38:00.000Z-SlimVirgin-2020-12-02T23:11:00.000Z|confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things]]. More generally, I think that much of this is based on fear of religious editors. For example: She is accused of – over the course of 18 years and nearly 10,000 edits – writing two (2) articles that some editors (including me) think she might be too close to the subject to do so independently, and that it would have been more appropriate to send through [[WP:AFC]]. That's 4% of her article creations. Banning someone for a procedural error in 4% of contributions is not a proportional response. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You know it should be 100% through AfC right? &quot;you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;&quot; Thats incredibly damning. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No, I don't agree that articles she needed to send articles such as [[Stretch Armstrong (ska band)]] and [[List of inmates of Topaz War Relocation Center]] and [[Anarchism and Esperanto]] and [[Hidden Figures (picture book)]] through AFC. Can you think of any reason why, e.g., she should consider herself to have a conflict of interest with a Japanese interment camp that was closed before she was born, then do please explain that. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Because she was paid to make them. Thats a direct financial COI. I didn't say she needed to send the articles to AfC, I said she should have sent the articles to AfC. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 01:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{u|WhatamIdoing}}, a couple of things: the co-author is also a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rwelean&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213525368 Master's thesis supervisor], which isn't great; as there is precisely one &quot;newbie&quot; named in my analysis (the others being employees, editors with [[User talk:Thmazing|extensive COI history]], and a bureaucraat currently at ArbCom for a CoI issue), I would ask you to consider your words more carefully. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{redacted}}. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::A large proportion of our articles on universities and their staff are probably heavily edited by external relations offices and staff of the organisation, but they generally do it very professionally, under the radar. If we nobble this editor, we need, in fairness, to do the same to all those others too. But the articles are often accurate and well-written (because they've been written by someone who actually knows what they're talking about). Apply COI rules with caution lest you end up with an encyclopaedia written entirely by clueless people using out-of-date sources. Remember, most academic/institutional COI editing won't be reported because the person who knows (a) that the University of Somewhere's article is edited mostly by JSomeone, and (b) that the public relations officer happens to be called John Someone, can't actually do anything about it without outing themselves as another staff-member, and DOXing Dr Someone. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 18:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Isn't this argument the equivalent of saying &quot;If the cops don't have the knowledge and resources to give every single speeder a speeding ticket then nobody should get a speeding ticket&quot;? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::No, it's like saying that if ''absolutely everyone'' is speeding down a particular bit of road, then maybe something's wrong with the speed-limit (or the overall approach to its enforcement) and issuing one ticket won't solve the problem. Our COI policy is wildly naive, and particularly good at punishing those who admit their COI rather than those who just deny everything. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 20:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::But your argument isn't that everyone is speeding, your argument is that most roads have been sped on. Do you really think that &quot;absolutely everyone&quot; is doing egregious undisclosed COI editing? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::If you happen to see any other paid contributors, grandly titled &quot;Wikipedians-in-Residence&quot; and promoted by the WMF as an example of Wikimedia-public relations, who undermine COI to this extent, give me a ping and I'll certainly !vote to &quot;nobble&quot; them. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 18:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Nobble is actually a word, huh. Also, another day, another {{u|Primefac}} LDSuppression — when will it end? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::In fairness he's also been taking action to resolve these COI issues off-wiki, see discussion on his talk page. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 21:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|She has confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things.}}{{pb}}Contrast this with her COI declarations:{{pb}}{{tq|However, curators and other librarians sometimes request that I work on certain pages.}} ...&lt;br&gt;{{tq|One of my students created the page for James Goldberg at the request of a curator, in conjunction with the library acquiring his personal papers. I assigned this to one of my students rather than myself because I know James personally.}} ...&lt;br&gt;{{tq|When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work. When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work.}} ... &lt;br&gt;{{tq|At the request of one of my curator colleagues, I improved the page for Glen Nelson.}} ...{{pb}}{{tq|I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon. I participate in this community of Mormon artists. Their shows have featured work by artists whose pages I have worked on for work, for example, Matt Page (artist), whose page I created when our 21st-century curator requested that I work on his page after acquiring some of his personal papers.}} [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::People make suggestions for topics; sometimes she agrees. So? People ask me to make edits, too; sometimes I grant their requests, too. I'd bet that if people in your life know you edit Wikipedia, that you also get such requests. That's not a conflict of interest.<br /> :::I'd also like you to think about what {{xt|I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon}} means. It means she gives money to them, not the other way around. Shall we ban Wikipedia editors who donate to the WMF or one of the affiliates from editing anything in [[:Category:Wikipedia]]? Shall we tell editors that if they buy Girl Scout cookies, they can't edit [[Girl Scouts of the USA]]? Kick all the devs out of the open-source articles? Merely being a minor donor or a minor customer is not automatically a conflict of interest. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Are you just...willfully ignoring all context now? Because this is starting to look like bikesheddy obstructionist nitpicking for the sake of...who knows?{{pb}}Here we have an ''employer'' requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer, because Helps is officially employed in a WP liaison capacity with that employer. Helps says she fulfills some of these requests. All of this is above-board PAID (but not necessarily COI) editing and is utterly different from your hypothetical of some random person suggesting you write about some topic neither of you has a COI with. It also happens to contradict your claim that Helps says BYU doesn't choose topics for her to write about, which wouldn't actually even be a problem if those topics weren't connected to her or BYU (and I'm not alleging they are!).{{pb}}Your second paragraph is somehow even more of a strawman. Nowhere in the comment above did I allege Helps has a COI with any of those examples of employer-requested editing, and certainly nowhere did I suggest editors can't edit on things they've ever spent any amount of money on. It's almost like you are replying to some synthesis of my comments in this thread, but I know that can't be true because if you had actually read my one other substantive comment in this ANI discussion you wouldn't have made that ridiculous comparison to Girl Scout Cookies in the first place when it's abundantly clear Helps' COI with ARCH-HIVE goes way beyond simply donating to them on Patreon. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 22:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{u|JoelleJay}} my editing experience with {{u|WhatamIdoing}} has been {{mdash}} their Wikipedia editing style comes across as inexplicably argumentative or contrarian on most any topic. I don't recall if they eventually come around or change their mind, such as after somehow ferreting out a truth during a particular confrontation or argument. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 21:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::{{xt|Here we have an ''employer'' requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer}}:<br /> ::::::No, we don't. Here we have ''colleagues with no authority over her whatsoever'', often from unrelated departments, who think they've identified a cool subject for Wikipedia, chosen for their relevance to ''the colleagues' own interests and activities'', and an employer who thinks Wikipedia is cool enough that they let her spend part of her work time making that information freely available to the world. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Are you really suggesting someone whose position is &quot;Coordinator of Wikipedia Initiatives at the Harold B. Lee Library&quot; is being paid to edit in whatever topic areas they want with no expectation from the university that this work ever ought to benefit the university or further the interests of its owner? Or that a BYU employee requesting an article on a former BYU professor after the employee helped procure some of that professor's own works for BYU's collection, might be making this request on behalf of BYU as part of their ''job''?{{pb}}Do you think, in the above example, that someone serving in an official, Wikipedia-supported expert editing instructor position would believe COI from their extensive personal relationship with the subject is eliminated by assigning that article creation request to their own BYU employees? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 00:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''' in response to ping: frankly, I haven't read the mountain of evidence in enough detail to !vote, but I don't think this problem is limited to a single editor. We may need to take a more holistic approach rather than hoping that removing one person will make everything right. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 17:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' and agree with Certes above that this is only part of the problem. I became aware of the BYU walled garden of sources, awards, and editors through the Nihonjoe ANI discussion and subsequent Arbcom case. Looking at their edits, I first noticed the problematic editing and undisclosed COI of [[User:Thmazing]], who will warrant an ANI section on their own. But other names which kept popping up where &lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;[[User:Hydrangeans]]&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt;, who keeps denying the obvious COI issues, and Rachel Helps (and her other account) and her large number of paid BYU students (who list her as their employer). <br /> :When I look at an article like [[Second Nephi]], completely rewritten by these editors over the last few months[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=1212916834&amp;oldid=1166026852] (apart from [Hydrangeans] and Rachel Helps, I count 3 other paid BYU editors there): the page is expanded, but hardly improved. Claims like &quot;J.N. Washburn, an independent scholar, cites that 199 of 433 verses from Isaiah appear with the same wording and proposes that Joseph Smith used the King James Bible version whenever it was close enough to the original meaning of the plates he was said to be translating and used the new translation when meaning differed&quot; not only treat the &quot;he find some old plates he translated&quot; as truth, but try to claim that &quot;independent&quot; scholars support this, even though Jesse Nile Washburn was a LDS missionary who had studied at BYU before he published his books on Mormonism, so no idea what's &quot;independent&quot; about him. The whole article, just like most articles rewritten by Rachel Helps and her employees, are written from a distinctly in-universe, uncritical perspective. <br /> :For some reason she is very reluctant to note her COI on the talk page of these articles, insisting that the declaration on her user page is sufficient. She also takes it upon herself to remove critical tags from the pages, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Noah&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1202040173 here] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Omni&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213185725 here], or to remove correct[https://books.google.be/books?id=QDsALaUZapUC&amp;pg=PA150&amp;dq=%22Brian+Thomas+Kershisnik%22&amp;hl=en&amp;newbks=1&amp;newbks_redir=0&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiwr7-i7PGEAxVhdqQEHZOOANkQ6AF6BAgOEAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Brian%20Thomas%20Kershisnik%22&amp;f=false][https://www.smofa.org/uploads/files/219/LA-StoryboardBuilding-a-Movie.pdf] but unsourced info and revert to equally unsourced info for unclear reasons[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Kershisnik&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196164460]. A typical edit is something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tree_of_life_vision&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1195021060 this], supposedy &quot;more detail for the naturalistic explanation section&quot; but in reality removing two of the four sources and changing the more general claim about the non-religious origin of some Mormon belief to a much more LDS-friendly version. Just some examples from her 100 most recent mainspace edits... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> &lt;s&gt;*'''Support''' per Fram's evidence and others. I should note the above mentioned [[Second Nephi]] refers to another &quot;independent scholar&quot; (Matthew Nickerson) and then cites an article that appeared in a journal published by BYU. I would also hope that if a ban is enacted, it explicitly covers the [[Association for Mormon Letters]] and related topics, including fellow members, per the information provided in the Village Pump thread. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 18:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/s&gt;<br /> ::I'm striking my support for this topic ban (you can call me neutral I guess) though I still support the one for Thmazing below. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 23:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support''', not because Rachel Helps has undisclosed COI (she discloses BYU and AML on her userpage), but because she helped other editors with undisclosed COI (e.g. BYU, AML) make undisclosed COI edits, and did things like nominate their articles to DYK, or move their articles to mainspace. The diffs are at [[WP:VPM]]. I also agree with Certes that this problem is broader and includes the editors who have/had undisclosed COIs, but that doesn't absolve Ms. Helps of her role in what now seems to be an actual conspiracy of AML people to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, their work, and by extension their religion, by using a combination of undisclosed accounts and paid BYU editors. The unfortunate thing is that if everybody affiliated with AML had just disclosed it, there wouldn't really have been a problem... except they would have had to wait for editors without COI to do things like approve drafts, but I don't get why that would have been a problem. Undisclosed COI editing is a problem even if it's ''good'' undisclosed COI editing because it undermines trust. It's really quite dangerous to the mission of an encyclopedia anyone can edit: the whole venture rests on the belief that editors will follow &quot;the honor system&quot; and either avoid or be transparent about their COIs. Finally, '''a note to anyone commenting''': If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::One of the reasons I still support a full TBAN and not a lesser sanction is that Rachel Helps has been editing longer than I have. And unlike me, she was paid to do it. If she cannot learn in eight years of paid editing what I learned in five years of volunteer editing in my spare time, then I'm not sure there is much hope here. She's not new at this, and this isn't the first time these problems have come up. I'd have more sympathy if she had less experience or if this wasn't a repeat issue. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 15:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::On one hand, I'd support a topic ban on the paid student employees. Certainly going forward that's what I think is best (''employees'' of the BYU WiR should not edit articles related to Mormonism... let them do that on their own time), but then TBANing the WiR should be sufficient to prevent problems with student employees in the future (and per her note below, she is already reassigning them to other topics).<br /> ::On the other hand, I don't like the idea of sanctioning any of the student employees because they were &quot;just following orders,&quot; and if their orders were different, they'd have followed the different orders, so I don't view the student employees as being culpable or even being able to act independently of their supervisor (the WiR), I see them as proxies/meatpuppet accounts except they understandably would think their proxying was OK because it was directed and supervised by a WiR. So I think I come down on the side of giving students a pass for past policy/guideline violations as long as there are clear guardrails for the future. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :'''Support with regret'''. I really wish this could be done differently, but I think things have come to a head now and there may be no way to fix it without this kind of drastic approach. I tried to have a conversation yesterday with Rachel about improving her sourcing guideline, and I think that she is likely trying her best to act in good faith, but she is well past being able to collaborate with those who are going to question the [[WP:FRINGE]] nature of the claims that many apologists for the Mormon religion continue to make about their holy books. I could handle that (indeed, we see that sort of issue a lot here) if it was not also coupled with institutional support from Wikipedia as well as BYU in a way that I think was never done properly. If we are going to pay students to edit Wikipedia, they ought to be allowed to edit it freely. BYU students are at a risk in being active here. If I saw one of them make an edit that looked like apostasy, I could report them to their stake or bishop or the school itself and they could be found in violation of the strict honor code and expelled. I don't think we have thought clearly about what that means given the openness of this website and the unusual closed-ness of the BYU system. For the benefit of all involved, it is probably best that this partnership be ended with a clean break. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. Rachel Helps has now disclosed a massive amount of COI on her user page. Given how extensive and egregious it is, as well as her repeated emphasizing that she uses her personal account to publish articles she feels would be in violation of PAID if published from her BYU account, I get the impression that she still does not understand what it means to have a COI and how that should impact her editing. Initially this put her actions in a slightly better light to me, since it seemed many of these violations were done in mostly good faith and simply weren't recognized by her to be COI (or at least not ''that'' big of a COI, which is more of an institutional problem), rather than intentional concealment of edits she knew weren't kosher. I would have been satisfied with a promise to avoid editing or directing others to edit articles where there is even a whiff of apparent COI and an agreement to limit LDS-universe sourcing. However, reading this [[Special:Permalink/1213529782#The_ARCH-HIVE_moved_to_draftspace|dissembling exchange]] she had on her personal account talkpage with an NPPer regarding COI and blatant PROMO for ARCH-HIVE, I have a hard time believing no deceit has occurred: {{tq2|Hi Celestina007, first you said that you draftified it because of sourcing issues and notability issues, but now because of promo and possible COI? A little consistency would be nice. I thought about what you said about the page having too much promotional language, and I removed most of the background section. I have an interest in the page (otherwise I wouldn't have written it), but I don't think it's a COI. I don't make any money from the ARCH-HIVE's success, and I have not been paid to write the page.}} This was in Feb 2022, well after she had started writing blog [https://www.arch-hive.net/post/in-praise-of-funeral-potatoes posts] and [https://www.arch-hive.net/post/the-arch-hive-holiday-gift-guide-2020 participating] in exhibitions for the group, and well after she [https://www.associationmormonletters.org/2020/05/rachel-helps-reviews-2019s-mormon-novels/ served] on an AML judging committee the same year ARCH-HIVE won an award. This led me to look into some other potential COI edits involving authors she has reviewed for the AML: [[Dean Hughes]], whose wiki page has been edited extensively by Helps' student Skyes(BYU) (66 major [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Skyes%28BYU%29/0/Dean_Hughes edits], 8000+ bytes added, including bibliography entry for the book Helps reviewed); [[D. J. Butler]], to whose bibliography Helps [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._J._Butler&amp;oldid=952515895 added] the book she judged, sourced to an AML announcement by her colleague, and to which Skyes(BYU) [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Skyes%28BYU%29/0/D._J._Butler added] 11 major edits; and [[Steven L. Peck]], 85% of whose page was [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Steven_L._Peck written] by Helps between 2017 and 2023. I'm sure I could go on. Incidentally, pretty much all of these pages have also been edited by Thmazing (AML president) and NihonJoe (ArbCom case)...{{pb}}All of this goes well beyond what we could reasonably expect even a novice editor to understand are COI edits, let alone someone in a ''paid'' position of authority who is mentoring other ''paid'' employees of BYU on how to edit wikipedia articles! Honestly I think ArbCom might be the next place to go given the amount of promotion of minor Mormon contemporary authors by what seems to be a heavily interconnected group of BYU-associated editors with un- or under-declared COIs. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''' I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI. The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground. This will happen as long as anonymous editing is allowed on Wikipedia. But what I think is far more important for determining a possible topic ban for myself and my team is the quality of my edits in the topics the ban is aimed at covering. I believe an underlying assumption is that since I work for the BYU Library, I wouldn't say bad things about Mormonism (broadly construed), the LDS Church, or BYU. I have edited on many pages in these topics and many have changed the way I think about the LDS Church and BYU, and not in a good way. Some examples are [[Battle at Fort Utah]], a page I expanded about a one-sided attack on Timpanogos families supported by Brigham Young that lies at the heart of the city of Provo's founding. What about [[Seventh East Press]], a page for an independent student newspaper at BYU, which was banned from being sold on BYU campus primarily because of an interview with Sterling McMurrin where he said that he didn't believe the Book of Mormon to be literally true (which I promoted on DYK)? The fact that [[Lucinda Lee Dalton]] requested her sealing to her husband be cancelled and it was revoked posthumously? [[Ernest L. Wilkinson]]'s spy ring controversy? Dallin H. Oaks's negative evaluation of [[Nothing Very Important and Other Stories]]? My own students have said things like &quot;I've summarized stuff I disagree with&quot; (and they have published it as part of their job). Some people have expressed shock that as a professional writer, I'm messing up all the time. Guess what. There's no degree in Wikipedia editing! If you examine my considerable edit history, you are going to find errors! But I believe that on the whole, the work I and my students have done has improved Wikipedia. We have added so much accurate information, cited in-line, to reliable sources. We have helped to make more sources discoverable by summarizing and citing them. Is it that surprising that my years of editing Wikipedia in Mormon Studies have led me to gain some expertise in my field and made me want to study Mormon literature professionally? I've attempted to list all the possible COIs I could think of on my user page, and I stand by the NPOV of all of my edits. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment'''. Yes, I'm a paid student editor who works on LDS topics. But that doesn't mean that I have been out to present a construed vision of Mormonism. When people have pointed out a lack of neutral point of view (which was wholly unintentional on my part and consisted of a few words) I have made an effort to fix it and invited them to help me. Other than that, I'm not seeing where there is a lack of this neutral point of view. Is summarizing what other people say about Mormon topics considered a violation of NPOV? Because I didn't think it was. If you're worried about the Mormon authors, keep in mind I have also used sources from Elizabeth Fenton (not a Mormon), John Christopher Thomas (a man who follows the Pentecostal tradition), and Fatimah Salleh (a reverend). [[User:Heidi Pusey BYU|Heidi Pusey BYU]] ([[User talk:Heidi Pusey BYU|talk]]) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{Hat|reason=Getting a bit off-topic. ජපස seems OK with hatting this. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 01:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> *:The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here. You may feel that you run no risk of falling out of favor with your bishop, but if that happened because of your attempt to include content that was critical of your church, ‘’you could be expelled’’. This is what your school says in its policies. Now, maybe they don’t enforce those policies anymore, but I can only go by what I read of BYU’s rules. And according to those rules, it’s not really safe for you to try to accommodate the radically open ideology of this website as you work for and are enrolled in a school which has an entirely different ideological commitment. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Have you seen anything in my edits that is harmful to the LDS Church or to anyone else? [[User:Heidi Pusey BYU|Heidi Pusey BYU]] ([[User talk:Heidi Pusey BYU|talk]]) 22:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You don’t seem to be understanding my point. It doesn’t matter what I have or haven’t seen in your edits. You are free at this website inasmuch it is an Open Culture Movement website to explore, edit, study, and expand your horizons to whatever extent you would like. We encourage that on principle. Normally, I would welcome such engagement. But here is the thing: you are employed by BYU to write here. You are also a student. My commitment to radical openness then is now necessarily tempered by my greater concern for your well-being as a student and student worker because, frankly, that is far more important than the openness of this website. And if your school had a commitment to academic freedom, free speech, and so forth, there would be no tension there. But the fact remains that BYU has really strict policies. To be clear: You aren’t doing anything wrong! But we can’t stop your school from mistreating you on the basis of what I would considered normal activity at this website. If you came out tomorrow as a promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist (and I’m not saying you will… just go with the hypothetical) then while we would welcome you, suddenly you find yourself without support from the institution you rely on. And so we’re stuck. I think we can’t operate according to our own community rules because doing so puts you at risk and we need to figure out how to fix that. Having you contribute to article space is almost certainly not the right answer. If you had a sandbox where you could offer quotes from sources or apologetics or what have you that would help maintain your ecclesiastical endorsement, then there would be less of a problem. But you are duty bound to maintain a fealty to your church and your faith which this website should not be challenging because it can cause you problems. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Acknowledging my [[user:Hydrangeans|disclosed past connection to BYU]], I can't help but think it's a little disingenuous, howsoever inadvertently, to frame this as humanitarian concern for Heidi Pusey (BYU) and kind of paternalistic to insist that she can't assess for herself what her situation at BYU is like and whether there's any {{tq|risk of falling out of favor with your bishop}}, to use your words. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 00:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::The concern is not whether she made the correct or incorrect assessment. I trust that she knows what she is doing. ''I'm assessing the entirety of the situation for myself as a member of this community.'' My goal generally (it has nothing to do with this user specifically) is to make sure that all people are taken care of as best they can be. I see the following situation: (1) BYU has rules (2) this website has rules (3) those rules are by my reading at fundamental odds. I think that the ''best thing we can do'' given that, as a website community, and given that I have absolutely zero sway over BYU, is to prevent a situation where students acting as compelled editors (that's part of what getting paid to edit does, as fun as I find it to be since I do it for free) edit content that is directly relevant to those rules. It's that simple. Because let's say ''there is no risk'' of her running afoul of such. Then that is equally a problem in my mind. This stamps out the very radical openness we are trying to promote and makes me worried that the BYU student who is in the closet about their scholarship that identifies problems with the Book of Mormon would not and ''should not'' take this job. This can of worms is ugly and it gets worse the more you look at it. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 00:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::1. I am not in the closet about my scholarship and do not appreciate such an assumption. <br /> *::::::2. I do not appreciate you attacking my identity and saying I could hypothetically become a &quot;promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist.&quot; Such an assumption is unfounded and unacceptable. I will not tolerate it.<br /> *::::::3. I will no longer reply in this thread. [[User:Heidi Pusey BYU|Heidi Pusey BYU]] ([[User talk:Heidi Pusey BYU|talk]]) 00:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::Y'all don't see the problem here? This is an editor who can't follow a hypothetical and she's being ''paid'' to write about Mormon exegesis. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here.}} I do not think it is our place to try to sanction or remove adult editors from our community because we as a third party judge they are taking on too much risk by editing here. I think this argument is very weak. This is an ANI thread about sanctions. We should stick to discussing and sanctioning actual, demonstrable misconduct. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 00:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::They are at a risk ''because of our toleration of the situation of paid editing through this program''. Shut the program down and it is no longer a risk. The misconduct was done by her boss. I support sanctioning the boss. I'm not sure what to do about the student, so sure, close this whole commentary as off-topic. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{Hab}}<br /> *'''Support''' The evidence seems to be quite clear. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 22:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' based on Rachel Helps' own defense above. {{tq|The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground}} is not a good reason to allow blatant COI editing. I'm okay with driving it even further underground. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 02:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': The COI editing stuff was not my main concern (I'm far more worried about the paid editing junket), but I just thought I'd let the watchers here know that I tagged an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Austin_%28writer%29&amp;diff=1213610933&amp;oldid=1213479191] just now. It's a puff-piece pure and simple and the evidence for COI is pretty straightforward if y'all have been paying attention to these posts. I agree, this needs to be stopped. I'm pretty close to striking my &quot;with regret&quot; which gives me regret. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Honestly, this entire situation shows that we need to take a step back and take a look at possibly changing policy to prevent this from happening again. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::This may need to be kicked to Arbcom. It involves at my last count at least 5 editors not even counting the students. Oh dear. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 02:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': I worry we're conflating separate issues. <br /> ::1) Rachel Helps' involvement with articles about AML, ARCH-HIVE, and Michael Austin strikes me as a clear COI issue and a breach of community trust.<br /> ::2) There's a broader question around how to interpret COI when it comes to BYU and the LDS church. I think the COI argument here is plausible, but much less clear cut than #1. I do worry about creating a chilling effect for e.g. an Oxford professor citing a colleague who was published by Oxford University Press, or a math teacher at a Catholic school editing a page on the Trinity. If we do need to consider this COI, I think we should take our time and define the problem narrowly and precisely.<br /> ::3) There are NPOV and sourcing concerns around some Book of Mormon articles. I'm skeptical that a topic ban will improve this, or that the articles are worse for BYU editors' involvement. [[Second Nephi]] and [[Ammonihah]] are in much better shape than, say, [[Jason]], a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid. The BYU team seems to take these concerns seriously and make good faith efforts to include non-LDS sources. If individual articles aren't notable, we can delete them. <br /> ::4) Finally, there's a concern about implicitly endorsing BYU policies and potential risks to BYU's editors. I agree with [Hydrangeans] that this feels paternalistic, and I don't think this standard is workable. Even if we assume the worst of BYU, should we shut down any attempts to engage editors in China, in case someone writes something that upsets the CCP?<br /> <br /> :I would support a sanction that's more narrowly tailored, e.g. blocking Rachel Helps from edits around AML and BYU faculty, while still letting her write about scripture and history. It seems excessive to block her from absolutely anything LDS related (e.g. [[Battle at Fort Utah]]) or to shut the program down.<br /> <br /> :(In case there are any concerns: I've never met any of the editors involved, I've never attended, worked for, or even visited BYU, I learned what AML was earlier this afternoon, and I've never been a member of the church). [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 03:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Courtesy Break (1)====<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose''' Topic bans should not be punitive and are reserved for editors that engage in [[WP:TE|disruptive]] behavior within that topic area. I just don't see the hallmarks of disruptive editing that I've encountered in other situations, particularly in physics-related topics, that did result in topic bans. I do see very poor judgement when editing with both disclosed and undisclosed COI and operating with the gray zone caused by inconsistence guidance in the COI guidelines (Gray zone example, in one part COI editor should identify in all three places, in another it says that editors may due it in one of three places - an editor who tried to push the former with regards to Rachel was told by multiple admins that their interpretation was more expansive the intended COI guideline). I do find her response to HEB regarding this gray zone very troubling, but not disruptive. This should have been raised at COIN, prior to being elevated to ANI. I would note that Rachel editing and her WiR function have been brought up there before which did not end with sanctions, so it seems like bringing the dispute here has the appearance of forum shopping - might not be given new information since that discussion. I also disagree with the insinuation that because her COI is with BYU, she is incapable of editing in an NPOV manner when it comes to the LDS Church under some kind of threat, spoken or unspoken, from the religious leaders and therefore inherently disruptive if she edits in that topic. BYU teaches evolution in its biology classes, teaches the standard 4.5 billion year age for the earth in its geology classes, teaches a human history/prehistory that does not kowtow to Biblical or Book of Mormon teachings in its anthropology and archaeology classes, and so on - so the argument that the BYU employment means she has to edit inline with church doctrine is based on faulty assumptions and extrapolations. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 03:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:If Microsoft hired people to create articles about its products, and these editors disclosed they were paid editors but in some cases promoted some of these products while working with other Microsoft employees who edited with undisclosed COI, Wikipedia would siteban all of them with little discussion. It doesn't matter if Microsoft doesn't tell the editors exactly what to edit, or tells them explicitly to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if the articles about Microsoft products are totally NPOV and policy-compliant. Advertisement is advertisement, and this is advertisement. It doesn't matter if it's the LDS Church or Microsoft, it doesn't matter if it's articles about characters in the Book of Mormon or articles about characters in Microsoft video games. In both cases, it's just paying people to raise the profile of their products and their brand on Wikipedia. A TBAN from promoting the product seems actually lenient to me, like the minimum preventative measure Wikipedia should take in this situation, not punitive at all. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 04:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|It doesn't matter if the articles about Microsoft products are totally NPOV and policy-compliant.}} Sounds like you're saying that it doesn't matter the quality of the edits, if the motivation for making the edits is wrong. Is this correct? Some might disagree with that statement, preferring to accept high quality edits regardless of motivation. Although maybe we should discuss this more at [[WT:COI]] rather than here. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::No, not the ''motivation'' for making the edits, and no, this is the right place, this is about whether this proposed TBAN is preventative or not. I'm saying &quot;it doesn't matter&quot; in several different ways, but the motivation of the editor isn't one of them, who knows or cares about people's motivations, since we have no way of determining an editor's motivations.<br /> *:::If an edit violates one rule, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate another rule. If an edit violates COI or PAID, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate V or NPOV. If an edit violates NPOV, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate V or COI or PAID. If V or NPOV editing excused COI or PAID editing then we can just mark those pages historical, what's the point of even reading them?<br /> *:::It also doesn't matter because a policy-compliant, high-quality Wikipedia article is good advertising. A TFA is the highest-quality level of article that Wikipedia offers, and also the highest-quality advertising placement. If someone is trying to promote themselves or something on Wikipedia, a high-quality article is going to be better than a low-quality one, and while a puffery article might be the best, an NPOV article is still better than no article. Companies/people/churches/other orgs will pay to have policy-compliant articles created about themselves or their products because it's good advertising, it's good for their reputation, which is good for business and the bottom line. It's about $$$.<br /> *:::And just to belabor that point a little bit, think about it: how much are they paying per article? Hundreds of dollars? A thousand or a few thousand? Where else can you get guaranteed top-of-Google SEO placement for ''any'' search term for that cheap? And it's a one-time cost when they pay a paid editor to put it on Wikipedia, whereas ordinarily SEO of that quality is a monthly payment not a one-time. I think paid editors are like 90% cheaper than traditional SEO. Damn, I should advertise :-P<br /> *:::But if you step back, by piggybacking on volunteer labor, organizations can use paid editing to save themselves a ''ton'' of money on internet advertising while breaking ''no'' Wikipedia rules (if done properly). If we were smart we'd bypass paid editing and the WMF and just set up an actual job board on Wikipedia and have some kind of group Patreon account. Instead of making donations to the WMF, buyers could just pay for articles about whatever they want, and editors can get paid for writing articles, like $50 for a stub, maybe $500 for a GA, $1000 for an FA. Channel it all into an official channel and kinda kill two birds with one stone, I say. (And I'd be happy to administer it all for a reasonable management fee.)<br /> *:::So anyone who wants to invest their marketing $ in paid editing is actually free to do that, as long as the editors disclose and otherwise abide by the rules. But in ''this'' case, we have undisclosed COI and PAID editing by a number of people, and in the situation where an organization's marketing $'s are going not just to policy-compliant editing, but also to non-policy-compliant editing, then it seems like barring the non-policy-compliant editors from editing about the organization, broadly construed, is appropriate.<br /> *:::As an aside, it also bothers me that paid undergraduates are involved. Teaching the wrong lesson here. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Do you have these concerns about GLAM in general? Suppose the British Museum pays me to write about obscure parts of their collection. This will be great SEO and may encourage people to visit, and even though the museum is free, many visitors will probably make a donation. If I use the best available scholarship and teach millions of people for free, and the museum gets donations, would you object? [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 07:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::GLAM walks a fine line, no question. That's why it's extra important that people who participate in that sort of program as leaders be extra careful to keep their noses clean and think very carefully about the implications of their actions and activities, as far as I'm concerned. The alternative can easily devolve into this mess. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *:::::@[[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]]: I don't know much about GLAM, but yes, same concerns, no reason to treat galleries, libraries, archives, and museums, as any different from other organizations (companies, non-profits, churches). In your hypothetical, you'd still be hired to promote the museum's product (their collection), no different from Microsoft paying someone to promote one of their products. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::The problem with COI-tainted editing is that it given us an encyclopedia (and community) different to what we would have with if unconflicted editors were at work. It skews the process. It is &quot;dirt in the gauge&quot; as [[WP:COI]] used to mention. In practical terms we seem to have ended up with Wikipedia giving disproportionate/undue and often credulous coverage to this religion. The argument that &quot;COI doesn't matter if the edits are good&quot; would justify lifting restrictions on [[WP:PAID]] editing (and is often delpoyed by paid editors). [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 05:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::If it truly is a prescriptive ban, intended to enforce adherence to COI guidelines, then the TBAN should be narrowly applied to where she has actual COI, as defined by those COI guidelines. In this case, the COI is BYU and AML. I am not convinced that it extends to the LDS Church or LDS topics generally. She is a BYU employee, not an LDS Church employee. BYU employees can and do say things that contradicts the church, and the same is true for Rachel - some examples that immediately come to mind are her edits that do make look the church look good (see her list above) and even her use of &quot;LDS Church&quot;, which indicate the arguments that her terms of employment affect LDS-related topics generally are easily disproven. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 12:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::That's like saying an [[Altria]] employee only has a narrow COI to the company, and is free to write about the [[Health effects of tobacco]]! If you're paid to write a load of stuff about Mormons, the COI problem resides in doing just that. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 13:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::{{tq|She is a BYU employee, not an LDS Church employee. BYU employees can and do say things that contradicts the church}}{{pb}}This is completely false, as BYU is ''owned'' by the LDS Church and its honor code (literally the Church Education System Honor Code, sponsored by the LDS Church) expressly prohibits actions that go against church doctrine:{{tq2|As faculty, administration, staff, and students voluntarily commit to conduct their lives in accordance with the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ, they strive to maintain the highest standards in their personal conduct regarding honor, integrity, morality, and consideration of others. By accepting appointment, continuing in employment, being admitted, or continuing enrollment, each member of the campus communities personally commits to observe the CES Honor Code approved by the Board of Trustees: &lt;br&gt;Maintain an Ecclesiastical Endorsement, including striving to deepen faith and maintain gospel standards}}{{pb}}Multiple ''BYU professors'' have been fired for supporting--off-campus and strictly in a personal, sometimes even private, capacity--things the LDS church considers against-doctrine[https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4969940&amp;itype=NGPSID][https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2006/10/27/fired-byu-professors-speak-out/][https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2006/10/27/fired-byu-professors-speak-out/][https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/19/mormon-university-instructor-fired-after-facebook-post-supporting-lgbt-rights-she-says/][https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2022/02/16/byu-professor-says-she-was-let-go-lgbtq-advocacy], so there is absolutely reason to believe they would fire a mere student employee for expressing such opinions. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 13:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::It is an extrapolation beyond the stated honor code that you quoted to say &quot;principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ&quot; equals &quot;church doctrine&quot;. If that were true then all members of the faculty and employees would have to be members of the LDS Church (they aren't), not teach evolution (they do), not teach the big bang (they do), not teach a completely non-theistic abiogenesis and creation of the earth (they do), not teach that human civilization extends way past 4000BC with no mention of Nephites, Lamanites, or Noah's ark (they do), or not use &quot;LDS Church&quot; (they do). Again, it's demonstrably false the claimed level of control over BYU employees in general and specifically in this case. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Please read the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal|original thread]], this is discussed in great detail. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 13:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::You are conflating the acceptability of BYU profs lecturing on ''what is the mainstream, secular perspective on those topics, outside the context of the church'', and BYU profs opining on what is &quot;true&quot; about those topics ''in relation to church doctrine''. The former is endorsed by BYU, the latter can lead to threat of excommunication.[https://www.chronicle.com/article/mormon-scholar-facing-excommunication-for-research-gets-a-reprieve/] ({{tq|A professor at a Washington State community college who expected to be excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over an article he wrote regarding the Book of Mormon has had his disciplinary hearing postponed indefinitely. &lt;br&gt;Thomas W. Murphy, chairman of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, came under scrutiny for an article he wrote for American Apocrypha, an anthology published in 2002 by Signature Books. In the article, he reviews genetic data to refute the Mormon assertion that American Indians are descended from ancient Israelites. ...}}) [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-feb-16-me-mormon16-story.html][https://www.smh.com.au/world/mormons-excommunicate-australian-author-20050805-gdltir.html] ({{tq|An Australian author who wrote that DNA evidence fails to support the ancestral claims outlined in the Book of Mormon has been excommunicated by The Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints.}}) This is also blatantly obvious from the examples I gave above of BYU lecturers' personal opinions on homosexuality and feminism directly leading to their termination of employment. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::All BYU employees are directly employed by the LDS Church, there is no separation between the two. I'm surprised that someone who primarily edits in the LDS topic area wouldn't know that. Its also a bit odd that you're holding up evolution, age of the earth, Big Bang etc up as ways in which BYU contradicts church teachings when the LDS Church doesn't take a position on evolution and doesn't take a position on the age of the earth or how it/the universe was created beyond a rather wishy washy one. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 14:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *::::Note: a query to {{noping|FyzixFighter}} about any potential COI elicited this strange response.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FyzixFighter&amp;curid=2607466&amp;diff=1213843417&amp;oldid=1213808563] [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 13:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Thats not terribly surprising, at this point it looks like all of the editors besides FyzixFighter who were harassing anyone who question Rachel Helps (BYU) have disclosed COIs. Its a shame they have chosen to retire rather than face the music but thats their choice. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' If you aren't allowed to be neutral on this topic per terms of employment, you shouldn't be able to edit. Wikipedia has a lot of stuff not related to this to edit. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood|talk]]) 04:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose broad topic ban''' Oh no, don't ban my second-favorite wiki-gnome! Seriously, though, it saddens me to see someone who is so clearly a net-positive getting hauled off to AN/I like this. Though I don't recall collaborating directly with Rachel Helps, we've crossed paths many times over the past several years, and I've always been impressed by her approach to editing and interacting with others here. I've found her to be polite, intelligent, and honest, if perhaps a bit naive. I remember being confused the first time she crossed my watchlist...my knee-jerk reaction was &quot;why is an official BYU employee/representative editing articles about Mormonism&quot;? Then I looked at the substance of her edits...adding sources here, reverting vandalism there, removing copyvios, expanding articles about Mormon women, and refusing to take a stance on controversial issues where she thought she might be influenced by bias. Whenever there was a consensus on something, she would follow that consensus. If she wasn't sure about something, she would ask. I think I remember seeing her report herself to a noticeboard somewhere when another editor continued challenging her on something where she thought she was right but wanted to make sure the broader community thought so too. Look at her response to this. She's not digging in—she's trying to understand and comply with the community's expectations. If you look at her recent edits to [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)#Conflict of Interest statements]] you'll see that she's gone waaay overboard on trying to declare every possible conflict of interest. She's openly admitting fault where she was wrong, and is clearly committed to doing better. I hope the people !voting here and the closing admin will take that into consideration. Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 04:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't get the impression she is trying to understand me or anyone else who is concerned about the sum total of the mess that is Book of Mormon articles. There is absolutely no engagement with the issues at hand and when I tried to explain [[WP:FRINGE]] sourcing, the answer came back &quot;yes, we disagree.&quot; That's fine, but one of us is being paid to be here and has a ready paid group of students who look to her for editorial guidance, right? You haven't been in conflict with her. If you end up in conflict, do you think the wider context would be a problem? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 11:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I don't know that I'd call it &quot;conflict&quot; but I can recall instances where I've disagreed with edits I saw her making. In each case, she immediately stopped what she was doing and listened to my objections. If she wasn't convinced by my argument, she sought a wider consensus. I've never seen her edit against a consensus. <br /> *::A few years ago there was a big influx of newbie editors trying to scrub the words &quot;Mormon&quot; and &quot;Mormonism&quot; from the encyclopedia because of recent remarks from the correct LDS president/prophet saying that use of the term was offensive to God and a victory for Satan. (The LDS church has had a long on-again-off-again relationship with the word.) I personally thought it was best to continue using the word on Wikipedia, both to be true to how reliable sources talk about Mormonism, and to be accessible to readers who are only familiar with the common name. But I suddenly found myself in the minority in opposing the changes. I suspect that personally Rachel Helps wanted to follow the command of the LDS president and that her colleagues and possibly employers at BYU were hoping that she could make Wikipedia comply with the church's new style guide. But she didn't. She participated in some discussions about the disagreement, but she didn't push hard for any particular outcome, and she (afaict) has continued to this day to respect and enforce Wikipedia's own style guide that still explicitly allows calling people Mormons, probably to the chagrin of church leadership. <br /> *::Anyway, my point is that as far as disagreements go, Rachel Helps is one of the more pleasant people I've ever disagreed with. I wish more Wikipedians were like her in that respect. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 15:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I don't think pleasantness is an issue. There is a common misconception on Wikipedia that COIs are inherently somehow &quot;bad&quot;, but in reality the more you do in life the more COIs you accrue. It's only people who sit in their basement all day who don't have any COIs. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You didn't really answer my question. Here's where I am as of two days ago. This user has stated ''point blank'' that she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources. In the last two days, after going through hundreds of edits at dozens of articles I notice that this is the ''primary'' kind of sourcing that her students are inserting into articlespace and they are still active. I get the distinct impression that she will not be directing her students to re-evaluate their sourcing guidelines or engage with me in discussion about this topic. Now, if I had a bunch of students I could employ to check up on all this, maybe that would be an equal footing dispute. But I don't think the idea here is to start a paid editing arms race, is it? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Sorry, I definitely wasn't trying to dodge a question. I guess my point is that I think Rachel Helps is the kind of person who would voluntarily direct her students to follow whatever policy, guideline, or consensus you pointed her to. I think she could also be convinced by logic alone, but I can't say for sure...people like that seem to be rare these days. I wouldn't be surprised if, to comply with a consensus, she asked her students to nominate their own articles for deletion. That said, I am not really clear on what you mean by religious sources that have been noticed by other religious sources. Are you talking in general about religious academic sources citing each other, or specifically about Mormon academics citing other Mormon academics but without getting cited by non-Mormon religious scholars? (There are probably better forums than AN/I for that discussion.) &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 16:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::If you're interested, this discussion that ground to a halt is still on her user talkpage. Feel free to check it out. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::So this whole long thing arose out of a dispute over whether religious sources could be reliable? She wouldn't agree that reliable religious sources needed to be validated by reliable secular sources, or that verifiable information should be omitted entirely when nobody could find a reliable secular source on the subject, so you started a COI discussion at VPM and now we have a topic ban proposal?<br /> *::::::Why didn't you start an RFC over whether information only available in religious sources should be excluded wholesale from all of Wikipedia, instead of trying to get rid of one editor who disagreed with you? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::That is ''not'' what this arose out of. ''That'' dispute arose because I asked if she would consider hitting pause on her program and she came back with a set of sourcing guidelines that I found problematic. I asked her to hit pause on the program because I saw widespread issues that I am still working my way through and then noticed that all these students were being organized by one coordinator with what essentially amounted to the blessings of the GLAM/WIR system. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I want to offer an addendum that since I wrote this comment, Rachel Helps has begun engaging with me on her talkpage. I find this encouraging. I still think on the balance having her and her students move away from LDS topics is a good idea, but there is discussion happening and as long as that is happening there is hope. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Reply|Awilley}} did you see Levivich's request &quot;If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it.&quot;? We know you're involved and not a neutral admin, but do you have any conflicts of interest you should be disclosing? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 14:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::That's kind of a weird litmus test for participating in an AN/I thread. I'd like to think that people should be judged based on the strength of their arguments rather than assumptions about their motivation. But if you insist, I attended BYU from about 2006-2012. I would have no idea what AML was if I hadn't just read the thread on village pump. To my knowledge I don't know and have never met any of the people in this or the other thread IRL, though it's possible we crossed paths without my realizing it. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::: Its not weird if its an AN/I thread about undisclosed BYU related editing... Ok, I'm planning to open a new subsection about canvassing in a minute. Specifically regarding you and BoyNamedTzu. Is there anything you can tell me which would suggest that I should only open a discussion about BoyNamedTzu? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Eh, what? I don't know who BoyNamedTzu is. I logged in yesterday after getting a ping to the VP thread because I had participated in an older thread about you and Rachel Helps. Then I got another ping here because I had participated in the thread yesterday. I don't know what you're looking for, but since I've got your attention, I'd appreciate it if you could clue me in on what the invisible game of baseball is you mentioned on the VP thread. Because your response here seems a bit disproportionate. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Yes, it is your sudden and inexplicable participation in that older thread about Rachel Helps and I which forms the basis for the canvassing concerns. I believe I said it was a game of inside baseball with an invisible ball... Unfortunately I can't provide any of that information due to WP:OUTING concerns, but it has been provided to ARBCON. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose broad topic ban'''. If we banned people who had any formal association with a Christian church or worship group from editing articles about Christianity, and the same for all religions and sects, we would have nobody left to edit the articles about those important topics, except maybe culture warriors from opposing beliefs, and who wants that? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 07:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I think you have misunderstood Rachel Helps relationship; it goes beyond a &quot;formal association&quot; - she is an employee, and one who is paid to edit. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Do you think it's ok for a BYU employee, who is paid and pays others to edit Wikipedia, to publish a puffy {{diff2|1073250079|article}} about a Mormon organization she was actively writing pieces for; whose citations toward notability are an interview with one sentence of secondary independent coverage of the org, a piece on an exhibition organized by/featuring org members that also has only one sentence of secondary coverage of the org, and an award from another Mormon company for which this employee served as an awards judge the same year? Is it ok for this employee to initially deny COI with the claim she's merely &quot;interested in the page&quot;? And then, even after concerns about COI have been raised and seemingly acknowledged by her, and after the article was first draftified and then declined at AfC, to still recreate it? {{pb}}Is it ok for her to direct her employees to write articles on subjects ''because she can't write them herself due to COI&quot;? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 12:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', per above. I also believe we should be considering topic bans for the other involved BYU editors. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose such a ban'''. Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page, for example January 2023[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)&amp;oldid=1131332465] at a location allowed by [[WP:DISCLOSE]]. In brief, [[WP:COI]] says &quot;There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs) — Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations ...&quot; ([[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board]]) though there is considerable further nuance which requires careful consideration. Different people may legitimately have different understandings. The status of Wikipedians in Residence has for long been a contentious matter and the problems should not be visited on particular individuals. My own experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 12:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **What has your &quot;experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive.&quot; to do with a proposal to ban her specifically from BYU editing where evidence shows that it is not &quot;extremely positive&quot; as in neutral, but has too often a clear pro-BYU stance, reducing the emphasis on scientific positions and increasing the emphasis on non-scientific, partisan positions? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': I just added COI tags on ''&lt;s&gt;ten&lt;/s&gt;twelve more articles'' that are connected directly to the COI campaign to promote the [[Association of Mormon Letters]]. Friends, this is really gigantic problem. It's been going on for years. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''': Not being paid by Microsoft is not an excuse for being paid by another lobby group while acting against our trustworthiness guidelines. [[User:Pldx1|Pldx1]] ([[User talk:Pldx1|talk]]) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Courtesy Break (2) ====<br /> <br /> *'''Question''' - Is this a situation that could be resolved with some careful voluntary commitments? The primary issue, it seems to me, is about COI/PAID and not otherwise about competency or a pattern of violating NPOV (I understand there are side conversations about NPOV/RS, but it doesn't seem to be the primacy concern). A topic ban from LDS would not, then, address COI matters to do with any other topic and ''would'' prevent her from working on articles with no COI (unless we say belonging to a religion means you have a COI for articles about that religion and anyone else who happens to belong).&lt;br/&gt;What about a voluntary commitment to (a) maintain a list on her userpage of articles edited with a conflict of interest, erring on the side of inclusion; (b) adding a notice to the talk page of any article edited in connection with her job (there's another parallel discussion about templates/categories which could accomplish this); (c) specifically noting if an edit is made at the request of an employer? That, combined with the knowledge that her edits will receive additional scrutiny due to this thread, seems like it would resolve this without a topic ban, no? &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 13:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Can you explain how it would be possible for a paid edit not to come with a COI? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 14:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't think I understand your question. If an edit falls under [[WP:PE]], there is a COI. The trouble in this case, I think, is in the line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and paid editors. That's a big, messy question. Ditto the relationship between Mormon subjects broadly, BYU, LDS, etc. (not whether there is one, but how we should think about COI). &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Wikimedian in Residence is a type of paid editor, there is no line between the two. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm not sure what point you're making, but for clarity I will edit my words above: {{tq|line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and ^how we treat other^ paid editors}}. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::So if every edit that falls under PE has a COI... And every edit made by a wikipedian in residence falls under PE... How can a wikipedian in residence work on an article with which they don't have a COI? Any article they work on is one they have a COI with. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::This has not generally been how the community chooses to interact with Wikimedians in Residence. We expect them to take a &quot;warts and all&quot; approach to editing, and to be cautious, but we also do not expect or AFAICT want them to spam {{tl|edit COI}} on most of their contributions. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::And the Wikimedian in Residence in question here has met neither of those expectations. They have not taken a &quot;warts and all&quot; approach to editing and have been about as far away from cautious as its possible to be. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Note that they were first cautioned about this back in 2016 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amgisseman(BYU)/Archive_1&amp;oldid=854327236#COI] and yet the issue there &quot;main concern is breach of our terms of use and COI&quot; is the same issue here because they did not heed the caution. At some points Helps must have wondered why dozens of editors she didn't know were raising issues with her edits and why the people defending her were almost all people she knew personally. She's not a stupid person, she pretty clearly knew that what she was doing wasn't kosher from at least 2016 onwards. She continued to do it anyway. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I would like to understand how this would prevent, for example, the coordinated editing from the Church of Scientology that we banned. We don't enforce disciplinary measures against people on the basis of their religious adherence. But here we have a group is being paid by an institution which is directly involved in the promulgation of said religion. When that happened with the Church of Scientology, we ''blocked the associated IP addresses'' on the argument that there basically was no way they could contribute to the encyclopedia ''at all''. And to be sure, a lot of those accounts did good work other than being part of that coordinated effort. How is this different ''at all''? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The Scientology case began with extensive NPOV violations achieved through sock/meatpuppetry/coordination. We didn't ban them because they were scientologists writing about scientology; we banned them because they were scientologists writing about scientology ''contrary to our policies''. Such evidence hasn't been presented here as far as I've seen. Some level of coordination, yes, which should be disclosed, but not to game the system. That's a fundamental difference that makes the scientology comparison misleading. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Did you read the VPM thread? I document a few of the diffs there and it's basically a litany of the same. Here we have a group of editors who are adding prose that basically takes the Book of Mormon ''on its own terms'' as a text. When called out on it, the ringleader declared that she fundamentally disagrees with people who object to that behavior. It's exactly the same kind of thing the scientologists were doing. And, I mean, I was there for that one and saw it happening. Do me a favor and look at ''any'' of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group. Or look at all the pages I just tagged with COI and see how many of them were connected to Rachel. This is a complete clusterfuck. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Scanned it, but apparently I have more to look at. Will check it out before !voting here. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 16:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I could use a pointer to the evidence you're referring to. I see diffs about COI, but not diffs of edits made my Rachel which violate our policies. The content-related diffs I do see (e.g. in your 17:06, 12 March 2024 comment) were made by others, who aren't the subject of this section. {{tq|Do me a favor and look at ''any'' of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group.}} Is this an argument about over-coverage (in which case I'd rather see evidence of lots of deleted pages created by Rachel rather than focused efforts to cover a subject -- I'd argue we have overcoverage of a lot of religious subjects, including Mormonism, and a whole lot of editors focus on specific subjects), or is it an argument about use of inappropriate sources? Regardless, this isn't a topic ban for a group, it's a topic ban for one person so we'd need evidence that Rachel is editing in a non-neutral or otherwise problematic way (not just COI, which seems like something that can be resolved with transparency/assurances). It seems to me there's a bigger conversation that needs to happen regarding use of sources published in connection to a religion and/or by members of that religion. I don't think I peruse religious articles as much as you or many others, but it seems to me like most of them rely on such &quot;in-universe&quot; sources. I don't think that's ideal, but I'm wary of singling one out. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Hmm... are you saying that you don't think that she should be accountable for the edits that she paid her students to make? I can give you some examples of edits that she made if that's more to your liking, but I'm somewhat surprised that you are so dismissive of student edits which she has later defended on talkpages (but it's possible you aren't looking at larger context due to time). [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::How does a tban for RH prevent her students from doing anything at all? How would it prevent anything that happens off-wiki? As with any student program, if a student is persistently making bad edits, sanction them like you would any other user. If an instructor displays a pattern of disregard for our policies such that their students are a consistent net negative, that's a different kind of sanction (and I don't think there's enough evidence for that here, either, though that doesn't mean there haven't been problems). What I would expect for a tban on an individual is a pattern of harmful edits made to that topic area. That case hasn't been made sufficiently. The case that has been made, insofar as I've seen, is that there have been some clear COI problems and a difference of opinion when it comes to sourcing religious topics. On the latter, I think you and I are probably on the same page, but I don't see it as an entirely resolved policy issue. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Wouldn't a TBAN mean paying her students for making any particular edits in that area would be sanctionable for both her and the students? So any edit made in LDS topics by the (BYU) student accounts would be a TBAN violation, but they would be free to edit in that area on their personal accounts. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::The students would be stopped by [[WP:MEAT]] because they receive assignments from RH. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::The relationships are a little confusing to me. We're talking, I think, about effectively interns/research assistant/student ''workers'' on one hand and students being students on the other hand. If RH were to be tbanned, that would make any students hired/directed to make specific edits by RH fall somewhere between MEAT and PROXYING, yes, which is a bad place to be. I don't think a general instruction to &quot;edit Wikipedia&quot; would be prevented, though. Nor would students hired by someone else and merely supported by RH. And a tban wouldn't prevent RH from what I suspect is the more common scenario: helping students, faculty, staff, and others to edit according to their ''own'' interests (i.e. not directed but supported). And that's IMO a good thing, not just because that attempts to reach too far off-wiki with on-wiki sanctions, but also because while the COI stuff should definitely be avoided, RH is better equipped than a typical student (or even faculty) editor to provide best practices/instruction, etc. I'd say that's probably more rather than less true after this thread. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 14:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::The way RH has set up the projects is that she guides the students ''very carefully'' in what they do. This is actually one positive thing she does that does not happen with other similar programs I have seen, so good on her for that. The upshot is that I would not want this kind of guidance on her part to end if this paid editing program continues, so her students would ''effectively be TBanned'' as well. If we started to see lots of edits the way they have been editing, that would, in my mind, constitute a topic ban violation. I cannot speak for RH, but I suspect that she would have them move away from Mormonism topics if she were TBanned which would be ''the best possible outcome'', as far as I'm concerned.<br /> ::::::::::And, no, I am not convinced that things are going to get better just because of this discussion. There seems to have been an enculturation over the last few years which has provoked a kind of perfect storm of bad editing practices that I have been digging into over the last few days and it is not going to be easy to figure out what to do about all this. There seems to be an over-focus on treating the Book of Mormon as literature which is the main thrust behind RH's favored approach and that of others conflicted with the [[Association of Mormon Letters]]. Right now, we have lots of articles on weird little topics within the book of Mormon which treat the thing as though it were literature like Tolkien or Dickens I guess as a way to sidestep questions related to the religious beliefs that surround these things. The students she has coached seem to have adopted this approach in part while also maintaining delightfully matter-of-fact retellings of the mythology as though it were fact. It's a mess.<br /> ::::::::::But the students aren't really to blame here. They're being led by a much-lauded (by enablers you can see in this very thread) Wiki[p|m]edian in Residence who has been scrupulously trying to follow the rules and no one bothered to tell her that maybe editing about a religion as controversial as Mormonism ('''to which she belongs and is employed by the religious authorities of that religion through their in-house institution of higher education with strict rules on what she can and cannot do vis-a-vis that religion''') maybe is not going to sit well with some in the Wikipedia community that takes things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:FRINGE]] seriously.<br /> ::::::::::So here we are. Your idea to get her to clean things up means unlearning years of training that she invented without input from the community. I look forward to seeing what kind of program you might be able to invent that could address that. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Voluntary commitments, really? No I wouldn't support that because a number of the editors involved have previously lied about not having COIs when asked. Also because this is years of undisclosed COI editing happening here. So, no, it'd be crazy of us to trust any voluntary commitments from people who have actively deceived us for such a long time and up until so recently. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]], and similar action against other COI editors should be considered, per [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]. This is an area where WP should take a hardline stance. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per [[User:Vghfr]], [[User:Fram]] and others. But I think we have a wider issue with LSD-related articles here that a few topic bans will not solve it. I agree with [[User:JoelleJay]]'s comment in the other discussion about the lack of NPOV in &quot;topics that are only discussed in publications by LDS members and thus exclusively reflect LDS-endorsed teaching on the topic&quot;. We have a massive walled garden of hundreds if not thousands of these obscure, otherwise NN topics sourced only to LSD-related publications which could pass the surface of GNG and easily [[WP:GAME|game]] the notability rules. --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Our articles on Catholicism mostly reflect Catholic sources. Our articles on Judaism mostly reflect Jewish sources. That is natural and only to be expected. Why is it suddenly a problem when the same thing occurs in our articles on LDS? The people one would expect to be interested in and write about LDS are...LDS people. That is the nature of the sources. It is not a conflict of interest to use the mainstream sources that are available. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::While [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]], that has ''not'' been my experience as I edited those topics. In fact, many of our Catholic articles have sources which are explicitly critical of the Catholic Church nearly to the point of vitriol. By contrast, Judaism is so irreverent and delightfully self-critical that I am at a loss for why you think the comparison to those pages is at all apt. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Yes – if and when those other sources exist, are reliable, are relevant, etc. <br /> *:::But from your comment above that {{xt|she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources}}, it sounds like the complaint you have here is that some content is being added from LDS-related sources when no non-religious source has ever disagreed with the LDS-related source. <br /> *:::I have not seen any disputes in which someone adds information about a Catholic or Jewish religious idea, from a reliable source written by a religious organization, and someone else demands that the reliable source be removed on the grounds that non-religious sources haven't published anything on that subject. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Then you haven't been looking at disputes over the [[Shroud of Turin]]. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Why would we even need specific examples from Catholic or Jewish editors when we had a whole arbcom case surrounding exactly this behavior from Scientology adherents? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Because a new religious group with something on the order of 10 thousand members is not the same as a 200-year religion with 17 million members. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::LDS is a [[new religious movement]] the same as Scientology. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::What does the number of years a religion has been around or number of members of a religion have to do with anything? The only thing I can think of is that there are probably more sources if there is more time and people involved, which is true. But on the substance these things are the same. I mean, Mormonism and Scientology are actually ''very'' comparable. There are a great many excellent sources which show that. In fact, that was at one time one of the articles on my list of articles to write. The funny thing is that neither the Mormons nor the Scientologists like the comparison. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that ''actually might have happened'' and so are of interest to secular historians, enough primary interpretations of scripture to engage dozens of generations of academics, and far broader and more significant impact on human culture in general, permitting even more opportunities for interdisciplinary scholarship. We should not be treating every religious movement as if they're each equally likely to have the depth and independence of sourcing needed to support pages on minor aspects of their faith. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Well, some new religions too. For example, the foundational sacred texts of the [[Nation of Islam]] has some fascinating description of what life was like in the African American community of Detroit in the 1930s. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Re &quot;Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that actually might have happened&quot;: this reads as straight-up prejudice to me (and I have zero connection with LDS). You might just as well say have a much greater likelihood that those older religions' texts contain fabulations, misreadings, and other material we wouldn't want to take as literally true, simply because they've had so much longer to accumulate that sort of material. But we are not basing our content on the content of the Book of Mormon; we are basing it on the accounts of their historians. I would tend to imagine that, while biased, those accounts are maybe more likely to be accurate, because they are from a more recent time with better records, while the writings of the early Christian church historians have the same tendency to their own bias. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 00:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::Yes, the older religions generally do have much more fabulist text, as well as a lot more material that has taken on mythical aspects or been reported by apologists (e.g. miracles) over hundreds or thousands of years. But that's irrelevant to what I am saying, which is that it's far more likely texts recounting religious narratives that we can accurately date to c. 300 AD will also have some bits of real history and info on life at the time that can't be found anywhere else, and would thus be of intense interest to modern scholars in many fields, than scripture written more recently (as contemporaneous writings become more numerous, the preciousness of any single one as a major primary source across multiple disciplines outside religion decreases) or scripture that wholly fabricates ancient history and is virtually useless to anyone actually studying its purported time period. {{pb}}There are extensive secondary analyses of secondary analyses etc. of scholarship on Jewish or Catholic scriptural and metaphysical questions, and new external sources or theories on the cultural/geopolitical/philosophical climate of a time continue to be discovered and incorporated into what we know about a spiritual topic ''beyond'' exegesis of scripture. We don't need to rely on unreliable primary or old secondary sources to do this because we generally have plenty of modern secondary sources, often in multiple nonsecular fields, to use in writing a comprehensive and neutral article on a subject. We ''don't'' have this for LDS topics because the furthest back historians can go from BoM et al scripture is 200 years ago. But LDS historians are still analyzing their scriptures in the sincere belief that they recount actual events from thousands of years ago, making the same kinds of extrapolations and interpolations from their holy books to reconstruct that past that any other historian would do with genuine ancient text, except ''none of it corresponds to real history''. No questions in anthropology or archaeology or history are being answered in any way that is meaningful outside of LDS faith, and so no secular researchers in those disciplines have any reason to publish academic commentary on the LDS scholars' theories. The result is that we have hundreds of pages on minor characters and events from BoM where the only sources are from adherents collaboratively building what amounts to a fictional literary universe &lt;small&gt;(or, perhaps as a more fitting analogy, a new, Hardy-hard branch of pure math)&lt;/small&gt;, except it's dressed up in the same historiographic structure as we'd have on a topic with thousands of years of history. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 02:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::It's my view, not necessarely agreeable, but if an LSD topic has no sources outside LSD sources it is likely unnotable, and writing a balanced article about it is impossible. Also, I am not necessarely referring to strictly religious topics, eg., we have obscure, semi-amateur and poorly released films only sourced from ''[[Journal of Religion and Film]]'', byu.edu and similar, same with books and other products. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 19:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I think this is a sensible rule. However, I worry about defining &quot;LDS source&quot; too broadly. ''Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction'' is written by a Mormon, but it's published by Oxford University Press and targeted at a non-LDS audience. Oxford also publishes an annotated Book of Mormon. I think we need to narrowly define what falls into this category, and have that conversation in a less heated atmosphere than ANI. [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I agree with Cavarrone about notability, but I think the solution there is not to announce that only a secular source could possibly be acceptable for explaining the symbolism of the story, and that if no secular source ever wrote about the symbolism, then symbolism can't be mentioned in Wikipedia, but to take the article to AFD.<br /> *::::When we're talking about a notable subject, though, I think our usual rules work perfectly well for this subject. We don't require independent sources for everything that gets mentioned in an article, and that's true whether you're writing about how many employees Microsoft has, or what the symbolism of the story is, or why the artist chose to put a colorful blanket behind the cow's skull. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Let me give a concrete example to help focus the conversation. On multiple articles I found years given for events described in the Book of Mormon. Some of those years were laughably specific. Some of those years are repeated by many, many Mormon sources. Now, I would love for there to be an article in Wikipedia about [[Ascribing dates to the stories in the Book of Mormon]] or something like that to explain exactly the weird calculus that Mormon apologists go through in arriving at these dates and why certain dates are more popular with certain Mormons than others, but the fact of the matter is that this has been so little noticed by independent sources that in many cases it ''has not even occurred to the authors of our own articles'' that putting in years might be a problem. The easiest solution I think is to excise them, but sure, it's not the only possible solution. But the solution cannot be, &quot;let's just put those dates in the articles and call it a day.&quot; which was, as far as I can tell, the standard operating procedure. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::No, but the solution ''could'' be &quot;Let's put the dates in with [[WP:INTEXT]] attribution&quot;.<br /> *::::::The main point of this sub-thread, though, is to talk about whether we're treating all religions equally. Have you seen a similar thing in, say, Catholic articles, in which someone adds some papal pronouncement, and other editors say, &quot;Oh, no, you can't add that unless you have a secular source, too&quot;? I haven't. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::Absolutely! As I pointed out above, when there are clear fabrications (as in, for example, the case of [[Marian apparitions]]), we do the same thing. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::By the way, these students got the memo about [[WP:INTEXT]]. The problem is that that often goes like this, &quot;According to [PERSON'S NAME THAT IS UNMENTIONED EXCEPT FOR RIGHT HERE], this story is all about...&quot; Or, worse, &quot;According to historian [HISTORIAN]...&quot; and you research the historian and come to find that they are a professor of history at BYU who wrote the book, &quot;How I KNOW the Book of Mormon is true&quot; or whatever. So, no, [[WP:INTEXT]] isn't cure-all. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Neutral'''Yes, things are not okay. But I have serious trouble with the fact that a topic ban can cost her her job. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px&quot;&gt;[[User:The Banner|&lt;span style=&quot;color:green&quot;&gt;The&amp;nbsp;Banner&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|&lt;i style=&quot;color:maroon&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/i&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:If this ban will cause loss of employment as a Wikipedian in Residence, wouldn't this be seen as a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] as this is threatening the editor's livelihood? Furthermore, wouldn't the effort to have editors who have any affiliation with [[Brigham Young University]] in relation to [[Mormanism]] cause a [[chilling effect]] and diminish the improvement of articles around that topic? [[User:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B22234&quot;&gt;'''Right'''Cow&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background-color: #C2B280; color:#3C3B6E&quot;&gt;'''LeftCoast'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;Moo&lt;/span&gt;]]) 23:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Surely you could ask these questions about any analogous remedy addressing a WiR or systematic COI. Surely these positions aren't immune from scrutiny; we're concerned about people being paid by BYU to edit Wikipedia, not every individual affiliated with them in any way. If you're making some other point, I am not able to tell what it is. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 23:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Strong oppose'''. Rachel Helps has been a consistent positive contributor to an essential area of religious discourse. She is professionally talented, responsive to community, an active participant on multiple open networks of movement organizers, and an ambitious trainer and supervisor for others. There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed and aims to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion. There are plenty of COI battles to fight; this isn't one of them. [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]&lt;sup&gt; [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]&amp;#124;[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:To clarify, are you opposing the topic ban for Thmazing (not Rachel Helps)? [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 20:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I've moved it to the correct section. Apologies and thanks for the tip! [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]&lt;sup&gt; [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]&amp;#124;[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **{{u|Ocaasi}}, you appear to have a) !voted in the wrong section and b) failed to read anything more than the section heading, as then you would know that the issue is that their work has not been &quot;disclosed&quot; or &quot;rigorous&quot; on subjects they were professionally connected to. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 20:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't think &quot;aiming to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion&quot; is necessarily good enough. Otherwise [[WP:CIR]] bans/blocks wouldn't be a thing. Now, maybe you oppose those bans/blocks too, but I am ''deep'' in the weeds right now of seeing how Rachel Helps's students were treating material relevant to their religion and... hooboy... even if their hearts were in the right place they are doing us no favors in articlespace. I am very, very happy she has finally told her students to work in sandboxes which, if that had been happening all along I probably wouldn't be involved in this, but the conversation I'm having with her right now is one the &quot;Open Networks of Movement Organizers&quot; should have had with her ''years'' ago about her programming. Y'all did her dirty and I'm actually angrier at her enablers than I am at her. She honestly did not know this was coming and by running defense this whole time after multiple people have sounded alarms (just look through her usertalkpage archive), you did not give her the support she would have needed to actually make something like this work (or choose to not do it at all in case, as I suspect, it would be impossible to make this stuff work). [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Point of order: she knew this was coming for the last four years at least[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Brigham_Young_University]. Thats what makes the refusal to improve and meet the standards/practices outlined by the community so bad. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Thanks for bringing that up. You neglrct to mention that there was no administrative acton resulting from that discussion, and no community admonishment or sancation. Indeed, even the person raising the issue noted {{Tq|1=&quot;They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable.&quot;}} and, later, {{Tq|1=&quot;I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions.&quot;}} &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *::::Well yeah, that discussion got mobbed by people we now know had major undisclosed COIs. You're selectively cherrypicking in a way that seems misleading at best, especially considering the things you say in that discussion. We have the same thing happening there as here, Rachel Helps is informed about best practices and rejects them saying for example &quot;In my opinion, best practices should be defined by the people doing the job.&quot; [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{tq|They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable.}} I don't really have time to go back into the history of four years ago to check if that was true then, but it is ''absolutely not the case right now''. I have been going through dozens of Book of Mormon articles that were being edited by this crew and with ''very few exceptions'' they are not NPOV nor well-sourced -- many are either [[WP:PROFRINGE]] or written in something like [[WP:INUNIVERSE]] with bizarre assumptions, turns of phrase, etc. I am finding all kinds of sources being used that have 0 citations according to Google Scholar! [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmmonihah&amp;diff=1213862128&amp;oldid=1213852106 Rachel Helps (BYU) is defending this practice of keeping such shoddy sources in these articles] much to my disappointment. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Ping|Ocaasi}} Are you also an active participant in those open networks of movement organizers? Any conflicts you should be disclosing? Pardon the question but we seem to be having an issue with undisclosed COIs on a number of levels in this discussion. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Strong support''' per Rachel Helps: &quot;{{brown|I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI.}}&quot; I am unable to trust this user in this topic area any longer. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 01:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **I believe the above admission I highlighted contrasts with several opposers' rationale, and I quote from each of them: (1) {{tq|How anyone can ... say her CoI is &quot;undisclosed&quot;}} (2) {{tq|Banning someone for a procedural error}}, (3) {{tq|Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page}}, (4) {{tq|There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed}}. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***Please don't quote me (and others) out of context; even if you do neglect to give attrbution when doing so. What I wrote and what I was replying to when I did so is avaialble for anyone to see, at the top of this thread. What you quote Rachel saying does not negate my comment. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ****{{re|Pigsonthewing}} - you defended Rachel indicating that she disclosed COI on the (BYU) account. But, she admitted undisclosed COI on the other, personal account. The same person is behind both accounts, so I am afraid she didn’t handle COI properly. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 00:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Hesitant oppose''', because I'm a little worried we're conflating some related but separate issues here. It is quite clear that Rachel Helps did a poor job of disclosing her COIs, and lost perspective when editing some topics on which she had a COI. It is clear that many BYU-affiliated editors have been writing poor content. And it is clear that many pages related to Mormonism have too much material from uncritical sources (but this isn't limited to Mormonism by any means). But I don't see this topic-ban addressing any of those issues, and indeed I think it might worsen them, because Rachel is better placed than many editors to help fix these issues. I do think her ''students'' need to be moved away from LDS-related topics: whether because they're being paid, or the rules of BYU, or their upbringing, or some combination thereof, there seems to be a recurring pattern of poor content that others need to fix. But at this moment I don't see how this TBAN would achieve much besides being a punishment. It wouldn't even fix the COI issue, because as best as I can tell religion is sort of incidental to those COI issues; it's just Rachel editing about things she's involved with in RL, which is a problem to be sure, but isn't limited to Mormonism. It seems to me Rachel is taking the concerns expressed here seriously, and we'd do better to focus on the problematic content other editors, including her students, may have introduced. For the record, I consider myself quite firmly in favor of avoiding apologetic sources and in-universe sources for religious subjects, and have argued for this position in numerous cases involving most major religions. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 03:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Okay, this is a convincing (to me) oppose. Only reason I stay supporting the ban is that I see a topic ban from LDS would probably encourage a lot of the best-case scenario stuff to happen anyway and it might get accomplished and probably more quickly. Yes, she is well-placed to fix issues and I'm sure she wants to fix them, but maybe it would be better if she and her students focused on other things that could be done at that library. The flora and fauna of the Great Basin, for example. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 05:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future (minor, because major ones receive editorial scrutiny and attention from critical sources; it's the ones that don't that seem to be the focus of the problem). [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::In that case, why not topic ban just to make it clear? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Because there's a big difference between &quot;shouldn't add substantive content to these pages going forward&quot; and &quot;isn't permitted to discuss these topics in any way shape or form&quot;. I stand by what I said above that Rachel herself is best placed to help us clean up some of this mess. Not to mention that TBANNing her when she still has active students would be quite silly; those would then be completely unsupervised. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Why would that be silly? We're all completely unsupervised and these are adult in college, not children in middle or high school. They should be entirely capable of editing wikipedia on their own, we all do. Also note that while these are student employees they are not her students in the sense that they are enrolled in a class where she is their instructor. She is an employer/manager not a teacher or professor to these editors. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::So you're describing a TBAN from articlespace? I agree that this is where most of the damage is happening--discussion spaces are much less problematic. As for your &quot;unsupervised active student&quot; argument, I don't understand it even a little bit. You already said &quot;I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future.&quot; RH would still be able to supervise them to edit articles on the flora and fauna of the Great Basin. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Very simply, those students are a net-positive largely because of Rachel's supervision, and as such I oppose any TBAN on those grounds until we simultaneously apply it to all students she is responsible for. She may technically be able to supervise them on non-LDS topics, but that's quite unworkable in practice. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' Even though the COI is greater than Mormonism this would at least serve as a warning that Helps' COI editing is causing concern. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 12:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **&quot;serve as a warning &quot; You think this thread doesn't do that? &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:Some warnings may need to be more forcefully made than others. I sympathize with the idea that Rachel Helps (BYU) probably thought everything was fine and that the complaints that had been leveled against her over the years were nothingburgers. Unfortunately, those complaints were serving as warnings that obviously went unheeded. And, to be frank, I think people like you are to blame for enabling her and not being honest with her that this was coming. Now, maybe you didn't know this was coming, but ''someone'' in your group of WMF/GLAM/WIR in-person conference/wiknic attendees should have noticed and taken her aside and given her the advice that right now is coming down like a pile of bricks. But it didn't happen. Years went by and here we are. That's right, I am much angrier at ''you'' (and the position you are representing right now) than I am at her. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' per Vanamonde93. While there are some issues, they don't amount to the kind of egregious problem that would warrant such dracionian action; and there is no previous sanction, let alone one wilfuly disregarded. I might suport some lesser remedy, such as mentiorship. or a probationary period after which we can reviist the matter if issues persist. But I believe Rachel's work has been shown to be - and wil contnue to be - a net benefit to this project. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 14:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Reply|Pigsonthewing}} I see this isn't your first rodeo[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Brigham_Young_University]. Can I ask how opinion has changed since the first time you commented on this issue four years ago? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Maybe we should start asking the harder question whether involvement in WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest. Because I see wagon circling. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::There's no question it does, the only question is whether its enough of a COI to be an issue (signs point to yes BTW given the wagon circling). [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::{{tq|WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest}} - ''Does'' WMF fund this WiR? Most WiR positions these days (AFAIK) are funded by the hiring institutions. I would be shocked if the WMF were funding this one just based on the fact that it involves on-wiki editing, which has been a line for the WMF, historically. Likewise most GLAM projects have nothing to do with the WMF. If you go to a museum and say &quot;can I tell you about Wikipedia&quot; or &quot;want to upload some photos to Commons&quot; or &quot;want to host an edit-a-thon&quot; then you're involved with a GLAM project, regardless of who funds it or whether it involves any funding at all. The extent to which the WMF is involved with most edit-a-thons is to fund an affiliate, who then e.g. buys a couple pizzas for attendees. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 16:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I don't think that sponsored and funded are synonyms there... Anything under the banner or that is allowed to use the branding is sponsored even if there is no funding provided. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *:::::Agreed. While more-or-less radically open to anyone, someone (the community) ultimately does have to agree that GLAM is appropriately attached to something so that it can be called that. This is usually pro forma, but it still ends up supported. If &quot;sponsored&quot; is the troubling word, choose another synonym that means the same without necessarily monetary support. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' - I started typing this yesterday, and find that Vanamonde has articulated some similar reasons, so partially &quot;per Vanamonde&quot;. I see evidence of insufficiently disclosed COIs, evidence that RH is working to address those problems, evidence of years of good faith engagement with the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community, evidence of problematic edits made by ''other'' people, a big thorny question about independence of sourcing in religious articles that's better addressed elsewhere, and not nearly enough diffs showing violations of our content policies by RH to justify a tban.&lt;br/&gt;That said, I would strongly urge RH to set some boundaries in the WiR role and to articulate those boundaries on their user page. Our COI guideline is messy and applied inconsistently, and often with a rhetorical flourish that tries to combine the negative connotations with ''close'' COIs and the technical definition of COI that includes ''distant'' COIs we don't actually view as a problem. All of this makes things challenging for anyone who does any editing with a close or [moderate?, for lack of a better word] COI, since you have to be able to judge how much COI is going to be too much, and be prepared for that scale to slide based on other factors (as in this case, the role of money and the role of other affiliated editors). Being transparent goes a long way, but my own $0.02 is that you should absolutely abstain from editing or assigning anyone to edit an article on any subject you've received money from, that you're on the board for, that you have a nontrivial personal relationship with, etc. That's what {{tl|Edit COI}} is for. The COI guideline doesn't ''require'' you stay away, but editing those articles while being paid is a recipe for disaster. I worry that it erodes the thin line between &quot;the kind of paid editing we like&quot; and &quot;the kind of paid editing we don't like&quot; such that the life of future WiRs will be more difficult. Enwiki's view of COI seems like it will only become more volatile.&lt;br/&gt;All in all, I think having a highly experienced Wikipedian on staff is very much a good thing. RH has the ability to translate the complicated and ever-evolving PAGs (and their interpretations) for a large community. As long as most of the problematic ''content'' edits are other people's, it would be good to have RH available to help. Besides, as I started off saying, the evidence just isn't here to justify a tban. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Mostly I agree with you, however I do assign greater accountability to RH for what you're calling &quot;other people's&quot; edits. In these cases she is both acting as the supervisor of, and ''paying'', these other people to make those problematic edits, which I think elevates her responsibility quite a bit. Especially given several of the articles she assigned to students were assigned because she felt she had too much of a COI to write them herself... [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Yes, if you have a COI and assign/pay someone to edit it, that doesn't negate the COI. It just creates another level of PAID and/or a [[WP:MEAT]]/proxy-based COI, which is probably going to be regarded as worse insofar as it obscures the COI. Along the lines of voluntary commitments and clear articulations of boundaries that I've been talking about, I'd hope something acknowledging as much would be in there, if she hasn't addressed it already. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 19:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::The best I can say is that she is asking her students to sandbox. That's the full extent of it that I've seen. She will be stepping away for a few days, but maybe you could ask her when she gets back to implement something that would make you comfortable? I'm kinda of the opinion that the more ways we try to solve this the better. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 21:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Courtesy Break (3) ====<br /> <br /> * &lt;u&gt;'''Support''' per {{u|Aquillion}}&lt;/u&gt; &lt;s&gt;'''Oppose''' per {{u|Awilley}}, {{u|Rhododendrites}}, {{u|Vanamonde93}}, {{u|FyzixFighter}} [&lt;/s&gt;I admit that the comment pointed out by {{u|Starship.paint}} is troubling.&lt;s&gt;], but at minimum a strong warning and possibly some edit-restrictions and proposals like agreements by {{u|Rhododendrites}}.&lt;/s&gt; I did &lt;s&gt;not&lt;/s&gt; see evidence of a strong warning for the behavior when it was discovered followed by a recalcitrant refusal to comply and/or apology with repeating the behavior. (If that was the case, I would reconsider.&lt;u&gt;It was per {{u|Levivich}} (thank you for providing this link: [[WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University]]), and I have hence changed my !vote&lt;/u&gt;) It appears her editing is not so much a problem as the failure to disclose the COI and paid-editing, e.g. {{u|Awilley}}’s comments. As for her students' editing as described by {{u|Vanamonde93}}, that is another matter&lt;u&gt;. I explain my position on that below in response to jps and Grandpallama&lt;/u&gt;&lt;s&gt;--I'm not sure how best to handle that. I'm not in favor of a topic ban for all of them--but consquences for those that have problematic behavior, were warned, and continued. Would support this done on case-by-case basis. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the two examples kindly provided below to see if such mass action is best.&lt;/s&gt;<br /> :&lt;s&gt;As much as I am opposed to paid editing, unfortunately, we allow it, so--unless I have misunderstood [[WP:PAID]] (and [[WP:PEW]])--our greatest concern by allowing compensation for edit (or COI) is on their ability to follow [[WP:NPOV]]. If they can’t follow [[WP:NPOV]], then the COI and paid-editing are aggravating factors favoring restriction or prohibition of editing in that area. And although non-disclosure is certainly a problem and must have consequences and accountability, it’s not clear to me there was an intent to deceive or other behavior so severe that we can’t seek an alternative accountability measures than a topic-ban.&lt;/s&gt;<br /> :I don’t know what typically happens when a failed disclosure is revealed. Has it *always* been the case that such discovery resulted in a topic ban from the subject area, site ban, or similar? Is it true as {{u|Levivich}} opined {{tq|If Microsoft hired people to create articles about its products, and these editors disclosed they were paid editors but in some cases promoted some of these products while working with other Microsoft employees who edited with undisclosed COI, Wikipedia would siteban all of them with little discussion.}} Are there such examples?<br /> :&lt;s&gt;I believe we warn the editor, give them another chance with a short leash, and bring them right back here if it continues.&lt;/s&gt; --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;small&gt;[revised 05:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC); 06:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> ::Scientology is the obvious example. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 01:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Editing around Falun Gong has also had similar problems. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 17:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{ping|ජපස|Grandpallama}} Thank you for the examples. Would you mind giving me a link or two for the mass action?<br /> ::::I do ultimately think what is done with the students might best be adjudicated separately with evidence for each student involved--if that was done sufficiently already here and I glossed over it, my apologies. I was focussed on the incorrect assumption that Rachel Helps had ''not'' been warned. That really changes everthing about my thinking about both her and how it impacted the students behavior.<br /> ::::Any that we know conclusively were paid and didn't disclose it, I would support a topic or site ban. I don't care if she said it was okay not to disclose.<br /> ::::For any that are unpaid, it is likely she misled and incorrectly advised them about proper behavior here. So, the key question, did WE advise them about proper behavior -and- did we warn them when they crossed a line? Any student who crossed the line after OUR sufficient warning--regardless of what she might have told them to the contrary--I would support an indefinite TB for students falling into that case. Those students might realize they were duped, apologize, and come clean. I do see this as a &quot;teachable moment&quot;, and I would hope we can retain some of the students who really are interested in following the rules and helping to build an encyclopedia that is NPOV. They may actually gain respect for us for holding her accountable.<br /> ::::Any in this second category that are allowed to stay here, I'd say we give each an immediate stern warning about the result of what happened to her and why, about COI and POV-editing and the consequences for their instructor for such inappropriate behavior. Let them know they will be under scrutiny moving forward and that they are on a short leash in that topic area.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 05:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> :::::I guess let [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology]] be your light reading today. There is a lot here and I'm not sure I can help wade through it all. RH and her students ''have'' disclosed that they were paid. I am not sure there are any unpaid volunteers or not, but that would be good to clarify. The warnings about COI were thwarted in the past through certain COIN discussions that were closed with &quot;no action&quot;. This was definitely unfortunate because here we are back today. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 10:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I agree with SCI (which was almost entirely about a situation like this), not so much with COFS (which was more about [[User:Shutterbug|User:COFS]]). I think [[WP:Requests for arbitration/Hunger|THP]] or [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors|MrW]] is better reading here than COFS. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 23:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thanks for the links. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{ping|ජපස}} Thanks for the links. I started to continue to write about what I thought should happen with the students given the fact that they are all paid, but the more time I spent trying to articulate a fair position, the more I realized it would be better to give space to those like yourself who know what typically happens in these cases and the policy involved. From first reading about this, I was inclined towards {{u|Levivich}}'s position of not holding the students unduly responsible for poor supervision, but my concern about paid editing is closer to {{u|Aquillion}}. I'm stepping back.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''2020 COIN''' - [[WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University]] - just want to make sure everyone is aware of the time this issue was discussed in 2020. Among the people claiming there was no COI editing at that time was Nihonjoe. We now know that the concerns raised then were real, some of the people defending it had undisclosed COI, and the discussion did not lead to improvement in how COI was handled by Rachel Helps. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Oh dear. From that thread: {{tq|Hi, I disagree with the idea that all pages I edit are COI. My job doesn't depend on showing people in a positive light.}} What she fails to say that if she started showing [[Russell M. Nelson|certain people]] in a negative light, she absolutely runs the risk of running afoul with her employer. I had a discussion with her about this on her talkpage and she said that she was worried about that when she started and her supervisor assured her that her students could write whatever ''as long as it was attributed to sources''. So if a student wrote, &quot;The Book of Mormon contains anachronisms&quot; as a statement of fact without attribution, I am not sure they would be protected by that. But more to the point, the BYU authorities themselves are not bound by this agreement. The social control that is exerted over people who are in the employ of BYU is ''absolutely real''. There is a reason that only a mere 5% of faculty at that college are not members of the LDS church. Y'all, there are lots of reliable sources that identify Mormonism's cult-like behaviors. It is on display here ''loud and clear''. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Using a term like “cult-like” is prolly not helpful here. A lack of academic freedom regarding theologically sensitive topics is pretty normal for unambiguously sectarian universities. If [[Al-Azhar University]] had a WiR, how do you think that would go down?<br /> *::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 18:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', since just asking nicely in 2020 ([[WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University|COIN]]) did not have any positive effect. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 15:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It is worth noting that, per [[WP:PROXY]], this topic ban would effectively ban any student/employee to edit under the supervision of Helps in any way that bypasses the terms of the main topic ban. So it might make sense to formally extend the sanction to any and all BYU programs. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 19:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * For Detective Levivich of the COI Bureau: While I have never had any affiliation with BYU, the LDS movement, or anything adjacent, I know more people who go/went to BYU than I can count on two hands. Which means that I know not to click on [[Soaking (sexual practice)|soaking]] in the LDS template footer, I already knew that the second item in the [[Church Educational System Honor Code]] is &quot;be honest&quot;, and I can see the irony in the editors of [[Second Nephi]] engaging in small deceptions (28:8, c'mon!). On-wiki, I spent a great deal of time about five years ago in grinding arguments at AfD over articles about non-notable LDS subjects sourced mostly to official LDS sources, church-owned media, and LDS-focused blogs. So I also have a sense of how much valuable editor time can be burned up bringing that sort of content back in line with English Wikipedia policies/guidelines.{{pb}}Rachel Helps has breached community trust while modeling behavior for students under her supervision. And it looks like we've got some content issues around assuming that stuff that's important within the LDS movement is important outside of it as well. Both of those things are bad. But a lot of the edits are good. So for us here at English Wikipedia, I think it's a matter of finding a way to rebuild trust while keeping the good parts of the BYU WiR project going.{{pb}}I '''support''' a topic ban on the WiR and all student workers, because it will clarify an important difference between 1) the BYU WiR project's main goal is to improve this encyclopedia, and 2) the BYU WiR project's main goal is to legitimize/normalize the LDS movement and institutions, and to spread its doctrines and lore by getting as much LDS-related content as possible into the highest-visibility website that still allows people to sign in and add stuff. Sometimes those goals align, but clearly there have been some problems when they don't. So for me a topic ban is not punishment, but rather a chance to recalibrate the relationship and rebuild trust. If BYU will still pay the WiR and (BYU) editors to contribute to English Wikipedia on the approximately millions of other topics, and they do that, great, let's have another conversation about lifting the topic ban once that trust is regained. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 18:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;small&gt;*chomping cigar* All right, boys, this one checks out, let 'em through. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *:I appreciate your rational approach here. I'm not the expert, but I think the role of the BYU WiR is quite a bit more narrow than just 1) improving the encyclopedia and sideways from 2) legitimizing and spreading Mormonism. Rachel would be a better person to clarify, but I understood her role more along the lines of facilitating access to and improving content related to some of the more unique collections owned by the BYU library. Most of those collections will probably have some connection to Mormonism. <br /> *:One of the things I've appreciated most about Rachel's editing is the nitty gritty source work that she does. For example: many editors are somewhat sloppy with sources... They'll take a sourced statement and modify it a bit without changing the meaning too much and move the source somewhere, maybe to the end of a sentence or clause or paragraph. Then someone else will come along a year later and do something similar. Eventually you end up with sources that are completely disconnected from the statement they were meant to support, or that original statement may be gone altogether. I've seen Rachel fixing long term problems like that, as well as immediately cleaning up after other editors when they move soures around in a sloppy way. I've also seen her cleaning up copyvios, circular references, wrong page numbers, random {{cn}} templates, and other tedious gnomish work that so many of us avoid, ignore, or take for granted. I would love to see her be able to continue this kind of work in the topic area where she has expertise.<br /> *:I think it's clear from the above that the community agrees that Rachel fell short in disclosing COI when editing and creating articles about people and organizations close to her. I personally think those shortcomings were exacerbated by scope creep, unclarity, and even contradictions in our own guidelines and expectations, but let's set that aside. There are also a lot of people who see problems in the work of her student editors, which I'm not familiar with myself, so I'll take that at face value. That suggests a lack of training, supervision, etc. on Rachel's part. I have not, though, seen significant criticisms of Rachel's own edits. <br /> *:So my question to you is: would you support some kind of narrower sanction that directly addresses the above problems but still allows Rachel to do her job as WiR and make the kind of helpful edits I mentioned above? That might include a ban on directly creating articles and a ban on editing articles where she has a (well-defined) COI. Or maybe even a ban on editing articles outside of citation management. And likely more strict restrictions on her students. I don't know what would work best, and some workshopping with Rachel would probably be helpful when she comes back from break. Thoughts? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 21:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{ping|Rhododendrites}} Okay, I'm not going to let this excuse that &quot;it was all her students&quot; slide anymore. RH has made some absolutely atrocious edits over the last few months. Fram, above, documented the result in the actual article of [[Second Nephi]], but here they are the diffs ''from her'':<br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210504480]<br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210463754] <br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207877166] <br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204248142] <br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204242867] <br /> *::These diffs are all inclusive of an extreme amount of unduly weighted apologetics content from obscure Mormon Theologians. This also, infruriatingly, includes apologias for the abject and abhorrent racism in the text. That’s right, RH is trying to apologia away the racism in her faith’s scripture. Lest that not be enough evidence for you:<br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204666111] Here she is whitewashing away the fact that Joseph Smith instituted racist dogma.<br /> *::I'm sure she saw nothing wrong with that. It's the frog in the boiling pot of water. In the LDS Church, this kind of game-playing is what happens as a matter of course. We are not the LDS church. We have a standard that is not apologetics. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::@jps: The first 5 diffs you cite are not apologetics, they're analyzing how different themes/ideas in the Book of Mormon &quot;Second Nephi&quot; have been interpreted and have influenced LDS thought and belief over time. As far as I can tell her citations are to secondary reliable sources from reputable publishers. In the 6th diff she is reverting a blatantly POV IP edit and attempting to make a clarification along the way. The original sentence, before the IP's edit, incorrectly stated/implied that Smith taught that dark skin was a curse for &quot;premortal unrighteousness&quot;. That's false, and you can verify that by scrolling down to the body of the article and doing a Ctrl+F for &quot;1844&quot;. Apparently Rachel had missed that the sentence could be read in a different way: that Smith had taught it was a curse, and that LDS leaders after Smith had taught that the curse was for &quot;premortal unrighteousness&quot;. Fortunately 2 days later, editor Pastelitodepapa (the article's original author) came along and removed all ambiguity. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1204666111] This is a normal interaction on Wikipedia. People write ambiguous sentences. People misinterpret those sentences and make mistakes. People fix the mistakes. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 06:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::@Awilley They ''absolutely are apologetics''. What they are doing is trying to recast/reframe a discussion of this book in a way to encourage understanding the text ''as though it really happened'' and offer apologia for the ways in which it clearly runs into anachronism and error. Reliability is always contextual and the context here is that these sources are being used to support preaching and proselytization (that's their raison d'etre). The claim that the IP edit was &quot;blatantly POV&quot; as absurd. The IP edit is correct. Joseph Smith supported the racism of the Mormon church as you even show ''was confirmed later on''. RH reverting that edit was acting in accordance with her faith and not in accordance with the facts. Whether intentional or not, the whole point is that this is a paid editor gatekeeping at Book of Mormon articles, paid by a Mormon faith-based institution to edit our encyclopedia. She needs to be held to a higher standard. This is faith-based POV pushing. [[WP:Civil POV-pushing]], but POV pushing all the same. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 12:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::@jps, You've got it backwards. Take a closer look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204467979 the IP edit]. It most certainly is incorrect and POV. Read the edit summary. Note the phrase &quot;...in the church we believe...&quot; Rachel was not the one trying to whitewash in that interaction, she was reverting a Mormon IP who was erasing a big part of the racist history (premortal sin theory) and pushing the modern LDS POV. Feel free to hat this as &quot;extended discussion&quot; so it doesn't bog down the AN/I. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::AH! You are right that the IP edit was bad... but now RH's edit ''is even worse''. She ''removed'' the mention of Joseph Smith, I guess in deference to the sensibilities. This is also a misleading edit summary. This is not just a revert. This is an introduction of a whitewash of RH's own making! And you're still defending her? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::No, she most likely read the sentence as &quot;...Joseph Smith taught that dark skin was a sign of God's curse for premortal unrighteousness&quot; and tried to correct that. Joseph Smith never taught that. It was after Smith's death that people came up with the &quot;premortal unrighteousness&quot; garbage. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::No, Smith did it too: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/43200880]. I know it's popular to give him a pass. The LDS apologetic line. But, again, Wikipedia is ''not for apologetics''. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::The earliest mention I can find of that rationale is from Orson Hyde in 1844 or 1845. I just looked up the reference in the paper you linked. The reference was to Brodie's ''No Man Knows My History'' page 173-4, which I happen to have on my shelf. Brodie does indeed suggest that the idea originated with Smith, but she doesn't provide any evidence to back that up. Her only citation for that is to a 1845 speech/pamphlet by Orson Hyde. This may be part of why Brodie now has a reputation for going beyond what the actual evidence supports, and why her book is listed as &quot;additional considerations&quot; on the project page instead of &quot;generally reliable&quot;. Or maybe I'm missing something. Either way, Rachel Help's edit summary said she was summarizing the article, and that is indeed what the article says. If you think the article is incorrect, a discussion on the talk page would be the logical next step. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 23:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::::Are you really unable to see the issue here? &quot;Oh, the person who claims that Smith taught about this curse doesn't back it up because it was only found in a pamphlet by Orson Hyde.&quot; Forget it. At this point, you're running interference. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic-ban''' - This smacks to me of the same type of COI editing that led to the creation of [[WP:GS/CRYPTO]] and [[WP:ARBSCI|the SCI contentious topic]], and I get the sense that the scope of this will lead to [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management|COI]] including a CTOP of some sort. The long-term deception and obvious lack of clue as to what best-practices for a COI entails are both extremely problematic, and either on their own would have justified a topic-ban with or without a CTOP designation. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose'''. I am an atheist with a long-time interest in world religions who wrote a Good Article about the [[Laie Hawaii Temple]] in 2008. In the intervening years, I have never once encountered a problem from other LDS members on Wikipedia, only my fellow non-theists and atheists, one of which, [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Black]], destroyed my work and has now made it eligible for delisting.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;diff=1118395610&amp;oldid=1105336403] [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:?? That diff shows HEB removed the citations to one dubiously-reliable apologist source, he didn't even remove any content; saying he &quot;destroyed&quot; your work is a pretty groundless aspersion. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 03:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::He removed a reference to an older version of the material because he failed to look at the date of the source, thereby making it unsourced and eligible for delisting. Furthermore, he removed links that others had added, non-controversial links to BYU computer scientist Rick Satterfield, who had spent years collecting and formulating a database for LDS. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::It doesn't matter what version of the material was being cited when the underlying source for all versions is unreliable. Even if the author was a &quot;BYU computer scientist&quot;, which he obviously isn't, that would be irrelevant since exemptions to SPS require recognized academic subject-matter expertise. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 05:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I disagree. In 2004, when user Gerald Farinas originally added the external link to the article,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;oldid=4512140] it was in wide use in LDS articles. When I arrived to the article in 2007 and tagged the source as unreliable (at the time referred to synonymously as &quot;verify credibility&quot;, whose history has beeen now lost)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;diff=167113393&amp;oldid=166990503], another user started a discussion on the talk page in response to my tagging. They assured me that the source was reliable. I looked at it, and found that the &quot;about page&quot; said that Rick Satterfield created the site as a project for his computer science classes before getting his computer science degree in 2001. In the ensuing years it had become a go-to hobbyist site for statistics about LDS architecture, which is exactly how it was used in the article. It was not used to make religious claims, it was not used to make political claims, it was used only to make factual statements about architecture. In this regard, and per the discussion, I acknowledged that it met the exemption (this was 2007) and compromised by removing the tag, a tag that I originally added. So, to recap, I was the one who originally questioned the reliability, I was the one who discussed it on the talk page with another user who argued for its use, and I was the one who engaged in the art of compromise to allow the source to be used in a specific, narrow way. I was not, however, a drive-by editor like HEB, who just arrived to the article one day and removed the source and the content on a whim because I didn't like the words in the URL. Keep in mind, in the ensuing years at some point, long after I had left the article, the URL had changed from the neutral-titled &quot;ldschurchtemples.com&quot; to &quot;churchofjesuschristtemples.org&quot;. And I continue to maintain that the underlying source for all versions was ''not'' unreliable. And it's not irrelevant that Satterfield collected the data for his computer science classes. BYU has numerous, front-facing student sites today that are and continue to be reliable sources for Wikipedia. Like ldschurchtemples.com, which provided a unique resource in the past for obscure archeological data, I continue to draw upon research from [[Brigham Young University]] for articles I write. For example, I recently wrote [[Flathead Lake Biological Station]], which cites writer Abbey Buckham of Northern Arizona University, who wrote the most comprehensive history of the station that is currently online. Her work was published by the [[Charles Redd Center for Western Studies]] which is part of [[BYU Research Institutes]]. So no, I don't agree with you, and I will continue to draw upon BYU students, graduates, and their research for my articles. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::You seem to be ignoring my entreaties on your usertalkpage, so maybe I have to respond here.<br /> *:::::I think, as others are trying to explain to you, you are making a [[strawman argument]]. There is sincere and strong evidence that this group has been skewing dozens of pages on the Book of Mormon in a very particular way that is going to take a lot of work to clean up.<br /> *:::::This proposal for a TBAN is not an attempt to ban everything coming out of BYU. We aren't even asking to end the WiR/GLAM/Paid Editing program. In fact, what you ask at the end about Flathead Lake Biological Station is exactly the sort of thing I would hope that RH's students would have been working on instead of the sloppy and over-detailed exegesis they've been focusing on for the last months. Not everything that comes out of BYU is about LDS. <br /> *:::::Yeah, with a TBAN you're not going to get RH or her students to help you write about LDS temples. Sorry. But given the streams of awful I've been wading through in the past few days trying to make sense of what is going on at Book of Mormon pages, I think that this sort of collateral damage is likely more than worth it, sorry to say. Your happy editing on one article does not excuse the 100s of articles that are absolute messes. That said, this TBAN would make it ''more likely'' that you could benefit from BYU student editors on articles like Flathead Lake Biological Station. This is likely to be a win for you since those are far and away the more common articles I see you working on than the LDS temples. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::{{ping|ජපස}} If RH and the students were TBanned, would the students really be more likely to edit in other topic areas?<br /> *::::::[[User:Heidi Pusey BYU]]'s conflict of interest statement on her user page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Heidi_Pusey_BYU&amp;oldid=1210501729 currently reads] (emphases added):<br /> *:::::::{{tq|I am employed and '''paid''' by the Harold B. Lee Library to edit Wikipedia pages '''about the Book of Mormon ''on behalf of Brigham Young University.''''' I am a student employee of [[user:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] and '''I specialize in research for early Book of Mormon studies''' as well as literary studies of the book. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I am extensively familiar with the Book of Mormon but seek to edit with a neutral viewpoint.}}<br /> *::::::Heidi's employment appears to be specific to Book of Mormon pages. It is on behalf of BYU, which makes me wonder about the academic freedom questions raised elsewhere. Isn't this declaration inconsistent with Wikipedia goals like NPOV writing without an agenda? Further, if Heidi's specialty is in this topic area, would she be interested in paid non-Book of Mormon editing... and would BYU be interested in paying for it?<br /> *::::::I wonder whether a TBAN will actually produce the outcome you describe? [[Special:Contributions/1.141.198.161|1.141.198.161]] ([[User talk:1.141.198.161|talk]]) 00:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::From what I understand in brief discussion with RH, this was set by her in discussion with RH. This topic focus could be changed. But good to confirm with RH that this really is the case, for sure. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 10:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Hi. I am currently in the process of changing my students' pages they are editing to pages that are unrelated to the LDS church or BYU. I will be changing Heidi's assignment when I see her later today. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::{{ping|Rachel Helps (BYU)}} Thanks for that information, that sounds like a wise decision in the circumstances. Heidi has commented at her user talk page that she did not intend the phrase &quot;on behalf of Brigham Young University&quot; to be taken literally, which is good to hear / know. I can see how this phrase might be chosen by an employee without considering the implications, and Heidi has acted to change the wording. I suggest that you check for any similar phrasings because, in an environment of heightened attention and scrutiny, they can create an impression that is unhelpful. In fact, I encourage you to reflect carefully on how your subordinates' words on user pages might be interpreted by outsiders. I doubt that BYU would be entirely comfortable with a statement that every action of a student editor was made on its behalf, no matter how well intentioned the student or the statements. In my various positions working for Universities, I would not have presented my every action as on their behalf, and I suspect that you would not present yourself that way either.&lt;p&gt;On Heidi's comment that her employment was specific to Book of Mormon topics, is her position (prior to the changes you are about to implement) actually tied to working on that specific topic area? If so, did focus on a narrow (compared to the scope of your library and WP broadly) that is squarely within the area of COI not raise any concerns for you or anyone connected with WiR, etc? I ask because, in charting a course forwards, it can be helpful to understand what has happened to now and how it happened. From your perspective, were any concerns raised and adequately (or inadequately, in retrospect) addressed? What might have been done differently by WiR or WP or others to have avoided the present situation?&lt;P&gt;I'm willing to assume that there were good intentions throughout this process, but can't avoid feeling that something (or multiple things) should have brought these issues into focus long ago. It looks to me like a systemic problem, made worse by some instinctive / reactive responses where considered reflection was needed. Does this seem accurate / inaccurate / partially accurate, from your perspective? Any other thoughts? Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/1.141.198.161|1.141.198.161]] ([[User talk:1.141.198.161|talk]]) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::: Heidi's job title is Student Wikipedia Editor. When I hired this batch of students last fall, I did tell them that I wanted to start a project to work on Book of Mormon pages (an initiative started by me). However, I hired my students based on their writing experience, not based on any specific experience with Book of Mormon topics. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, so please ping me again if you have a follow-up question. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 22:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Satterfield does not have subject matter expertise as recognized by strong citations by academics in academic publications. Therefore his SPS ''is not reliable''. Everything else you've said is irrelevant, though I'll note that student projects simply hosted by the university are ''also'' never reliable as published academic work and I would hope you haven't been adding them as sources. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Just because you've never encountered any issues before doesn't mean Helps is innocent. Have you read anything in this thread and the corresponding thread?? [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 03:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:What does that have anything to do with the sanction being proposed here or the user it's being proposed against? I see virtually nothing in that !vote rationale that actually addresses such matters; the only thing that ''might'' come anywhere close is the vague anecdotal claim {{tq|I have never once encountered a problem from other LDS members on Wikipedia}}. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:First of all how do you know that I am a &quot;fellow non-theists and atheists&quot;? Second that source may look legitimate but its actually a non-expert self published source unaffiliated with the LDS Church, the LDS editors actually agreed that it was a source that should be removed/improved. I didn't destroy anything or change its eligibility, looking at other articles you've significantly authored (for example [[Claude AnShin Thomas]]) it looks like the issue may be with your sourcing practices and not mine. I apologize for causing you distress but I also have no idea what that would do with your vote unless you're voting in an AN/I discussion based solely on spiting another editor. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 03:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::You're mistaken again. My sourcing is entirely reliable, and is accurately reflected in the final GA review.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;oldid=231936007] As can be seen in that link, the sources you removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;diff=1118395610&amp;oldid=1105336403] were not the versions of the sources I originally added,[https://search.worldcat.org/title/367548072] however both sources support the same, accurate information. You neglected to actually ''read'' the article you edited, because if you had you would have noticed that the citation you removed said &quot;Retrieved 2007-07-17&quot;, which refers only [https://web.archive.org/web/20070308044728/http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/laie/ to this version supporting the material]. You removed the newer version instead, which had been revised. You then left a citation needed tag in its place. As of today, there is a more current database listing on the revised site.[https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/statistics/features/] You couldn't be bothered with any of this, of course. One wonders if your poor judgment here is reflective of your other baseless criticism, such as that over at Claude AnShin Thomas, which has no known problems either. One wonders how much this kind of bias infects the rest of this discussion. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::But churchofjesuschristtemples.com/&lt;wbr&gt;churchofjesuschristtemples.org is a non-expert self published source. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Opinions differ, and policies and guidelines dynamically change over time. When the article was written, those sources were acceptable, and the author was a computer scientist at BYU who had created the only site on the internet that collected and maintained statistical data about the temples. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::I don't think they ever were a computer scientist at BYU... I see a bachelor's degree in computer science from BYU but no teaching or research position. Today that source is not acceptable and I don't think that it was when the article was written either. Looking at the talk page it looks like the reliability was actually challenged all the way back in 2007 ([[Talk:Laie Hawaii Temple/Archive 1#Credibility of source]]). [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Yes, questioned by ''me''. Did you read the discussion? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 05:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::I did... Didn't see a consensus that the source was reliable. I'm actually confused as to how that source remained in the article after that discussion. I also double checked and he was never a computer scientist at BYU (and even if he was I don't see how that would contribute to him being a subject matter expert in this context). And again none of this explains your vote here, even if everything you say is completely true your vote makes no sense. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Yes, you are confused. '''I am the one who questioned the source in the first place and originally tagged it'''. As that discussion indicates, another editor arrived to discuss it, and I removed the tag. Should I have disagreed with myself? That seems to be what you are saying here. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::I must be confused, because this none of this substantiates &quot;destroyed my work and has now made it eligible for delisting&quot; nor does it substantiate that the author was a a computer scientist at BYU nor does it explain what any of this has to do with the larger discussion (besides possibly the author's BYU connection?). [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::::You are free to see my new comments up above that address your confusion. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::[[Ignoratio elenchi]]. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 17:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Saying that every problem you've encountered on Wikipedia has come from non-theists and atheists is quite a remarkable statement. How are you able to determine the religious affiliation of your fellow editors? And even in the unlikely event that it is true, what relevance does it have for this issue? The question at hand is about one particular editor, not all LDS members or all atheists. [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 05:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Ping|Viriditas}} woah, I just noticed that you're referring to me as &quot;Horse Eye's '''Black'''&quot; in both of the original comments here. What is that supposed to mean? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::It means my keyboard is broken [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::How does a broken keyboard result in [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Black]]? Its not a misspelling, its a pipe. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Looks like a copy and paste from a typo. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 19:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Ok sure. Thank you. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 19:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::You probably need to take a step back from this discussion if you're looking this hard for implied slights. [[User:Parabolist|Parabolist]] ([[User talk:Parabolist|talk]]) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' I would have suggested a warning, but in light of the extensive COIN discussion from 2020 that appears to have not resolved this issue, I think we'd just be back here sooner or later for another rodeo.[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 05:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Exactly, its not a new phenomena. They were warned in 2020, clearly warned by admin. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 13:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose.''' Generally concur with the comments by Awilley, Ocaasi, Pigsonthewing, Vanamonde93, and FyzixFighter. I do not see anything presented that rises to the level of requiring a topic ban, and I see plenty of evidence of the positive contributions this editor has made to Wikipedia. [[User:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;Gamaliel&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/small&gt; 13:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' - I find the general oppose reasonings to be particularly uncompelling and that it does not adequately address the evidence presented in this and the prior discussion. The attempt to present this discussion as a referendum on theist vs. non-theist editors completely misses the point of the evidence provided. The only oppose rationale thus far that strikes me as valid at all is Vanamond93's comment, but I ultimately agree more with jps's rejoinder to Vanamonde93's perspective. &lt;sub&gt;signed, &lt;/sub&gt;[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' However much good faith (no pun intended) can be ascribed, this a situation which needs to be addressed directly. Treating this as a generalised COI issue to be addressed via a review of policy/guidelines elsewhere will not address the specific instutional arrangement which is engendering systemic failures with regard to core tenets - neutrality, due, fringe and reliable, independent sourcing. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Strong support'''. The opposes all miss the point entirely; paid editing that directly touches mainspace is basically never acceptable. This is not a case where &quot;positive contributions&quot; matter, not at all. Even if done with the best of intentions, it completely distorts our processes; the fact always remains that someone whose paycheck is dependent on an organization is not going to make edits that might get them fired. Even the absolute best, most well-intentioned edits, otherwise policy-compliant in every way, will distort the balance of articles when made in a systematic way by large numbers of editors whose views are all distorted in the same way by the same financial incentive. Therefore, &quot;they've made positive contributions&quot; is never a defense against a [[WP:COI]] issue. It is simply never acceptable to seriously edit mainspace in areas where your employer has a strong perspective or vested interest. If this were any other organization, that would be obvious - would we accept the arguments above for an editor paid by Amazon or Microsoft or OpenAI or some cryptocurrency startup, who wanted to edit pages obviously relevant to those topics? From the Democratic and Republican parties, or from individual political think tanks who hire and send in numerous articulate, intelligent editors who share their views? How is this different? And how, exactly, could volunteer editors maintain neutrality in the face of that? [[Wikipedia:GLAM/Wikipedian in Residence]] isn't meant to be an exception to these rules - per [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_residence the description on Meta] {{tq|In this context, there is a custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution, but rather share the knowledge of their institution.}} Furthermore, look at the examples there - it's meant to be an uncontroversial role for museum curators and the like, not for a church to employ people making sweeping sorts of edits on topics related to their faith or for a political think-tank to employ someone making edits about their politics. I think that we might want to look at some of the related policies in order to tighten them up and make them more clear, if people are somehow confused about all this, but this particular example is so far over the line that an immediate topic-ban is obvious. EDIT: Support shifted to strong to emphasize how strongly I feel that none of the rationales people are presenting are policy-based and how important it is to establish that they carry no weight. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 15:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Aquillion, I agree in general with your take on this. COI and PE are often issues that result in editing that skews away from our principles, policies and guidelines. However, in this instance Rachel and her Posse (or crew) were never concerned about &quot;making edits that might get them fired.&quot; Take a look at this conversation here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)#Academic_freedom] (Section title &quot;Academic Freedom&quot;). Essentially, throughout the whole Q &amp; A it becomes clear that none of these editors are constrained by fear of an employer or policy. It doesn't take long to read. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 20:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> :::That makes no difference to me at all, for three reasons. First, [[WP:COI]] is unequivocal that the ''appearance'' of a COI is sufficient; it does not matter one iota how thoroughly someone is convinced (or can convince others) that they are capable of being impartial. It is a red line with no exceptions. Second, this is because influence can be subtle and sometimes not even obvious to those exercising it; words are cheap, actually making the people they paid to edit Wikipedia impartial is... impossible. Third, most importantly, even if someone manages to adhere rigorously to that freedom, and even if they are flawless immaculate saints incapable of ever considering who pays their paychecks, paid editing still allows the employer to &quot;stack the deck&quot; on particular subjects by hiring people to edit prolifically simply because they know what they believe and what areas they will edit in. This doesn't even have to be intentional; it's no different from the principle of [[WP:CANVASS]]ing - unless they're hiring people ''totally at random'', they're going to be stacking the deck based on who they hire and what pool they hire from. There are ''no'' situations where someone should be getting paid to make nontrivial mainspace edits on Wikipedia, or even to contribute to discussions without the extremely rigid restrictions placed on disclosed COIs (even those restrictions are truthfully too loose for me, but in this case no one even paid lip service to them.) This is ''actually important''. Pushing back against COIs is vital to keeping Wikipedia functional; most pages and topic areas only have a few dozen really active users, or a few hundred at most, and even they have no real hope of keeping up with editors whose entire job is to edit Wikipedia. If we didn't maintain a hard line, any topic area that was targeted with paid editing would be rapidly drowned in it, with every discussion and every effort at consensus-building dominated by whoever their employer decided to employ. There's no such thing as someone being a &quot;good egg&quot; as a paid editor, because the problem is the entire structure behind their editing and what it would mean for Wikipedia if allowed to proliferate. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 04:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks. I agree with your concerns about paid editing--we should get rid of it. I've never bought the argument that making it &quot;ok&quot; means that paid editors are more likely to divulge COI. Case in point here. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''', English Wikipedia has done a gang buster job, in the past to get individuals who could contribute positively, on this platform to chase them away. &lt;!-- In addition limiting what is considered a reliable source to ensure that certain points of view, and certain subjects, are presented with a certain bias based on what has been left to be allowed as sources. --&gt; The individual editor in question has done a great job with bringing individuals who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy to improving content on this encyclopedia. Yet, there is this effort to limit that effort. What does this say about our community, but to enforce the view that English Wikipedia is not neutral, is exclusionary, and doesn't want individuals who might not align a certain way onto this encyclopedia, especially if they contribute within spaces which certain alignments oppose.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B22234&quot;&gt;'''Right'''Cow&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background-color: #C2B280; color:#3C3B6E&quot;&gt;'''LeftCoast'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;Moo&lt;/span&gt;]]) 18:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{tq|who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy}} ... no doubt an unintended Freudian slip; but that's precisely the problem, institutional devotion here has created a systemic inability to edit according to our policies and guidelines. It's irrelevant what one's intention is; the cascading effect of the relationships have created a swathe of articles and edits which are non-compliant with our tenets. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 02:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::We don't have ''tenets'' on Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines. These were applied to the best of Rachel's, her colleagues', and students's ability most of the time. And actually, their efforts and goals were the opposite of institutional devotional editing. There may be some obscure Mormon religious-character-articles that don't have good coverage. But, that is an oversight that is happening in other areas of Wikipedia in a likewise fashion. And I have to say, I have not seen you involved in any of the recent discussions on LDS/''Book of Mormon'' talk pages. So rather than denigrate the hard work of other editors I recommend pitching in. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 19:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *:::This response exemplifies the problem. This is not about well-intentioned mistakes - this is about a systemic COI failure to ensure neutrality, reliable sourcing and due. Every editor has a right to be concerned about this issue, irrespective of their efforts towards the particular topic, precisely because of the far reaching effects beyond the topic. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 23:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose.''' What Gamaliel said. Also, I would like to support this Wikipedian in Residence, and acknowledge their contributions. [[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Would you also like to acknowledge the concerns raised below (now within a collapse) by BilledMammal, which were also posted on your talk page? [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 19:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Sure. Accepting or declining in-person meetings in the workplace is pretty standard in my world. By contrast, almost every single conversation in this online environment seems like nothing but trouble. I thought that meeting a person with shared interests and a public-facing job, in a public place might be a way to clear up misunderstandings. I did not know that suggesting people try talking things over in person is considered unacceptable here. Now that I think it over a little more, I suppose that if this is literally &quot;the encyclopedia that anyone can edit,&quot; gosh knows what sort of awful, terrible person might show up at a library. Perhaps someone would delete the earlier remark for me? I've always respected the LDS for their wholesome lifestyles (even if I'm too attached to coffee to ever become LDS myself), and wouldn't want to create difficulties for the folks at BYU.-- [[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 00:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' Rachel is a positive contributor. Sure there are missteps, but those can be worked through without going to the nuclear option. Similar to Rhododendrites, I would strongly urge Rachel to institute strict standards for the content she and her students produce and to keep a very close editorial eye on her students' edits, but overall I see her work as a ''net positive''. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 02:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Conditionally support a &lt;u&gt;time-limited&lt;/u&gt; topic ban''' provided that the topic ban is interpreted in such a way as not to preclude commonsensically non-church-related topics such as the [[Bakemono no e]] which according to a presentation here [https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&amp;article=7628&amp;context=facpub&amp;type=additional] she worked with. All university libraries have a lot of holdings, and there are many ways she could continue to be a productive WiR without getting into Mormon archaeology and stuff. I also think some sort of restrictions or advisories/warnings for her student helpers could be worth considering. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I had been seriously considering striking my vote for several potential reasons including RH’s cooperativeness, the issue of proportionality, and the fact that this could set a dangerous precedent based on certain statements by a few of the most aggressive supporters. However, given 1) the apparent interactions between Rachel Helps (wearing whichever hat) and other AML-related persons of interest and 2) the apparent inability on the part of the quality-control system to effectively handle the volume of contestable changes being made by the BYU group (which is by no means the latter’s fault per se, but there is still much room for improvement).<br /> *:At the same time, I am not completely convinced that a community-imposed topic ban is the best solution and I am interested in seeing more discussion. And possibly a “no consensus for now” close that allows RH and the BYU group time to further improve their practices, because I do believe there is a possible overlap between the desire of LDS scholars and The Encyclopedia as a whole in terms of documenting LDS topics more completely. And it does sound like a lot of the LDS content had been start-class poorly sourced and OR type stuff from novice editors, the same sort of stuff that you often see in Indian local articles and Judaism articles.<br /> *:However, I think the proposal about Thmazing is ripe for a close. The community, including yours truly, has a dim opinion of the behaviors that he’s engaged in, amply. And while I’m concerned about the AML situation I would like to see more evidence of any systematic collusion.<br /> *:[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 01:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I'm the one who [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Brigham_Young_University|opened the COIN in 2020]]. If Rachel would have simply agreed that she and her students would place a COI notice on article talk pages, I wouldn't be here. But she repeatedly resorted to arguing that it wasn't strictly required, so she wasn't going to comply with the request that she do so. Multiple other WiRs came in arguing that requiring her to do so would threaten the WiR system; they're here, too, opposing this. I hate to lose the BYU folks' contributions, which I believe are generally helpful, and which we'll probably lose if there's a Tban. But until Rachel agrees to disclose '''on article talk''', even though not required to, I'm a '''support''' for a topic ban from LDS articles for Rachel and her students. {{u|Rachel Helps (BYU)}}, please, just agree to disclose. It's such a small request. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :* At this point I'm happy to comply, the difference between the TOS and the guideline seems like a hill I don't feel like dying on right now. Just tell me how you want me to do it. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:I'm sincerely glad to hear it. Best practices, even if not required, is a good thing for someone who is a WiR and in education to try to follow. You and your students can disclose at article talk by adding the &lt;nowiki&gt;{{Connected contributor|User1=username}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; template into the headers. The first person to edit a particular article can create the banner and put their own username as User1, and others who follow along can just insert |User2=, etc. There's documentation for other parameters at [[Template:Connected_contributor]], but really I'm satisfied with a simple list of COI contributors. <br /> :*:If you'll agree to make that routine going forward for all edits to articles related to BYU/LDS by you and your students, broadly construed, I'll strike my support for a tban. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::@[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] This seems reasonable. I'm curious what the threshold would be for adding the template. I ask because I've often seen Rachel reverting vandalism or other unhelpful edits or just fixing a source here and there. A quick look at her contributions shows that there are over 900 articles where she's made only 1 or 2 edits. It should be possible to find the intersection of her edits with articles within the LDS wikiproject, but I would expect the list of articles to be at least several hundred long. Should there be some threshold for what constitutes a substantive edit, or would you prefer having her place the template even for minor edits? Or would a more narrow range of articles be reasonable, like articles specifically related to the BYU, LDS Church, BYU people, etc.? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::@[[User:Awilley|Awilley]], just off the top of my head: any edit that could reasonably be marked as minor -- typo fixes, grammar fixes, expanding or combining or renaming a reference -- doesn't need a COI tag. If there's content work, and it's related to BYU/LDS, tag it. Willing to be persuaded that this isn't the appropriate threshold, though! I wouldn't want to have to tag an article talk every time I edited something for the first time, that would double the work on many minor edits and maybe discourage me from making them. I don't want this to be onerous, as I do value the contributions these folks are making, and I appreciate BYU's willingness to fund a WiR to provide access to its records. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 20:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * [[User:Valereee|Valereee]], why not make it required? What harm would that do? It seems rather bizarre to make it a condition when it's not a requirement, especially for so qualified an editor as Rachel, who is a huge asset here. (We aren't making it a condition for other COI editors, many of whom have dubious motives, making the difference in treatment even more bizarre.) The solution is to make it required for all COI editors. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#0bf&quot;&gt;PING me&lt;/span&gt;]]''''') 17:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{ping|Valjean}} - To make this a &quot;requirement&quot; rather than currently what it is as a &quot;best practice,&quot; would require community consensus. No one person can make it a requirement. Someone would have to initiate an RFC. And there is probably good reason for this not be a requirement as deemed by the community. For me, the reason for &quot;strongly discouraged&quot; (or whatever) is probably to cover most of the circumstances, with some flexibility, in contrast to overbearing rigidity. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:As said in the opening of [[The Warriors (film)]]: Can you dig it? ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:: Hi Steve. I understand and largely agree about the proper procedure. What considerations might there be against making it a requirement? What harm would it do? -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#0bf&quot;&gt;PING me&lt;/span&gt;]]''''') 18:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I believe I indicated the potential harm. With the wording as it is, there is some flexibility rather than strong rigidity. The community seems to operate best with flexibility. In any case, this is veering off topic in this forum. You might want to open a discussion about this elsewhere. Maybe the Village Pump or the COI talk page or wherever else? Also, anyone feel free to hat this part of this ANI. ----[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Valjean|Valjean]], because we'll never get buy in from other WiRs. Unfortunately it's just that simple. <br /> *:The thing is, it doesn't need to be required in order for it to be best practices, and when multiple other editors are requesting you to do something that isn't strictly required in policy ''and only costs you three seconds of time'', why would you not ''want'' to comply with those requests? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I'm not sure where to respond here, but yes, I'm happy to comply and talk to other WiRs about best practices. I just told my students that we're going to include talk page connected contributor banners from today, and it will probably take a few days for everyone to start using them (one of my students is only working on Fridays this semester). I can do the pages we've worked on in the past--does anyone know if there is a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category? Or I can dedicate a few minutes each day working on it over the summer. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::{{tq|a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category}} <br /> *:::You could try a [[WP:BOTREQUEST]]. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::AWB is also an option where you can make semiautomated edits to pages based on an intersection of categories. Like pages in the LDS Wikiproject that you have edited. Ping me on me talk page if you want help. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 15:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' per Vanamonde93. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 18:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' per Vanamonde93 and Awilley [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 02:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban, broadly construed.While it's true that her userpage is a whole heap of disclosure, the real problem is her (undisclosed) willingness to encourage other's undisclosed COI. Per Fram and Levivich: in Effect. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 18:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per the reasoning of {{U|Levivich}} - which I find particularly alarming due to the walled-garden character of a lot of BYU articles. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Weak Oppose''' per Vanamode93. Even if the COI stuff is properly resolved, or Rachel Phelps is topic-banned, we still have a massive number of LDS topics with no critical sources. This does not necessarily mean that the articles will improve. As a religious editor myself, it can sometimes take me up to an hour to find a non-fringe scholarly source to support whatever perspective I want represented. This is frustrating, but I do not try to bend the rules if I cannot find a reliable source mainstream enough to support a pro-religious perspective. See [[WP:NOTTRUTH]] for more information. However, I am opposed to a topic-ban because in my experience, student editors tend to do such a terrible job following policy, that I cannot support a topic-ban without us at least doing something about the WikiEd program as a whole. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I suppose it's possible that some of the student employees being paid by the BYU Library to edit Wikipedia are also involved in WikiEd somehow through their regular classes, but this is the first time I've seen someone bring up WikiEd as a problem here. {{u|Scorpions1325}}, since it's important enough to inform your vote, could you explain what the connection is? [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 00:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Forgive me. I misspoke. I am saying that it is not wise to let people employed at universities or anywhere else edit here for pay if they are not well-versed on policy, which is the case of BYU's students. At [[WP:AFC]] I found myself removing [[WP:PRIMARY]] and non-[[WP:INDEPENDENT]] sources every day. Paid editors, disclosed or not, tend to cause time-consuming work. Being a Wikipedia editor is something that requires commitment. Sometimes, learning the ropes can take months. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 00:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I've read this over four times and no matter how I look at it, you seem to be arguing in favor of restrictions (or rather, that it would be &quot;not wise&quot; to oppose restrictions in this specific paid editor situation, where we agree that there are problems). But maybe that's just a sign that I should have shut up an hour ago and left this for the closer. Which I'll do now, with apologies for dragging this on longer. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 00:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::It's a yes, but only if situation. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 01:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Topic ban for Thmazing=== <br /> <br /> On the basis of [[User_talk:Thmazing#Conflict_of_interest|this discussion]], I think we need to topic ban [[User:Thmazing]] from pages related to [[Association of Mormon Letters]] broadly construed. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Editors may also consider a wider topic ban on [[Mormonism]]. Note the time of this post, editors commenting before '''04:13, 15 March 2024''' will not have seen this post. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 04:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' This user has a large number of COIs, and refuses to discuss them. They are still editing, but will no longer engage in questions regarding editing about themself and their friends. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood|talk]]) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. As &lt;ins&gt;he is&lt;/ins&gt; a former president of [[Association for Mormon Letters|AML]] and current Managing Editor of its journal [[Irreantum]], I see Thmazing as the &quot;highest-ranking&quot; editor in this COI group (that I know of), and thus the most culpable. Far more culpable than Rachel Helps, who is listed as AML's Discord Admin (and I believe is a current or past board member). Thmazing should have been the one to disclose, require the disclosure, or otherwise reign in, all this undisclosed COI editing coming from AML board members, staff, and other associated editors. A TBAN from AML is really too little IMO, I would ''at least'' TBAN from all of Mormonism (same scope as Rachel Helps) for the same reasons: prevent him from not only editing about AML but also about its &quot;product,&quot; which is Mormon literature, and thus by extension, Mormonism itself. Heck, due to his high ranking nature and his particularly obstructive involvement in this entire fiasco, I'd also just support a straight site ban. But support as certainly better than nothing. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;small&gt;This is phrased a little confusingly... until the end of that paragraph, I thought that you had declared ''yourself'' the current managing editor of Irreantum.--&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier&quot;&gt;[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])&lt;/small&gt; 19:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *::&lt;small&gt;That would have been a real plot twist! 😂 Thanks for pointing it out, I added a couple words to clarify. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 21:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *:What exactly do you mean by {{tqq|by extension, Mormonism itself}}? [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 02:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per sound analysis above. &lt;s&gt;I looked at his last article [[Draft:Mike Pekovich]], originally created in the mainspace: it is blatantly promotional (&quot;His work on woodcraft [...] has influenced thousands of woodworkers over decades&quot;) as much as badly sourced (two non-independent primary sources)&lt;/s&gt;. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;ins&gt;ADDENDUM&lt;/ins&gt;: I also support a wider '''topic ban from Mormonism''', broadly construed, per Levivich, starship.paint and Steve Quinn. Also based on my striked content I suspect there could be other COIs in the mix (in addition to some obvious [[WP:CIR]] issues). --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 12:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> **The draft you link to is problematic, but I don't see how it relates to the AML. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *** You're right, I had taken for granted that the subject was an LSD member. I've strikken the side comment, which is btw telling of this user's way of editing. --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 17:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ****If anything that speaks to a broader issue, perhaps include a ban on article creation? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' maybe they will miraculously recover from the [[WP:ANI flu|unfortunate illness which prevents their typing]], but hopefully they take their &quot;breathing&quot; time to learn [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thmazing&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212609155 how to not] {{Personal attack removed}}. In this particular case, however, Thmazing's obstructionist behaviour annoyed me enough to begin investigating in the first place, so perhaps we should thank him. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:AirshipJungleman29|AirshipJungleman29]]: I've removed the personal attack. Please remain civil when describing behaviour from other editors. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{reply|Femke}} That's bollocks, &lt;s&gt;mate&lt;/s&gt; colleague. We had our [[WP:DICK|own page called that very thing]] which ''still'' directs to a page on meta. So AsJm29 should have called Thamazing a jerk, I guess. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::And there is a reason the meta page is no longer has that title. More people considered this a personal attack. Neither words are conducive to resolving issues of COI editing and civility on Thmazing's part. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 20:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per the above comments. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', but per Levivich, would easily support more, as this is ridiculously lenient. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I agree that the past president of [[Association of Mormon Letters]] shouldn't be editing articles about that group, but I'd like to have all such conflicted editors able to make suggestions and {{tl|edit COI}} requests on the talk page. With niche subjects in particular, we need to balance our need for an accurate article against our desire to have the independent editors making the decisions about what to include. It's not ultimately helpful to the main goal if we TBAN anyone who actually knows anything about the subject. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:If they are the only people who know the things about a subject, that subject may not be worthy of encyclopedic coverage. It may have not gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and may not be suitable encyclopedic matter. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 23:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Strong support''' lack of candor and accountability, repeatedly citing their own off-wiki blog posts, even this topic ban is too lenient, it should be a topic ban from Mormonism at least. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' the topic ban described above per all the comments about COI and lack of candor. I also support a broader ban to include all LDS/Mormon topics per [[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]]. --&lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Futura&quot;&gt;[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' the subject obviously has skin in the game regarding AML and they fail to adhere to COI policy. I agree that the ban should include all LDS/Mormon topics. They do not understand how to edit according to policies and guidelines. Also, I am looking for evidence that they actually cited content in articles with their own blogposts. If this is true then that is totally unacceptable as one of the primary no-no's on Wikipedia. Anyone have any diffs about them citing article content with their blog posts? I read about it in the linked conversation but was unable to discern on which article(s) this happened. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **{{re|Steve Quinn}} - perhaps you can look at the articles [[Elias: An Epic of the Ages]] (most obvious, look here first), [[Adam and Eve in Mormonism]], and [[Brad Teare]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 03:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Starship.paint}} - So yes, it is true. Thmazing has been citing content with their blogposts. This is disconcerting. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 16:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *'''Support'''; Thmazing appears to be both more culpable and less able to recognize and fix problems with their editing. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 04:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed'''. As {{slink|User talk:Thmazing#Conflict of interest}} {{small|([[Special:Permalink/1213676930#Conflict_of_interest|permalink]])}} shows, the editor repeatedly cited their self-published blog posts (from [[Substack]], [[Blogspot]], and at least one personal website) in Mormonism-related articles, including articles not directly related to the [[Association for Mormon Letters]]. These are clear violations of the [[WP:PROMOTION|policy against promotion]] and the [[WP:REFSPAM|guideline against citation spam]]. New editors who do this are indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia as a routine matter; see the reports on the [[WP:UAA|username noticeboard]] for examples. The editor's use of deflection when asked about their promotional edits and conflict of interest (e.g. {{!xt|&quot;[[Special:Diff/1212451954|I know you just got out of arbitration yourself and so I can understand why you'd want to share the love, but I feel like the conversation we've had has already solved this problem.]]&quot;}}) is highly concerning and shows that they are not an appropriate fit for this topic area. —&amp;nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#536267;&quot;&gt;Newslinger&lt;/span&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:Newslinger#top|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;'' 04:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', per extensive discussion above and elsewhere. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 05:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', per evidence presented by others. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 12:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support site ban for high conflict-of-interest, topic-ban as second choice''' - Refer to my comments in re the Rachel Helps topic-ban above; they apply equally here, with the caveat that we have community banned editors for editing blatantly to further their organisation's goals on the grounds of irreconciliable conflict-of-interest. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * &lt;s&gt;'''Oppose'''. Generally concur with the comments by Awilley, Ocaasi, Pigsonthewing, Vanamonde93, and FyzixFighter. I do not see anything presented that rises to the level of requiring a topic ban, and I see plenty of evidence of the positive contributions this editor has made to Wikipedia. [[User:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;Gamaliel&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/small&gt; 22:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/s&gt;<br /> ::&lt;small&gt;{{ping|Gamaliel}} {{ping|Oliveleaf4}} I think you may have voted in the wrong section? This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, {{ping|Viriditas}} might want to re-evaluate the &quot;per Gamaliel&quot; vote. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 06:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :::&lt;small&gt;{{ping|Gamaliel}} {{ping|Oliveleaf4}} I also think you may have voted in the wrong section! This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, {{ping|Viriditas}} might want to re-evaluate the &quot;per Gamaliel&quot; vote. ---06:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :::{{ping|Awilley}} {{ping|Steve Quinn}} Thank you! You are correct, and I've moved my !vote accordingly. [[User:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;Gamaliel&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/small&gt; 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' per Gamaliel. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *&lt;s&gt;'''Oppose''' as per Gamaliel also. Telling the BYU Wikimedian in Residence not to edit on Mormonism? We don't want to go there, folks. If we need to work with them on some aspects of wiki policy, let's not harangue them online, let's arrange for an experienced person to meet up with them. I might have a chance to go out to Utah next year, and I'd be happy to sit down with them and edit.&lt;/s&gt; [[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 04:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Why don't we want to &quot;go there&quot;? What are you implying? The community has been trying to &quot;work with them&quot; on aspects of policy for years. It hasn't worked. Why are you so confident your in-person visit is going to be successful? Do you have a track record of success with such things? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 11:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It is creepy to offer to meet in real life with editors you don't know to help them avoid a potential topic ban. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood|talk]]) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{+1|color=green}} [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Fwiw this is a WiR at a university whom anyone can walk up to and not some editor editing off their couch at home so if anything the suggestion raises the opposite sort of sussiness. Anyway… [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 05:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::One word: safeguarding. One wants to interact with another Wikipedian one does so on Wikipedia or at an event where Wikipedians have *themselves* *chosen* to attend. We should not be treating casual contact amongst editors in RL with anything other than the most serious concern for unintended consequences. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 05:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Am attempting to support efforts by a WiR, not give them a bad time! (Have attempted to comment in the other section.)[[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 18:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' The evidence is clear here as well. Currently this editor is a net-negative to Wikipedia and cost us time and energy. I cannot understand this continual impulse to let folk get away with bad behaviour and breaking policy that are clearly understood and followed by the majority of editors. That was a long conversation that was held in 2020 by administration, it was very clearly stated. Combined with the analysis done recently, makes it clear as day. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 13:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:This is quite rude and suggests an egregious misreading of my editing history. Some cherrypicked flaws in my editing past do not a &quot;net-negative to Wikipedia&quot; make. Has anyone actually looked at my entire editing history or are you just believing what you're told?<br /> *:I appreciate the fellow above who admitted he had made erroneous assumptions about an article I had started but his errors were more numerous than the one he apologized for.<br /> *:I know this isn't the place for it, but I feel obliged to point out that what's happening here is largely an on-Wikipedia doxxing of people who, in good faith, made it possible to do so.<br /> *:(Also, I might add that the idea that I've only heard about Fram in one Discord server and that you can guess which one it is is charming. She has quite the reputation as I'm sure many of you know.)<br /> *:Anyway, carry on. If you could do it without the ad hominem attacks, however, I would appreciate it. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 22:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Thmazing}} No it isn't. I did look at your entire editing history and checked a whole bunch of it as I work on article reviewing, before I commented here. I read the discussion prior to this as well. The comment is probably is a bit harsh but you made the concious choice to ignore policy and your response hasn't been particularly positive. I work up at conflict of interest board also and I see the same kind of response by coi editors every time. I am sick to death of it dude. I want you to experience a moment of catharsis and undergo an epiphany, improve and stop breaking [[WP:COI]] and particularly [[WP:NPOV]]. I only state this because of your previous work. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 08:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' - Same general rationale as my !vote regarding Rachel Helps, but with Thmazing there appears to be even less mitigating circumstances as they have not engaged with this discussion in a remotely satisfactory fashion, whereas RH has at least attempted to make amends. &lt;sub&gt;signed, &lt;/sub&gt;[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban from Mormonism, per above. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' I'm here particularly because of the refusal to acknowledge the problem. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :'''Support''' I haven’t yet decided what I think about the proposal for Rachel Helps, but given the level of incivility and defensiveness Thmazing shows on their user talk, combined with their substantive behavior with content and CoI, I think a topic ban might be warranted. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 07:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed. Even on top of the obvious COI issue for the reasons explained in my reply regarding Helps above, their replies on their talk page about it are not acceptable and show both an unwillingness to assume good faith and a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] view of Wikipedia, which is particularly incompatible with COI editing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1190835734&amp;oldid=1190608956&amp;title=User_talk:Thmazing This] they thought better of and replaced, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1190838884&amp;oldid=1190835734&amp;title=User_talk:Thmazing the replacement] is no better. {{tq|I understand your feelings may be hurt and I don't want to pile on}} and {{tq| Wikipedia is not a sport where people should strive to win or lose and I apologize if I made you feel you needed to win}} are not acceptable ways to respond to a serious concern. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1212451954&amp;oldid=1212410244&amp;title=User_talk:Thmazing This] is in some ways even worse - I'm particularly concerned by {{tq|I think you might feel better about things if you report me. I mean—you're Fram! You have a reputation to maintain! (I was lurking on a Discord channel earlier today and you came up. &quot;What a coincidence!&quot; I said to myself)}} coupled with {{tq|I'm not sure how you all ended up here (perhaps you're on another Discord channel complaining about me?)}} - I'm not sure how to interpret those two sentences other than, well, 1. Thmazing believes that people coordinate Wikipedia edits on Discord, and that this is common and normal enough to immediately leap to that assumption when COI concerns come up, and 2. Thmazing themselves is in a Discord channel which was discussing Fram around that time. The logical conclusion, to me, seems to be that Thmazing leaped to that conclusion because that is, in fact, the nature of the discord channel referenced in the first sentence, and they assume that everyone else is doing the same thing because they're approaching Wikipedia as a battleground. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:In fairness, [[WP:FRAM|we did have a massive controversy which involved harassment and Fram]], and all that seemed to come from that is that Fram has a reputation.... for being a punching bag whenever he inserts himself in anything involving any sort of controversy and getting fucked over whenever his name comes up in conjunction with anything remotely near [[WP:HARASS]]-related content (though in this case I will defend his block as justified, just not as performed by [[WP:INVOLVED|Primefac]]). This is not to justify Fram's actions or exonerate Thmazing, whose actions smack of [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list|EEML]] or [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones|WTC]] just from a brief glance, and get just as ugly as them if scrutinised. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :'''Comment''' Thmazing has been creating a lot of redirects such as &quot;John grisham&quot; (note the capitalization) and seems to be unaware that these are superfluous (unless I’m very much mistaken) due to case insensitivity. Is there a way to bulk RfD like multiple AfDs? [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 10:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|RadioactiveBoulevardier}} - actually Thmazing is correct in this regard, so no deletions should occur. For example, our current TFA [[George Griffith]] versus [[George griffith]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 12:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::How so? If I put “George griffith” into the search bar and press the button (ignoring suggestions ofc), I get sent to the article. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 13:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I see, we did different ways, {{re|RadioactiveBoulevardier}}. I typed the URL with &quot;George_griffith&quot;. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_griffith] '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 13:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In any case, there’s a reason these redirects are not created systematically. Still, I suppose they’re cheap. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 13:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I'm not particularly interested in defending myself here even though a lot of what has been said is more game-of-telephone than evidence and would never hold up in a court of law. It also makes me sad how corrosive discussions can become. That said, I thought I might add a couple bits of information for consideration.<br /> <br /> 1) I was editing AML-related articles long before I was involved in the AML. I agree that's no excuse for failing to disclose COI when it became a thing, but honestly, it never really occurred to me. I was just doing what I'd been doing before.<br /> <br /> 2) Based on the specific edits that have been used as evidence against me, it seems like we're talking about maybe a dozen of my roughly 8000 total edits---or '''0.15%'''. Even if we quadruple my infractions, which seems a number higher than likely, it's less than half of one percent of my total edits. So some of the hyperbole about me being a threat to the very existence of Wikipedia is wild.<br /> <br /> 3) Something I've noticed in these discussions before is that a few facts can become monstrous through snowballing assumptions. I would encourage anyone who thinks #2 is a lie to please check my contribs for yourself. I genuinely consider myself a gnome and a fairy and you'll see that I turn Wikipedia green. In a wide variety of subjects.<br /> <br /> 4) This conversation makes me think Wikipedia needs to have a new conversation about what COI even means. We have some cowboys that go around enforcing, imo, absurdly broad standards. I'm not sure, by their logic, that I should be allowed to edit places or people within the United States, or with the arts of any sort, or possibly things that metabolize. I know you all think I'm exaggerating here. Good! I agree!<br /> <br /> I don't anticipating posting here again. I've found that a few people (not you, of course, ''other'' people) just want a fight, while I believe in a troll-free Wikipedia. I suppose if I hadn't identified myself, none of this would have been possible. But I'm not afraid to be identified. And I'm up for being called out on my errors. What I'm not cool with is people saying things like I'm a net-negative on Wikipedia. That's not the Wikipedia culture I know. And it's not representative of the work I've done here over the last 20 years (17 with this account). Thank you for reading. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 23:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::I know I said I didn't plan to butt in again, but about an hour after I posted, a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity and describing me and my evil ways and nefarious means. (I will not be providing a link.) But the thing that made me laugh was his primary argument that I have a financial motivation in all this and it made me wonder if that's what everyone here has been thinking? Finances have always been the way ''I'' think of COI and you won't find edits where I cross that line. See if you can see what these have in common:<br /> :::Money made editing Irreantum: $0<br /> :::Money made as president of AML: $0<br /> :::Money made editing Peculiar Pages: $0<br /> :::Money made editing Wikipedia: $0<br /> ::I suppose in my mind these are all part of my efforts to make the world better using the tools I have. Anyway, if that was the (unspoken) subcutaneous concern, I thought I should address it. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 00:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::When you say &quot;a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity&quot; you do realize all that information can be found on your userpage? [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 17:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The post at…that place makes some easily verifiable claims. Other sources indicate you wholly own Peculiar Pages and have a senior position at Irreantum, so the claim that no money explicitly changed hands is not only irrelevant, but indicative of the reasons why editors (including myself) think a topic ban might be helpful to the project.<br /> :::Like, unilaterally removing a notability tag with the diff summary you did? Going about it that way is horribly disruptive to processes and doing so with a CoI is unconscionable to anyone engaged in the NPP or deletion processes (as I am).<br /> :::And by the way, unlike Nihonjoe you by definition can’t be outed, at least not while you have links to your public-facing socials and your personal website on your website. That’s not outing, it’s [[muckraking]]. If you want to claim any sort of protection for your identity, blank your user page.<br /> :::Frankly, if I had a mop I’d have given you a 24-hour block for the particular flavor of calculated incivility you’ve shown multiple editors on your user talk.<br /> :::Through your repeatedly telling people things to the general effect of &quot;[[I am not a crook]]! Was it because of [insert personal attack] that you thought so?&quot; when you know as well as they and now we do what the diffs say, you’ve turned a not that big complaint into something that a pseudonymous WikiHater thought was worth posting about.<br /> :::In fact, it should have been dealt with sooner. An admin should come along and close this because the more people vote !support, the more I get unpleasant feelings related to having just reread ''[[To Kill a Mockingbird]]''<br /> :::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *{{re|Thmazing}} - first, money doesn’t have to be made ''while editing''. The very existence of the Wikipedia pages, in a promotional way, may generate money for the entities. That isn’t my biggest concern, though. That would be that within the last year '''you literally cited your own blog''', multiple times [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elias:_An_Epic_of_the_Ages&amp;oldid=1151435889] within the [[Elias: An Epic of the Ages]]. One month after that you declared that it was your blog [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thmazing&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1153382284]. Citing yourself is blindingly inappropriate. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I've copped to that and apologized and not touched the article since. I hope that these (rare) instances will lead to other editors improving the articles with sources they see as appropriate. But of course I'm not going back to them myself. I can't imagine a better way to get more people mad at me.<br /> *:Also, I hope if I'm not responding quickly there aren't more accusations of me avoiding the conversation. This is a dreadfully busy moment for me in almost every way. Plus, most of the commentary hasn't really been to me, more at me. Thank you, @[[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]] for being so civil. (And I know you understand busy!) [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 05:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Oh, hey---serious question:<br /> *:Considering how often I could have cited myself, I rarely have. Usually I use some other source because it seems like the right thing to do. Those few exceptions are for information I didn't think was available elsewhere. I appreciate people don't appreciate the exception and I'm suitably cowed, but that gets to my question.<br /> *:There's been effort to have scientists and historians and others bring their expertise to Wikipedia. And I have to imagine, especially with a scientist bringing new information into the world, if they do so they have little choice but to cite themselves. Although I've generally avoided citing myself (as the rarity of instances proves) I've always thought that this drive to get wild-haired scientists to bring their work to the public via Wikipedia suggested a backside-covering precedent. I wonder how this understanding of the intersection between expertise and COI may have changed? [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 05:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Scientists do not need to cite themselves to contribute their expertise. Science topics generally disallow primary sources (research articles), so adding info sourced to one's own research publications isn't compliant with PAGs anyway. Issues would really only arise when editing a ''very'' narrow subject, when the editor is so prolific writing review papers that all the most up-to-date consensus info is cited to them, or when the editor has a huge number of collaborators and can't avoid citing one of them. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 06:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{re|Thmazing}} - I am afraid your response and past actions show what seems to me a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines. By citing your own self-published blog {{tq|for information I didn't think was available elsewhere}}, you are violating [[WP:COI]], [[WP:SPS]] (part of [[WP:V]]) and also [[WP:DUE]] (part of [[WP:NPOV]]). It is my opinion that any topic that desperately needs your blog as a source probably does not meet [[WP:GNG]] for an article on Wikipedia, and any article that meets WP:GNG does not need your blog. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 00:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::That's not quite what I said. All the articles are worthy of existing sans me. I only cited myself for ''specific details'' I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page. I now understand I should not have done that. Lesson learned. If my goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia, such edits would be greater than one one-thousandth of my total edits. I mean---I've written a lot of stuff. I've written about thousands of books and hundreds of movies and plenty of other stuff. If I were the sly ne'er-do-well described in this discussion, you could find hundreds more examples of self-citation to harp on. Since that's not that case, I would greatly appreciate a bit of [[WP:AGF]]. I'm trying to be a good citizen. I believe deeply in the value and importance of Wikipedia and my edit history proves I have added to that value. I'm not touching the articles I've been accused of COI on, even when it's absurd and I have stuff to add. For instance, I had collected a bunch of more recent sources on [[Brad Teare]] but I've only posted them to the talk page, even though I can't imagine a reason why I shouldn't be able to edit that page. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{tqq|I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page.}} That's what [[WP:NPOV]] says ''not'' to do: include details that aren't in secondary sources that you personally think are valuable to someone visiting the page. If the only person who wrote about a specific detail is you, then you're not the person who should be adding that detail to the Wikipedia article. What you did there was use Wikipedia to promote your own viewpoint--to promote details nobody else thought were important enough to publish. That ''is'' &quot;sly ne're-do-well.&quot; That's not being a good citizen, that's putting your head in the sand and pretending that bias and COI don't apply to you. That you don't understand or accept this, is why we have COI rules: people with COI have biases that prevent them from viewing something objectively; in particular, COI comes with a bias that makes everyone think their COI doesn't come with a bias, or the bias doesn't matter. It's inherent, it's why COI rules exist in the first place. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{re|Thmazing}} - you've asked for {{tq|a bit of WP:AGF}}, I assure you that's exactly what I have given to you. I've never called you a {{tq|sly ne'er-do-well}}, neither have I said that you have a {{tq|goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia}}. I simply think that you do not know (yet) if you should, or should not, add certain information to an article, per [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:SPS]], which you should thoroughly review. That is evident from your response: {{tq|I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page.}} '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 07:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' for disruption and ignoring NPOV. &lt;small&gt;If Thmazing thinks Fram's comment is unclear[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thmazing&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212609155] or that the draft linked above is NPOV, Fram's command of English, or at least the formal English in encyclopedias, may be better.&lt;/small&gt; It seems like a sarcastic comment to me, but either way there's been enough egregious behaviour that the camel was crushed long before the Belgian comment. [[User:Novo Tape|Sincerely, Novo Tape]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Novo Tape|My Talk Page]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Also, tagging is still editing. 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [[User:Novo Tape|Sincerely, Novo Tape]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Novo Tape|My Talk Page]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed''': Thmazing says that their COI editing is a very low percentage of their Wikipedia edits — 0.15%, according to their completely made-up estimate. If that's the case, and it's not a big deal to avoid all the pages where COI is likely, then a topic ban should be easy to comply with. In general, I'm unimpressed with Thmazing's statements — if they're still calling the COI concerns &quot;absurd&quot; after all this conversation, then they're not getting the point. If they really want to avoid a topic ban, being less defensive and dismissive would help. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 23:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:The conversation with Fram (linked above by Novo Tape) shows that Thmazing prefers deflecting away from the issue of declaring COI by essentially verbally assaulting Fram. {{redact}} Being snarky doesn't work. {{redact}} One more thing, this is not social website where we host links from personal blogs or links from other trivial venues. Thmazing, try doing some reading to learn about editing on Wikipedia. I suggest you start with reading [[WP:N]] and then follow the links from there. But, candidly, I don't see that as happening. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed''': Note that this is an ongoing issue, Thmazing continues to join in discussions without disclosing relevant conflicts of interest [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Motley_Vision&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214597917] [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{redact}} ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' broadly construed. Not merely the absolutely ''blatant'' COI, but their refusal to acknowledge it, let alone address it, means that the community must do it for them. They chose... poorly. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 18:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Canvassing concerns===<br /> :{{userlinks|BoyNamedTzu}}<br /> :{{userlinks|Awilley}}<br /> I am concerned that there has been canvassing involved in discussions related to Rachel Helps (BYU). In January 2024 there was a case here at AN/I involving myself and Rachel Helps (BYU). Both BoyNamedTzu and Awilley broke long no-edit stretches (21 November 2023-8 January 2024 and 9 December 2023-7 January 2024 respectively) to take positions strongly in support of Rachel Helps (BYU). Neither disclosed a conflict of interest. The same thing happened again with this VP/M-AN/I thread, both broke long no-edit stretches (8 January 2024-12 March 2024 and 17 February 2024-13 March 2024) to take positions strongly in support of Rachel Helps (BYU). BoyNamedTzu did not disclosed a COI, Awilley only disclosed after being asked. In between 8 January 2024 and 13 March 2024 BoyNamedTzu made no edits and Awilley made only four. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :As I mentioned above, I was alerted to the existence of these threads by pings or mentions because I had participated in a previous discussion about you and Rachel Helps. <br /> :*January 9th AN/I thread: That thread was actually about topic banning or admonishing ''you'' for hounding Helps. You say I took a strong position, but I didn't even !vote. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194089340#Admonishment_proposal Here's] the only comment I made in that thread (replying inline to another user to gently correct what I saw as a misrepresentation). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1193974962 Here's] the comment that mentioned me in that discussion. <br /> :*February-March VP/M thread: I got what looks like a more deliberate ping to that thread in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1213362422 this] comment. You will undoubtedly find that suspicious because it was the same user who pinged me to the earlier thread. In any case, there seemed to be a lot of misunderstandings and accusations flying around, so I made a similarly meandering comment trying to clear up a few issues and replied to one user. Unfortunately I can't provide diffs to my two posts because they were caught up in an oversight, but if you scroll up from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;oldid=1213635752#A_personal_analysis_and_proposal] you'll find it. <br /> :*March 13 AN/I: I got pinged to the above thread by its creator in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1213529641 this diff.] You can see my response above where I wrote, &quot;in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor.&quot; I try to say something like that whenever I !vote on AN/I threads related to religion because I've recused myself from taking admin actions in that topic area. <br /> :I didn't get any emails or off-wiki communication about these threads, and I'm not on any email lists or text threads or discord servers related to Wikipedia. From a search of my inbox, the last Wikipedia related email I received was in September 2023 from a user asking for details on how I created a certain .gif animation. As for why I chose to comment in the above threads: I have a soft spot when it comes to seeing gnomes getting attacked and sucked into wiki-drama. <br /> :Speaking of pings and notifications, it looks like the &quot;userlinks&quot; templates you used above do not automatically generate pings, so I got no notification that you had opened this thread. You might want to consider officially notifying {{ping|BoyNamedTzu}}. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The community appears to have now endorsed my concerns around Help. I am disturbed that you are only now disclosing your BYU COI despite participating in a number of discussions about the BYU wikipedia editing program. Also, given what we now know clearly not a gnome and never was. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I would also note that since pinging you to that first discussion [Hydrangeans] has disclosed a series of COIs. In hindsight that appears to be on-wiki canvassing. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Then the canvassing issue you have is with [Hydrangeans], for the first two discussions, not Awilley. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I don't agree with that. I was just writing that I'm disappointed in Awilley. In the Jan 9th thread, that's one BYU alum pinging another BYU alum for backup in a thread involving BYU's WiR, and ''none of the three of them'' disclosed it. In the VPM, ''again'' a BYU alum pings another BYU alum, again accusing HEB of &quot;hounding&quot; the BYU WiR, and again, neither of the BYU alums disclose their connection. This is all in an effort to shut down HEB when ''HEB was right all along about the COI'', in fact it's a much bigger and broader COI issue, we now know, than just involving the BYU WiR. This was super deceitful. I understod when I read &quot;I'm commenting here as an involved editor,&quot; and I thought, ''ah ha, that's why''. This is very not kosher, you should ''all'' know better than to participate in ''discussions about COI by your alma mater'' without disclosing that it's your alma mater. In hindsight, we now know, that almost all of the people defending the BYU WiR from COI allegations were also BYU people (or AML people, or both). This was all highly deceptive, which is extra disappoint when it all comes from a Christian church (yeah I said it). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 02:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I would say that this is an issue of lack of disclosure of Awilley's part, which is, the more I think about it, pretty disturbing, for the reasons you mentioned. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You're right, with that fact pattern laid out Awilley's conduct looks like harassment. They selectively participated in discussions about topics they had a COI with at a time in which they were not generally active on wikipedia in order to confront or inhibit the work of another editor (me). That would be unbecoming of any editor, from an admin it really begs the question of whether they should remain an admin. It is par for the course for disruptive editors to cry &quot;Harassment!&quot; while engaging in harassment, but I rarely see an admin do it and never without consequences. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 02:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> :::::{{tq|you should all know better than to participate in discussions about COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it's your alma mater.}} We talked thoroughly on my userpage why the [[WP:COI|conflict of interest policy]] left me with the impression that it asked about current relationships and not terminated ones, and I apologized for that, both to you personally and in the Village Pump thread. This thread is the first that I learned Awilley had any connection to BYU. I pinged Awilley, along with Drmies and Mackensen, because they had participated in a past ANI thread about HEB and I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again. There are ways of communicating about COI other than by violating the [[WP:HA|harassment and privacy policies]]. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 02:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::If you pinged people because of their past interactions with me and not their past interactions with Rachel on a discussion purely about Rachel's conduct that is not appropriate. Especially if you did it because &quot;I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again&quot; that would be canvassing with a specific goal in mind, all three are admins, were you trying to get me blocked? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 02:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I get that at the time, you didn't know Awilley was a BYU alum. But Awilley knew. I now count at least half a dozen editors who have some affiliation with BYU/AML -- almost all of them current or former employees -- who engaged in discussions about undisclosed BYU/AML COI editing without disclosing their affiliation. If all of them were part of one single conspiracy, that would be bad. But if they all each independently decided to surreptitiously influence the COI investigation without disclosing their own COI, that's even worse. That's like: what the heck are they teaching at BYU, that there are so many BYU folks who don't seem to grasp basic ethics -- and not a matter of the wording of Wikipedia policies, or even ethics tied to any religion or culture, but cross-cultural basic ethics, like that if you are going to act as a &quot;judge,&quot; &quot;juror,&quot; or &quot;witness,&quot; you'd better disclose your connection to the &quot;defendant.&quot; That's so basic. Everyone involved in these discussions about BYU/AML COI who has any connection past or present with BYU or AML should disclose that, or else stay out of these discussions. And it seems like every day I'm learning of someone else who has been involved, has the connection, but didn't disclose. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 02:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::@Levivich, up until today I didn't know that [Hydrangeans] was a BYU alumnus. And frankly knowing it now doesn't really change anything for me. She's just an editor with whom I cross paths with occasionally. There's only one Wikipedia editor I've ever knowingly met in real life. We went to lunch together and had a nice talk. Maybe he was a BYU alumnus too; I don't actually know. And it doesn't matter. Editors on Wikipedia should be judged by their words and actions, not the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 05:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Yeah, judged for actions like choosing to participate in multiple discussions about undisclosed COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it was your alma mater (though I appreciate that you finally did). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Nobody is being judged by the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended... They are being judged by their words and actions *alone*. Throwing out these red herrings and insinuations of bigotry against good faith editors is not constructive. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Indeed, and my concern at the time was that HEB pushed too hard, evening when not gaining support from other editors for their views (still feel that way, but it's not relevant here). This situation is different, and I feel seriously misled by Nihonjoe's failure to disclose their COI. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 00:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I will happily acknowledge that Rachel is my friend and the person who recruited me to Wikipedia and taught me how to edit. When I have seen her being relentlessly bullied by other editors, I have defended her. She has never asked me to do this. She has never reuqested that i participate, in any way, in any discussion about her work. She has never canvassed me or anybody else that I know about in order to solicit responses or participation. But the grenades that you and others have thrown her way have a real life impact on an actual human being that I care about, and that often propels me to action. I am conversant enough with Wikipedia conventions to find my way here without being canvassed.<br /> :I will soon be deactivating my account and leaving Wikipedia for good. I have no desire to continue to edit, and I will pledge to make no more edits to any pages. [[User:BoyNamedTzu|BoyNamedTzu]] ([[User talk:BoyNamedTzu|talk]]) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::And did you see it on the discord? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No. I did not see it on the Discord, which I have not participated in for months. I saw it in my real-life interactions with my friend. [[User:BoyNamedTzu|BoyNamedTzu]] ([[User talk:BoyNamedTzu|talk]]) 20:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::For what its worth I hope you stick around, in the future please either avoid such crossovers between your personal life and wikipedia or disclose them. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Further canvassing and meatpuppetry concerns====<br /> {{hat|This was apparently instigated by a joe job}}<br /> {{userlinks|Luke Olson (BYU)}} created an account for the purpose of !voting against a topic ban. In a discussion on their talk page, they revealed there is a discord channel where BYU editors are discussing and are opposed to this topic ban - I am concerned that other !votes may have been canvassed by that channel.<br /> <br /> In particular, I'm concerned about {{userlinks|Oliveleaf4}}, who returned after a two month hiatus and after a few hours of editing elsewhere arrived to vote against this proposal - their first ever participation at ANI.<br /> <br /> I note Awilley has already been raised above, but I'm also concerned about them; they deny being a member of this discord channel, but there is clearly some connection as Luke Olson pinged them when restoring their !vote, saying {{tq|I'm going to ping [[User:Awilley]] so he sees if someone deletes my message again.}}<br /> <br /> In general, I think this is evidence that stronger and broader action is required, perhaps similar to what was used against the Church of Scientology. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I wasn't around for any Scientology saga, but I think if broader action is required, it would likely be geared towards reducing time wasted by college students with the most poriferous opsec I've ever seen, rather than what I presume was a real operation by serious people. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 04:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :what ''did'' end up happening with scientology anyways? [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 04:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Well, there was [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology|this]], @[[User:Vghfr|Vghfr]]. [[Special:Contributions/57.140.16.57|57.140.16.57]] ([[User talk:57.140.16.57|talk]]) 13:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214295281 Diff]''' of the quote BilledMammal is referring to, for convenience. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 04:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I don't know why Luke Olson singled me out. I've asked [[User_talk:Luke_Olson_(BYU)#Curious_why_you_pinged_me|here]] on their talk page. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Most likely because you're a member of WikiProject LDS. I guess he thought that you'd back him up because you had involvement in LDS related topics [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *If any more single purpose/meatpuppet accounts show up, just tag with {{green|&lt;nowiki&gt;{{spa}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;}} directly after their sig. The closer should be an admin, and they should be able to properly weight any SPA comments. [[User:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;Dennis Brown&lt;/b&gt;]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;2&amp;cent;&lt;/b&gt;]] 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I added the &quot;not a ballot&quot; notice to the top. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 12:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:ජපස|ජපස]], @[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]], @[[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]], @[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] and others, fwiw CU data indicates that account is a Joe job. Seems like it was created to derail the discussion and cause drama for entertainment. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Glad y'all put a stop to it. This really makes [[WP:AGF]] hard, doesn't it? Now I have to reset my priors because it did not occur to me that this could have been a joe job. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{hab}}<br /> <br /> Assuming I'm no longer under under investigation for [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Awilley&amp;page=Brigham_Young_University&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max= being an agent of BYU], may I suggest that if there is truly an appetite for having an open and honest discussion about off-wiki canvassing, it might be healthy to acknowledge the real elephant in the room. The thing that I think [[User:Horse Eye's Back]] referred to as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213530736 the &quot;invisible baseball&quot;]. Above [[User:Aquillion]] above criticized Thmazing for questioning how Fram, &lt;del&gt;HEB, and company&lt;/del&gt;&lt;u&gt;and a couple other editors&lt;/u&gt; spontaneously ended up on his talk page. It seems that was a valid question after all. In that light it's a bit ironic that we have editors tracking down Oppose voters to interrogate them on how ''they'' heard about this discussion, what their alma mater is, and whether they're members of a Discord group. {{pb}}I also can't help but wonder if some part of the frustration on display above may be displaced anger for a different user who is currently out of reach of AN/I. I'd hate to see Rachel Helps and Thamazing become convenient scapegoats for Nihonjoe. I'm not asking anybody to change their votes, but I do think it would be healthy to reconsider the [[McCarthyism|BYU editor under every rock]] approach. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 03:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I don't think it was a valid question at all. I asserted, and continue to assert, that the way in which Thamazing reacted there shows a starkly [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] approach to Wikipedia. And it seems a bit silly to bring up the fact that Nihonjoe is before ArbCom as if that is something people concerned about COIs might ''object'' to. It seems clear to me that this will (and should) end up before ArbCom as well - the problem is systematic and comparable to eg. [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology]]; it is unlikely to be settled here. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 04:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :FWIW, I started watching Thmazing's talk page back in January after I submitted evidence on AML COIs to ArbCom. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 06:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It's rather hard to look at Nihonjoe's COI contributions and ''not'' notice the constant intersection with both Thmazing and the BYU editors. For example [[Annie Poon]] was created by Thmazing, with later important edits by Nihonjoe and Rachel Helps (BYU). Oh, Rachel Helps even sourced the article to two different non-[[WP:RS]] sources written by Thmazing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annie_Poon&amp;diff=733735545&amp;oldid=715763069]. Stellar work promoting AML editors in an article about an AML Award winning artist, not problematic COI editing at all. Same at [[Steven L. Peck]], created by Thmazing, expanded by Rachel Helps (BYU) with addition of a source written by Thmazing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_L._Peck&amp;diff=760551193&amp;oldid=696493939] (and e.g. a source written by Michael Austin, which whom she has a COI as well) , of course again a winner of an AML Award (as are Thmazing, Rachel Helps, Michael Austin). On other pages edited by Nihonjoe, I encountered Thmazing adding his own publications[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Wells_%28author%29&amp;diff=449048632&amp;oldid=445839510]. I have to say, Rachel Helps is rather fond of quoting Thmazing, she used him as a reference twice in [[List of Mormon cartoonists]] as well, next to of course the AML Awards. But Thmazing doesn't really need her help, he is perfectly capable of ading his own self-published work[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nephi_Anderson&amp;diff=713827919&amp;oldid=712611908], again on a page edited by Rachel Helps and Nihonjoe as well. But it is a good reference, because that work won, you guessed it, an AML Award. <br /> :Oh look, [[Dendō]]! Created by Rachel Helps, about an AML Award winning book where the Library that pays Rachel Helps owns the original artwork, and where Helps again uses Thmazing as a reference (among other not quite independent references as well). It's a walled garden which becomes very obvious once one looks at more and more articles edited by the same people referencing each other by name, each others publications, the organisations they're in, and so on... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''It seems that was a valid question after all.''' Please explain what you mean by this. I would also note that if you want &quot;to acknowledge the real elephant in the room&quot; it would be helpful to actually name the elephant... In plain English what is the concern? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Re: &quot;It seems that was a valid question after all.&quot; I was referring to the off-wiki blog post/doxing that Thamazing mentioned above and questioning whether that might have been part of the reason a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep. The earlier blog post and related on-wiki fallout was what I was referring to as the elephant in the room. I think that's about as plain as I can be without having this post redacted. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Is &quot;a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep&quot; an accurate summary of the facts? I showed up on Thmazings talk page in December 2023‎. The off-wiki blog post was made on January 18th 2024. Fram didn't show up until 6 March 2024‎, JoelleJay on the 7th, and AirshipJungleman29 on the 8th. To me that looks like JoelleJay and AirshipJungleman29 followed Fram to the page but it doesn't look like Fram was following the &quot;bad site&quot; closely. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yeah, I saw Fram's edits to the page come up on my watchlist and was curious. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how AJ29 arrived too. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::No actually, I was following you; I believe you had said something on Jimmy Wales' talk page (EDIT: yes, it was [[User talk:Jimbo Wales#French Wikipedia's new trans MOS|this thread]] which I participated in) and I absent-mindedly had a look at your recent contributions. Couple of days later I was having a look at WPO (I believe for the Nihonjoe saga), saw that thread, and thought &quot;huh&quot;. Used what I could of that thread when opening the VPM subsection after being irritated by Thmazing. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Based on these facts I would ask that you strike &quot;HEB&quot; from &quot;questioning how Fram, HEB, and company spontaneously ended up on his talk page.&quot; if you don't choose to strike the whole thing. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 22:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Although you joined the others in posting on March 7, I'll strike &quot;HEB&quot; as you requested because, as you pointed out, you had posted on Thmazing's talk page in December 2023. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::And what about those who posted on the 9th? Are they part of this clique you're alleging the existence of or is the 8th some sort of magic cutoff? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't mean to defend the blog in any way, but doesn't that editor make their real life identity abundantly clear, hence the conflict of interest? [[User:XeCyranium|XeCyranium]] ([[User talk:XeCyranium|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Correct. Thmazing made like zero effort to hide his identity, which made the COI obvious. And to be fair, I have seen some evidence that Thmazing was trying to declare COI even before he was confronted. See for instance [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irreantum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1178161024 this October 2023 edit] with the edit summary, ''&quot;conflict alert: just cited myself&quot;.'' (Still not great to cite yourself though, even if the information was mundane.) &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::So, Awilley, you claim that insinuations that I appeared at Thmazing's talk page due to some off-wiki canvassing is &quot;It seems that was a valid question after all.&quot; I guess you have some evidence for this? As far as I can reconstruct, I noticed Thmazing because of the AML and the AML Awards, which I was looking at because of the many links between them and Nihonjoe's COI articles; and because he also turned up at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 26]], which I looked at when I delved a bit deeper in Rachel Helps' edits (again after I noticed the BYU, AML, ... edits and the collaborations with Nihonjoe on GA review, edit-a-thon, ... ). I then noticed the older discussion about his COI issues, so I started looking at his edits more closely then. But feel free to post any evidence you have of any off-wiki places I was contacted or where I contacted others or ... If you don't have any, perhaps strike the accusation and don't repeat such bogus claims in the future. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 11:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Fram: I'm not trying to claim or insinuate anything. I became interested in the possibility of off-wiki collaboration when I was singled out by the &quot;joe job&quot; sock, so I did some digging and then posted the above. I don't find fault in any of your actions that you described above, and I really wouldn't care even if you ''had'' learned about Nihonjoe and the other editors on the other site. How you find the information matters much less than what you do with it. You'll have to forgive me for not being immediately familiar with all the facts. When I first commented on the Village Pump thread this month I didn't realize there was an Arbcom case afoot and Nihonjoe wasn't even on my radar, so I've been kind of piecing things together since then. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Once you look at the timeline of things, you can see that this didn't start with WPO, WPO only confirmed what people had already been saying on-wiki for ''years''. To recap:<br /> :* the now-familiar [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University|2020 COIN]]<br /> :* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1115#Another user is persistently complaining about me|2022 ANI]] started by Rachel Helps against HEB, where she writes &quot;I have invited Horse Eye's Back to bring their concerns to COIN. I would prefer that to the constant accusations that I should not be editing certain pages.&quot; This is ironic in hindsight, as these concerns had already been brought to COIN two years earlier. AFAICS, nobody in the 2022 ANI thread mentioned the 2020 COIN. The only person in the 2022 ANI discussion who was also in the 2020 COIN is... Rachel Helps. I find it not very honest of her to say &quot;take it to COIN&quot; without disclosing that this had already been done. BTW, who jumps in to defend Rachel in the 2022 ANI? Awilley.<br /> :* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Horse Eye's Back's battleground behavior|January 2024 ANI]] against HEB (for things including but not limited to the BYU/AML COI), in which Rachel Helps writes &quot;HEB has been harassing me since last year (see my talk page archive) and the students who work for me(see 1 and 2). He threatened to nominate us for a topic ban on editing pages about the Book of Mormon...&quot; (this is the one mentioned above where [Hydrangeans] pinged Awilley to the discussion) Dozens of editors participated here.<br /> :*:BTW just to toot my own horn here, I said there and then, on Jan 8, that &quot;It seems ''wildly'' obvious that 'something is afoot,' and I don't think it's limited to this thread...&quot; That there was widespread undisclosed COI editing was obvious by Jan 8. Subsequent disclosers have since validated my suspicions.<br /> :* The &quot;Let's talk about LDS editors&quot; WPO forum thread was started Jan 18. After all of the above.<br /> :* The WPO blogs were posted in Feb and March (neither one about Rachel Helps, but related)<br /> :The timeline refutes any suggestion that WPO is what brought attention to this matter. Rather, WPO laid bare the evidence that supported what was already being discussed on-wiki. We know from people's statements that editors submitted evidence to Arbcom privately in December and January. Wikipedia didn't follow WPO, WPO followed Wikipedia. People weren't canvassed from WPO to Wikipedia, it was the other way around. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm pretty damn sure that the reason WPO wrote about it was ''because'' nothing was done on-wiki. Which happens pretty regularly: if Wikipedia doesn't take care of its own problems on-wiki, the rest of the world will notice and call Wikipedia out for it whenever the problems are serious enough for the rest of the world to care. Spreading misinformation in Mormonism, the Holocaust, Israel/Palestine, Iran, etc. are examples of things the real world will care about. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Given the extensive ongoing issues and the lack of recalcitrance maybe we need to start talking about sanctions for Awilley. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you for the timeline, Levivich. That is very helpful. I remember that 2022 ANI...I think that's why I kept getting pinged back to subsequent threads on the same issue. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Right, so when you're in a hole, stop digging. This isn't McCarthyism, which you literally linked to. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 08:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Jesus this is a mess,<br /> ::::does anyone want me to contact an admin [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 02:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{ping|Maestrofin}} The admins are most likely fully aware. This forum is entitled &quot;Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.&quot; ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Do you think we should have an Request For Comment [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 06:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Several admins have participated in this thread, including Awilley above. An RfC might be needed subsequently, but not right now; you are welcome to comment on this discussion {{u|Maestrofin}}. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I suspect that {{Ping|Ocaasi}} was canvassed to this discussion per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ocaasi]. Despite being an admin Ocassi had not commented on this noticeboard since September 2015 and was not in general active on wikipedia when they came here to make a very strong comment. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Based on their user page, there are several other highly plausible explanations than outright canvassing…honestly this is getting a little too Inquisition-y for my liking and while it may well result in discoveries that a do-no-harm editor like me would never have chanced upon, ArbCom has a nasty reputation for being a little indiscriminate with its remedies. Just so you’re clear on the risks/rewards. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 01:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: There's a line between a witch hunt and hunting witches... But yes, I take your point. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Well, you ''were'' pretty much accusing the founder of [[WP:LIBRARY]] of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy not limited to LDS editors…lol<br /> :::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I think it's legitimate to point out that some GLAM higher-ups are circling WiR wagons in this dispute. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{cn}}{{clarify}} [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I join you in soliciting additional evidence of same. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Horse Eye, respectfully, how are you defining &quot;active&quot;? The link you provided shows activity every month from October 23, 2023 to March 2024. And if we go back to the next oldest 100 edits there is activity every month from May 12, 2023. And this is starting to feel a little creepy, imho. It may be best not to go down this road unless there is some sort of definitive evidence, imho. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 02:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : I'm defining active as &quot;could reasonable be expected to have found this discussion through their normal editing.&quot; If you can come up with a way they got here let me know, IMHO their appearing here is a little creepy and I'd like some context. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::This discussion is already so complex that it's going to be hard for anyone to close it. Quibbling over a single participant's possible canvassing is adding more complexity. Even if this is true, it's not important. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 16:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'd disagree. If an admin were canvassed and still !voted (I have no opinions on whether or not they were), it would be a serious [[WP:ADMINCOND]] issue, potentially warranting a formal warning. It's certainly important if true. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 18:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Agreed but…''prima facie'' evidence much? Canvassing has a specific definition. Being hypothetically informed of a WiR getting in trouble, coming over to see what’s up, and then deciding on one’s own initiative to respond in a knee-jerk way is, unless I’m very much mistaken, not canvassing.<br /> ::::Anyway, if the movement were as politics-ridden as was implied, then he in turn would, purely theoretically, probably be able to canvass a goodly number of experienced uninvolved editors who are overwhelmingly grateful to him for their free access to more things than even those enrolled at most top universities get.<br /> ::::Separately, I sense that Awilley’s vehemence is probably related to the tone taken by jps and others. Even if mainstream consensus and anti-religion PoV intersect on points of fact (like that the society depicted in the BoM is, ya know, completely fictitious and Joseph Smith was quite literally pulling it out of his hat) that doesn’t give editors a blank check to exceed or breach guidelines (any of them). [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Meh, even if it was canvassing, this is just one vote amongst many. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Closing time?===<br /> There have been no new comments in the main threads for a couple of days, so is it time for an uninvolved admin to close before the archiving bot gets trigger happy? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :This should absolutely get the attention of a closer. I look forward to reading it. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::My reading of the main thread is that it's a tricky close because of so many overlapping issues. On the one hand, there's a clear consensus that the user messed up in editing topics with a COI without adequately disclosing the COI. But there's no evidence that her editing was disruptive (quite the opposite). There's evidence that her student editors weren't doing a great job with NPOV and were too &quot;in-world&quot; on Mormonism-related topics. But she seems to be taking steps to address that as well, starting by having them only edit in sandbox for now. There are some users who seem to suggest that all paid editing should be banned, but AFAIK that argument doesn't have the force of policy behind it. There seems to be a numerical majority favoring a topic ban, but the editor is a clear net-positive on Wikipedia and shows a genuine interest in following the rules. In this thread she openly admitted fault, and then she went way beyond what is expected by listing all possible conflicts she could think of on her userpage. (See also the conversation with above with Valeree about which talk pages require a COI template.) The WiR thing is another complication that I think most people (including me) don't fully understand. And it seems the biggest COI violations (like the creation of [[The ARCH-HIVE]]) were unpaid—done on her on time from her personal account. This all makes for a thread that different admins could reasonably close in different ways. {{pb}}My suggestion would be to wait a day or two (I don't know if Rachel edits on Sundays) and see if people might be interested in finding a middle path...something between &quot;topic ban from Mormonism broadly construed&quot; and &quot;no action&quot;. There might be some solution that would satisfy more people and solve the problem too, perhaps something along the lines of &quot;Rachel Helps agrees to use the {{tl|Connected contributor}} template on all articles in the LDS Wikiproject to which she makes substantive edits, and will not directly edit articles about BYU, its current staff, or its library. She agrees to follow the advice at [[WP:COIEDIT]] for subjects she has a close connection with, including using the {{tl|edit COI}} template on the talk page. All article creations, even those from her personal account, must go through the [[WP:Articles for Creation]] process.&quot; Some guidance for what to do with her students would also be helpful. {{pb}}Is there any interest in this? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 17:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;small&gt;(involved here, in case anybody hasn't read the above thread)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :A 2007 close that led to an arbcom case above [[Special:Diff/140818119]] suggests that this discussion is gonna be difficult to close definitively…[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 18:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}I don't understand why people are opposed to a topic ban from Mormonism broadly construed even as they admit there were problems. What is the added ''benefit'' of these accounts being able to move around the pages about Mormonism? I think there is rather ''broad consensus'' that encouraging them to move towards new topics would be ideal. Wouldn't a topic ban do that? What I don't understand is why the &quot;middle ground&quot; is sought at all. If you think she and her students should be editing Mormonism pages, then she should be allowed to do so. If you do not, then why the worry about the topic ban? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:ජපස|jps]] My experience in many contentious (especially religious) topics around Wikipedia has been that there are often two major groups of editors in opposition with one another. One group usually has some affiliation with the topic that gives them three things: 1, motivation to edit, 2, above average knowledge about the subject matter, and 3, a non-neutral point of view. (1 &amp; 2 are good things, 3 is a bad thing.) These users are usually opposed by another group of users who are 1, motivated by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to counter the POV of the first group, and that, 2, have relatively little knowledge of the subject matter. It is &lt;u&gt;good&lt;/u&gt; to have some friction between these groups of editors, since Wikipedia needs motivated editors, people with deep knowledge about the subjects, and a commitment to follow its PAGs. Sometimes you will find a smaller third group of editors between these two opposing groups. These editors may some affiliation with the subject matter with the corresponding POV problem, but they have decided that when they log into Wikipedia, they are going to put Wikipedia first. They have a deep knowledge of the subject, but they recognize their bias and they take steps to mitigate that. If improving Wikipedia is the goal, these editors are a precious resource. The main reason I'm defending Rachel Helps is because I see her as being part of this third group. Does that answer your question? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You think being Mormon gives a person an above-average knowledge of Mormonism? I think it's the opposite. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Strike your comments. That is very disrespectful. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 01:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Agreed: this is a completely unacceptable PA by Levivich, and not even attached to an actual point they're trying to make. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 04:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::How is Rachel ''not'' a member of group 1? She has motivation to edit, above average knowledge of the subject (such that one might have as a member of the church), and a non-neutral point of view. You are also a member of group 1, no? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I suppose if you're technical about it, a Venn diagram would show that group 3 is largely a subset of group 1. My own relationship with Mormonism is complicated and something I prefer not to discuss on-wiki, but I have tried my best try my best to be a good member of group 3. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I think the controversy here is one over whether it is possible to be more or less in the service of NPOV. I would prefer that we simply admit that people with a ''close'' relationship with a subject will necessarily be biased. It is our job as editors to try as best as we can to put that bias aside and attempt to follow Wikipedia's consensus [[WP:PAG]]s to achieve [[WP:NPOV]]. To the extent that I think the BYU contingent has been unable to do that and to the extent it has been in the service of the particular bias which is more-or-less apparent at first glance from the consideration of their approaches in articles on the Book of Mormon is the extent to which I have concerns over [[WP:PAID]], [[WP:COI]], etc. in these areas. So while your complicated relationship with Mormonism is a concern, you (as far as I know) are not being paid to edit Wikipedia by an organization with an iron in that fire. Here is the bone of contention. This is why I am having a hard time seeing how this is amenable to compromise between &quot;just stay away&quot; and &quot;there's nothing wrong with it&quot;. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Isn't it the case that at this point, only the community can determine if a compromise is possible? I mean, the community has already reached a consensus on its preferred outcome. And admins are not likely to thwart the community's decision, imho. Also, since we are already here, wherever &quot;here&quot; is, we might as well move forward ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In other words, Rachel can appeal in six months or whatever the time frame is. Time in between now and an appeal can be a benefit because it is a chance to show a proven track record. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 22:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{tq|which is more-or-less apparent at first glance}} Except it isn't more or less apparent. The worst of those Book of Mormon topic articles were created decades ago, in the early 2000s, by completely different accounts with nothing to do with Rachel Helps (BYU) and were in far sorrier states before the BYU-paid editors actually added citations to sources other than the Book of Mormon. (To quote Ghosts of Europa, {{tq|Second Nephi and Ammonihah are in much better shape than, say, Jason, a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid.}} [for clarity, Ammonihah was not expanded by a BYU-paid editor; that's an article I expanded]) {{pb}}I'm aware of JPS having complaints. Yet some of these complaints have ranged from the genuinely inaccurate (I urge JPS to at some point accept the academic assessment of Joseph Smith as having been racist in a slightly different manner than has been insisted with repeated linking to a 30-year-old ''JWHA Journal'' article—and saying that isn't apologetics unless Max Perry Mueller's ''Race and the Making of the Mormon People'' (University of North Carolina Press, 2017) is Mormon apologetics, which would be a strange characterization for an academic book written by a non-Mormon about Mormon racism and white saviorism)—to the demandingly excessive, like at [[Talk:Ammonihah]] where JPS calls a non-Mormon literature professor a {{tq|lunatic charlatan}} and repeatedly insists the article is incomprehensible because it doesn't provide an apologetics-style anthropology of background elements in the story like supposed Nephite ecclesioilogy.{{pb}}My bone of contention is that JPS's catastrophic description of the Mormon studies topic area that Rachel Helps (BYU) and the student employees have contributed to doesn't hold up in all cases and only holds up in a couple. My bone of contention is that speaking as a trans girl who was formerly a BYU student with a BYU student job (unrelated to the Wikimedian-in-residence business; I never met Rachel Helps (BYU) at BYU and instead met her and primarily got to know her via Wikipedia), this {{tq|BYU contingent}} as JPS calls them never made me feel ashamed or like I was less than them, whereas the users most strongly insisting that Rachel Helps (BYU)'s contributions are catastrophically damaging have proceeded with a tear-down tone that's left me feeling paralyzed about editing completely unrelated things on Wikipedia. I cannot stress this enough when it's so bizarre. I ''came out as trans at BYU'', and the behavior that has been on display here at Wikipedia in the midst of this whole &quot;thing&quot; has hurt ''more'' and inflicted ''more'' shame than I experienced back then. There's been [[WP:OUTING|attempts at outing and stalking]], there's been bizarre additions to articles like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=1213942114&amp;oldid=1212611600 throwing {{tq|judge of ???}} (actually with the question marks) in body text] because apparently that was the best way to insist that article text I wrote wasn't clear enough about the intricate geopolitics of a Nephite society that NPOV means we're not supposed to be treating as nearly so real (JPS's train of thought on Book of Mormon topics more than once has resembled FARMS-style apologists much more than the 21st-century academic-critical field), I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213912940 been told my best effort to summarize available scholarship has constituted {{tq|stupid games}}]. At BYU, I didn't develop a fear I was being stalked. I didn't get talked about over the pulpit or in publicly-viewable forums. No BYU personnel ever [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick&amp;diff=1214009259&amp;oldid=1213938770 followed me to an unrelated article to loom over my shoulder].{{pb}}I don't know what's up about Nihonjoe and ArbCom, and I don't know why the heck Thmazing has been so devil may care in tone and has been making articles cited so predominantly to blog posts. Let the sanctions on ''them'' fall as they must. But to apply the same broad brush more widely and without nuance or differentiation strikes me as reminiscent of the kind of thinking at which the [[Wikipedia:List_of_cabals#Mormon_Smokescreen_Cabal|Mormon Smokescreen Cabal]] joke was supposed to poke fun. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 23:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{Ping|ජපස}}, you've certainly been around long enough to know that {{tq|???}} is poor wikivoice. A couple questions: Can you point to consensus regarding the WSJ not covering climate change accurately? [[WP:WSJ]] makes no mention of it. Are you following [Hydrangeans] around and/or intentionally scanning their contributions for errors? I'm struggling to find an explanation for these edits besides you intentionally being harsh on [Hydrangeans]'s edits, although please provide one if there is. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 00:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Oh, it's well known that the WSJ is a problem when it comes to climate change denial: [https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/Online/22952/Wall-Street-Journal-opinion-editors-are-attacked].<br /> :::::::I am not &quot;following&quot; [Hydrangeans] around. I did look at some of the articles she had last contributed to and did see this terrible &quot;hockey stick controversy&quot; WSJ article added in [[Ross McKitrick]]. This was not, to my knowledge, anything she added to the article. I do not find anything problematic about her work on that article.<br /> :::::::I think the lack of [[WP:AGF]] extended towards me from [Hydrangeans] is sad, but as you can see from our interactions on her talkpage, not surprising. I ''am'' leveling harsh critique on certain Wikipedia contributions she has made, but they aren't unforgivable sins by any means. Yes, I found the article on Ammonihah and most of the rest of the Book of Mormon pages to be pretty bad and needing a lot of cleanup. I will not apologize for being a disruptive force in those places. I think there is a lot more work to be done up to and including three question marks!<br /> :::::::[[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 01:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Who are we discussing about again is it Rachel helps or her students Or all, <br /> ::::::::Because this is a big mess [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 03:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::I don't take issue with deleting that ''Wall Street Journal'' reference on the Ross McKitrick article. I'm sorry that I wasn't paying enough attention to delete it myself; my attention was taken up by belatedly implementing the results of a talk page discussion. What I take issue with are the looming and a tone that others [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=1214739500&amp;oldid=1214681976 others have] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214576198 talked] to JPS about (the two linked diffs are written by someone who agrees with JPS on content, about a different article JPS was participating in). I take issue with someone who says he {{tq|will not apologize for being a disruptive force}} instead of wanting to be a constructive force. I can accept we disagree about the utility of literary criticism as a secondary source about texts (although I find [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmmonihah&amp;diff=1213917154&amp;oldid=1213917026 the {{tq|lunatic charlatan}} invocation a perplexing characterization, especially as apparently applied to even completely secular scholarship]), and I can accept we disagree about what makes good content in an Ammonihah article or what have you. I can accept being wrong about that, and I can accept those articles significantly changing. What I don't think I'm obliged to accept is an apparent priding of oneself on contributing [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptively]] rather than constructively, or behavior like going {{tq|LOL}} (actual quotation, multiple times) at other editors' [[WP:AGF|good faith]] interactions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmmonihah&amp;diff=1213909195&amp;oldid=1213909094 at Talk:Ammonihah], at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215406823 Talk:Massacre of the Innocents]). The presumption of good faith is a core value on Wikipedia of course—and so is the recognition that [[WP:BRIE|being right isn't enough]]. A templated dove doesn't oblige me to roll over and just take the {{tq|LOL}}s and {{tq|Whachagonnado}}s and pretend like that's restrained, polite talking. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 05:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please feel free to disagree strenuously with me, as you have been. You can even request that I reword things, if you like. I'm not saying I necessarily will agree to reword things, but I'm happy to discuss these matters on my talkpage. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::I didn't realize the WSJ's issue with climate change (though I am aware of [[WP:RSOPINION]]). Either way, thanks for answering my question about climate change. <br /> ::::::::On second thought, I think the {{tq|???}}, while not perfect, isn't worth relitigating this whole debate. I welcome a close and don't need any further answers to my questions. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thats an opinion piece... And the [[Editorial board at The Wall Street Journal]] is definitely known for bad takes on climate change. Note that [Hydrangeans] has a history of following around other editors (including to completely unrelated topics) and &quot;looming&quot; over their shoulder so their complaints are a bit much all things considered. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::My own feeling, like I said above, is that this sort of paid editing (paid editing that doesn't follow [[WP:PAID]] and [[WP:COI]], and a WIR program that doesn't follow the guidelines for those organization) is a hard red line. I'm not remotely convinced that the people in question knew more about the topic area or were in whatever respect more policy-compliant compared to the average editor, but either way it ''doesn't matter'', for the reasons I outlined above - this is an actually serious problem which, as a precedent, would have implications far beyond this specific dispute. I'm also deeply unimpressed by an argument that we should make a special exception for someone just because some people feel [[WP:YANI|they are irreplaceable]] - that is not how Wikipedia works or has ever worked. Based on that I'm unwilling to accept anything but broad topic-bans, and I expect this to go to ArbCom if necessary in order to get them - this has been discussed repeatedly, devouring massive amounts of editor time and energy, for ''four years''. If it isn't ended in an extremely conclusive manner here, then the community has failed to resolve it and a broader ArbCom case is the only way to go. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 03:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I think your third group is just the first group from its own POV. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It would probably help if a request for closing was not immediately followed by relitigation of the above debate and related events from the parties who are most unlikely to change their minds. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Hi, I'm not sure where to respond or if it's appropriate to respond. I'm open to helping to &quot;fix&quot; edits that me and my students have made if we can agree on what is appropriate for Wikipedia (including removing research). I'm open to a topic-ban. I'm open to a topic ban on just Book of Mormon pages (and BYU stuff?), since that seems to be the place where most of our edits have been criticized. I think our edits have been constructive in Mormon studies and Mormon history topics. I'm trying to be flexible here. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 18:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :That's great to hear, and will probably inform any closer's decision. But listen: since you're the one who's getting paid to edit Wikipedia, you should be the one proposing specific fixes and to-do items for yourself based on the extensive feedback you've already received over the past several years (from many unpaid, volunteer editors who could have been doing other things instead, I should add). In specific content terms, what are some of the specific edits you're planning to &quot;fix&quot;? What articles, what sections, what changes to your prior edits, specifically? Even just a few will help convey a sense of what you think is wrong with your prior edits, and how you will correct them. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::There are a lot of complaints about me personally, my job, and my edits here. One of the ones that I think is the most legitimate is the argument that we are using too much &quot;in-universe&quot; explanation for the books of the Book of Mormon. I think we could add more context to clarify on individual pages what a book of the Book of Mormon is. I'm watching the edits on BoM pages. It's difficult for me to look past [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=1214181462&amp;oldid=1213564636 jps's inflammatory language] asking for clarification on issues where I or other people used ambiguous language to summarize theology that was ambiguous in the text that we summarized (but at least he is articulating his complaints to the extent of making edits). My plan is to watch how other editors resolve these edits to try to figure out what is the most objectionable part about our edits. Was it how we wrote the narrative sections? Is there a better way to introduce analysis of the Book of Mormon by members who are also Biblical or literary scholars, if that is appropriate to include on Wikipedia? Those are the kinds of questions I am looking for answers to. My current plan is to give myself and my students a break from editing Book of Mormon pages for the rest of the semester (here that's until the end of April), which I hope will give time for some consensus to develop and for one or two pages to get to a standard that is acceptable to the community, which I could then imitate. If my team returned to editing Book of Mormon pages, it would be either me, or me and one other student, to make the pace of editing slower to wait for review from other editors. And it would be great if I could find an on-wiki mentor who is not associated with BYU or the LDS Church to go to with my editing questions. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 21:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I suspect this is one of those ANI discussions where each participant leaves with a lower opinion of every other participant, but for different reasons. That said, probably the best content-related argument against the topic ban (e.g. from Vanamonde) is that you are the editor who is most capable of fixing some of the content problems that have been identified in the topic affected by the ban. If that were true, then topic banning you would impede the process of fixing the content, making things worse overall. But from what you've said here for the first time (I think), it seems like your actual plan is to wait for other editors to (figure out how to) fix content in that topic area anyway. Not you, not now. Given this new information you've provided, that &quot;best content-related argument against&quot;, aka &quot;per Vanamonde&quot;, becomes much less persuasive, I think. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 04:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Rachel Helps (BYU)}} I have to agree with {{U|Indignant Flamingo}} above. I opposed a TBAN because I believe you're among the few editors with the time ''and'' the inclination ''and'' the ability to help clean up some of the problems with articles related to Mormonism that you and your students have worked on, which in my view largely have to do with using sources too close to their subject and language that doesn't distinguish articles of faith from accepted fact. I opposed a TBAN despite the serious concerns many colleagues raised above, because I felt you would be willing to help rectify these issues. If you would rather take a break from the topic, though, I struggle to see why I, and others, should advocate for your continued ability to edit about it. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 20:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::: {{ping|Vanamonde93}} and {{ping|Indignant Flamingo}}: Thank you for these question. I have been thinking a lot about what I have done wrong. It has been difficult for me to sift through feedback on my editing (and I have felt paralyzed by my own anxiety), but this conversation has helped me to narrow down what is important, and empowered me to have an opinion on how I think we could repair some of our work. With the Book of Mormon pages specifically, I think I got into too much of a binary mode about whether or not a source was &quot;reliable.&quot; But for scholarship in Book of Mormon studies, especially from the 1990s or 2000s, sometimes it is more complicated than &quot;this is a reliable source.&quot; Something I understood implicitly was that I shouldn't use Wikipedia's voice to summarize opinions about the Book of Mormon as a historical or archeological source--at the very least these should be consolidated into a section on apologetics, or, like you and others have suggested, excluded entirely. However, my students did not understand this implicitly like I did. They were doing what I told them--to summarize what a given source said about a topic and cite it in-line--when I should have instructed them to look more carefully at the implicit bias in scholarship, especially sources like Brant Gardner, which have some valuable analysis, but also work off of the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text. If we were to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, cleanup of archeological/historical arguments on pages we have edited would be my first priority. However, my students have experienced emotional damage from my incompetence. I would let them choose whether or not to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, with an option to continue their projects that are less connected with Mormons and the LDS Church. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Indignant Flamingo asked for an example. [[Laban (Book of Mormon)]] contains a paragraph about the brass plates under &quot;Interpretations&quot;. It is tricky because it mixes apologetic arguments with literary ones. I would remove this analysis, or introduce it differently: &quot;Brant Gardner, writing under the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text, has argued that the brass plates were a symbol of political authority and recordkeeping in the society of Book of Mormon people (Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites).&quot; I would remove the Stephen Ricks info. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Rachel, I'm so sorry this is making you feel so much anxiety. FWIW, I do not believe you have edited in bad faith, and I doubt I'm alone. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I’m not very happy about this either and in my opinion this should be spun off from the AML issues with Nihonjoe and Thmazing unless and until the inquisitorially minded editors find clearer linkages.<br /> ::::::I’m not sure how this would best be handled, but I would be very wary of any permanent remedies being applied at this point and will slightly adjust my vote accordingly.<br /> ::::::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::A clearer link than the three of them all being current/former board members of AML? What clearer link can there be than all three of their names appearing on the AML about us page? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Well, why don’t you just ask her? She’s been very cooperative so far. And anyway, while the same person wearing two hats is obviously going to rub off both ways, sanctioning Rachel Helps (BYU) would include the whole BYU outfit, and I don’t believe the standard of evidence has yet been met to say that the BYU outfit has demonstrably colluded with Nihonjoe or Thmazing. If such a thing happened, it’ll probably come out over at ArbCom.<br /> ::::::::The reason I’m now flip-flopping uncertainly is that I perceive jps as dragging their apparently long history of content disputes into this venue, and, along with others, making statements that could be reasonably interpreted as implying support of non-neutral handling of religion more generally, while HEB is making unsubstantiated allegations that faintly ooze a touch of Chekism.<br /> ::::::::Meanwhile, Fram and some others have notably tapered off, most likely because they intuit that some more wheels are turning at ArbCom and/or elsewhere and further participation in the mud bath party here is worse than useless for anyone who wants to doggedly pursue the actual application of remedies.<br /> ::::::::ANI is probably no longer an appropriate venue and pretty soon I think I’m gonna go make a formal closure request. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::There are already requests at [[WP:ANRFC]] and [[WP:AN]]. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 19:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Why don't I just ask her what? I don't have any questions. There is, in fact, evidence that Rachel Helps (BYU) &quot;demonstrably colluded&quot; with Nihonjoe and Thmazing, and others. Some of the evidence has been redacted so I can't discuss it, but there's plenty of public evidence still on this page, VPM and the arbcom evidence page -- the evidence my support votes are based on. Look, bottom line: COI concerns have been raised for years about Rachel Helps (BYU). The people who pushed back the hardest against those COI concerns fall into three groups: BYU people, AML people, WiR people. I don't know if you're aware but arbcom already considered expanding the scope of its Nihonjoe case to include Rachel Helps/BYU/AML and voted against doing so. I think ANI is still the appropriate venue for this. This will be closed eventually, it might take some time as it's a long thread, and probably the best thing we can all do, including myself, is to stop making it longer, unless we're bringing evidence of something new. Otherwise, all the evidence and the votes seem to be in. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::@[[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]]; thank you, that is somewhat reassuring. I think you should seriously consider, though, keeping your students off of topics closely intertwined with Mormonism for the foreseeable future, assuming the lot of them do not emerge from this situation with TBANs. It's quite evident from this discussion that there have been problems with the mormonism-related content they have produced. I could speculate as to why, but I won't; I'll just say that dispassionately describing faith and belief in any system is difficult, and is not the sort of task an undergraduate may be up to. I say this to save you and your students further distress, as well as to protect our content. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 21:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have not looked at your Mormon studies/history related edits in any more detail than what was required for the post at VPM and at the start of this section. I have no doubt that many, perhaps even the majority, of you and your students edits on those topics were constructive. But that is to not see the wood for the trees.<br /> :For me, COI editing is comparable to (in some ways) to [[WP:SPI|sockpuppet editing]]—let me explain. It is a question of trust. Yes, a sockpuppet can contribute productively, in improving articles, taking part in processes, getting Wikipedia to function. But it is Wikipedia policy to block all sockpuppets on sight and to put all their edits up for [[WP:BANREVERT|immediate reversion]]. Why? Because once you mislead others to that extent, the trust is gone. And that the trust, or lack of, is fundamental, because good conduct is of equal importance to good content (and I say this as someone who focuses on the latter and occasionally fails at the former).<br /> :It is the same for COI editing. After I have seen your lack of disclosures with, e.g. the account named BoyNamedTzu &lt;small&gt;(I do not know what is public and what is not, but I know that you and I and Primefac and BoyNamedTzu and most of the people in this thread and everyone on The Site That Must Not Be Named know)&lt;/small&gt; how can there be trust? Especially for a person who has held a position which by rights should indicate you are above suspicion. To find that you were actively pushing back against the basic COI suggestions as far back as 2018, and you might as well throw that trust into a shoddily-built submersible and send it down to the wreck of the Titanic.<br /> :The closer may decide that there are significant issues with your Book of Mormon editing, and that's more important. If that's the close, fair enough, I don't really mind—I know you have asked above and on WPO how to improve that aspect. But I want to be clear: I opened this section because I did not think [[WP:CIVILITY|you treated your fellow editors with adequate respect and consideration]], not because I felt you were harming articles. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 02:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{Reply|AirshipJungleman29}} earlier than that, 2016 at least [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amgisseman(BYU)/Archive_1&amp;oldid=854327236#COI]. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Inappropriate removal of NPOV tag by JayBeeEll ==<br /> <br /> {{ping|S Marshall}} closed a controversial RFC today at [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], see [[Talk:Tim Hunt#RfC: 2015 remarks]]. Whilst acknowledging there appeared to be a consensus, he reminded editors that consensus can't over-rule [[:meta:Founding principles|founding principles]], the [[WP:5P2|second pillar]], and [[WP:NPOV|core content policy]] and quoting the amplification on his talk page these ''cannot be overruled by any talk page consensus however strong''. He later emphasised this on his own talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213538308&amp;oldid=1213534477] in response to a query [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213522530&amp;oldid=1213355874].<br /> <br /> Judging by that query, it appears that the key point in the closure was being ignored; namely [[WP:PROPORTION]]. Shortly thereafter, and before any reply, an edit was made to [[Tim Hunt]] which appeared to ignore the closure[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213521275&amp;oldid=1208829572]. Noting the history of edit warring at the article, I chose to add a &lt;nowiki&gt;{{npov}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; tag and start a talk page discussion. I felt that any revert of a bold edit would result in an edit war and had no intention to revert war.<br /> <br /> My tag was removed by JayBeeEll [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213538744&amp;oldid=1213533989] with the edit summary &quot;Don't be silly&quot;, I restored the tag and it was once again removed by JayBeeEll [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213539288] with the edit summary &quot;Yes sure let's see how this turns out&quot;, which appears to be an intention to revert war. The comment in the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213539531&amp;oldid=1213535026] in response to my concerns and the unnecessary 3RR warning on my talk page appears to confirm [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWee_Curry_Monster&amp;diff=1213539690&amp;oldid=1212590941] that.<br /> <br /> On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies. As such I would suggest that the tag should remain until the closure is fully addressed. On a side note, I remain concerned about the toxic nature of any discussion in that talk page presently. Reluctantly bringing it here for further review. Please note I will not be available for a couple of days due to personal commitments. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 17:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The behavior displayed by WCM is very similar to the behavior that led to [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Tendentious_editing_by_Thomas_Basboll|this]] only one month ago; it is disappointing that he has not been able to accommodate himself to the fact that his view is a minority, both relative to WP editors and to the views represented in reliable sources. At least he stopped after a single round of edit-warring about the ridiculous tagging. As with Thomas B, my hope is that this can be settled by a change of behavior, without the need for any sanctions. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::I've no wish to comment on this ridiculous tag edit war, and I'd prefer to limit my involvement with the page to closing that one RfC, but I do want to say tempers are extremely frayed in this topic area and there's definitely scope for an uninvolved sysop to step in and restore order. Please.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 18:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::It would be a ridiculous edit war, were it not for the fact I refused to edit war over this. The fact remains that removing the tags in the way JayBeeEll did is counter to accepted policy. I would acknowledge {{ping|S Marshall}}'s comment that this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. I have been asking for that for weeks, the reference to the removal of Thomas Basboll, is exactly the point I wish to make. If editors are convinced they're right and there are enough of them make a fuss, they can remove what they see as an obstruction by lobbying loudly here. The edit war that editor attempted to start, and its clear that was his intention, was a repeat of the same tactics used previously. I have made no attempt to filibuster I simply tried to bring external opinion but that's pretty unlikely given the toxic nature of editing at present. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::The editing situation got much less toxic when you stopped participating for a few days; maybe you should try that again? Certainly it would be good for an uninvolved admin to tell you the same thing everyone else on this thread has said. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Point to anything I've said that contributes to a toxic atmosphere. As for comments contributing to a toxic atmosphere[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213538744&amp;oldid=1213533989] {{tq|&quot;Don't be silly}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213539288] {{tq|&quot;Yes sure let's see how this turns out&quot;}} whilst edit warring to remove tags that encourage outside input. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{tq|On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies.}}<br /> :That's an extremely uncharitable reading of the closure, apparently because you just don't like the results. The close was finding that the RfC consensus narrowly found for inclusion, with a warning to follow guiding principles of the Wiki while doing so. ''That's it''. The rest of it is you projecting onto the closure and making vague, hand-wavy assertions that the close is against policy.<br /> :Since you won't be available for a couple days anyway, I suggest you wait and see what proposed edits come from the RfC before making any further comments. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I at no point said the close was against policy, I actually think given the toxic atmosphere he was entering {{ping|S Marshall}} made a very good closure of that malformed RFC. The reminder that local consensus can't trump core policy seems to have fallen on deaf ears it seems. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[[WP:CON]] has by definition got to be aligned with the [[WP:PAG]]s since it embodies &quot;a process of compromise &lt;u&gt;while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines&lt;/u&gt;&quot;. So if @[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]]'s close is &quot;very good&quot;, it follows it must have correctly divined consensus, which you now need to accept. If however, you think the close has arrived at a problematic [[WP:LOCALCON]] you need to initiate a close review. Shit or get off the pot. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 11:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Precisely this. WCM, you can't have it both ways: you can't claim the close &quot;trumps core policy&quot;, while acknowledging it was a good close. The close in fact emphasizes that any proposed changes have to adhere to core policy. It seems you're claiming that the finding of inclusion ''inherently'' violates policy, so which is it? — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::At no point did I say the close trumps policy, that's your strawman. The closer clearly refers to core policies and makes it plain that they can't be overridden by a local consensus. He also singled out that I and others couldn't be ignored because we were making {{tq|well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy}} further adding {{tq|While editors are implementing option 1 and option 2A, they should have regard to core content policy, and specifically [[WP:PROPORTION]]}}. It's clear from this comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213522530&amp;oldid=1213355874] there is no intention to implement the full intention of the close {{tq|The view of myself, and I assume a lot of participants, is that [[WP:PROPORTION]] isn't terribly relevant}}. There is [[WP:TAG]] team of editors are acting in concert and per {{ping|S Marshall}}'s comment this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 17:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::''sigh'' I tried, but if you're intent on digging a [[First law of holes|hole]], I can't stop you. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :If you aren't available for the next couple of days, why the hell are you opening an ANI thread? &quot;Reluctantly bringing it here&quot; yeah right. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * WCM's editing regarding the Tim Hunt article has been as tendentious as Basboll's in staunchly refusing to [[Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_&quot;get_the_point&quot;|get the point]] regarding the fact that their viewpoint is a minority and continuing to [[WP:DEADHORSE|beat a dead horse]] and engage in [[WP:WIKILAWYERING]] in an attempt to fillibuster discussions regarding the issue, rather than just moving on. I would '''support a topic or page ban''' from Tim Hunt if WCM does not desist with his aggressive rejection of the talkpage consensus. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Given that WCM has continued his disruption regarding the article, I firmly support a topic ban now. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I haven't done any editing that would remotely be described as disruptive. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1215468029&amp;oldid=1215465703] Any editing I do is immediately reverted, this was clearly constructive. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 12:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Absolutely astonishing. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''support topic ban''' due the editor's apparent unwillingness to drop the stick and refusal to get the point of the RfC. I commented at the ANI thread where Thomas B was topic banned. Given the RfC I moved on and have not touched the article or the RfC. The level of name-calling on display at that article over an ancient ten-day kerfuffle in the bro-sphere easily matched the most acrimonious mutual accusations of genocide I have witnessed on Wikipedia. EE squared. I had never heard of Tim Hunt. He seems nice? But if the episode in question is included in the article -- and there seems no question that RS has covered it in immense detail - then the article should dispassionately state that Tim Hunt said what he said. This editor's contention that it should not (because the poor man nearly committed suicide over this) utterly lacks a grounding in policy, and no evidence was ever presented of this assertion either. It betrays an emotional investment in this incident that baffles me, frankly. I would hesitate to participate on the talk page due to this editor's past level of vitriol, and the time sink it again likely would become. I am not following this thread. If anyone has questions about what I just said, please ping me. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 12:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204016425] {{tq|I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood. Most do.}} in your on words your motives are to expose another misogynist. I am quite astounded that you'd openly mock someone driven near to suicide. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I check back at this article after taking a break from it and find the RfC has been closed, consensus established and the article fixed accordingly. Great: the journey is over, the plane has landed, and the engines are turned off .... But oddly the whining sound continues as there's one editor who [[WP:IDHT|seemingly can't move on]]. If this continues sanctions may be appropriate. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 08:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Note that the other problem editor in this mix, who was page banned from [[Tim Hunt]], has now started beating the dead horse at BLPN.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214799114] [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 07:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215140427 reported] this straight to the ban-implementing administrator this time, as this is an obvious attempt at [[WP:GAMING]], [[WP:STICK]], [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. I will remember to prefer broader topic bans next time. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Given lack of response I guess this was the wrong venue. I won't be trying to get Thomas B sanctioned for this in particular any further, but should we post some sort of final warning to [[User talk:Thomas B]]? [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:... and today [[User:Thomas B]] still continues to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215520494 post] about Tim Hunt on BLPN. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomas_B&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214802498 This] earlier comment &quot;{{tq|I won't be participating '''too actively'''}}&quot; (bolding mine) indicates that the user is going to continue to disrupt. So we have to upgrade Thomas B's page ban to a topic ban ''at a minimum''. But given this user's stubborn, prolonged refusal to cease disruption, an additional block from the whole Wikipedia for a few months is needed as a deterrent, in my view. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 18:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::And now the BLPN discussion forum-shopped by Thomas B resulted in yet another editor getting [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NewImpartial - BLP discussion touching GENSEX|dragged to ANI]]. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 13:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I've started a new ANI thread to expand Thomas B's sanctions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Thomas_B_forum-shopping,_circumventing_page_ban,_refusing_to_drop_the_stick]. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban, [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] and other issues. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 11:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' - Does this topic fall under GenSex? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:The overall Tim Hunt article wouldn't but the section on the controversy would fall under a GENSEX topic ban, as they are &quot;broadly construed&quot;. (So would this thread, I believe.) [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban''' for Wee Curry Monster. WCM had numerous opportunities to change course. All this has been sinking our time for over a month already. Since the editor is not willing to drop the stick, a sufficiently broad sanction is the only remaining solution. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban'''. Please somebody make it stop. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban''' per the really excruciating refusal to drop the stick or adjust behavior in any way. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' Pretty shameful episode for WP and ANI. [[WP:CIR]], and the lack of such competence is what created this mess. It's very clear that some editors pushed content, got an editor banned from the article, and opined in the RfC without first bothering to read the sources. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 18:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{ping|fiveby}} Your latest contribution on the talk-page is a bit cryptic, and invoking CIR here is bizarre, but I'm quite sure that if you were to participate in the constructive content discussions (i.e., the ones that don't involve WCM or Thomas B) the result would be positive. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I try and limit my participation to finding and providing sources for other editors, how is it constructive and why would i participate when the remaining editors, those who survived ANI, are those which have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to read those sources? I'll try and explain my 'cryptic' comment on the talk page. It was just a suggestion to WCM that what he is doing might be futile. You cannot force editors to read sources. An editor familiar with the reading may have reverted that content, but would never have called it &quot;disingenuous&quot; in the edit summary. As far as [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-kokomo-tribune-but-i-cant-fix-stup/34981880/ &quot;can't fix stupid&quot;] goes, tho it is couched in terms of the content generated by conflict rather than collaboration, did not my choice to use that particular phrase make my opinion clear enough? [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::There is a reason that WCM's edits to the article get reverted but your edits a couple weeks ago did not, and it's not about the unwillingness of people to read sources. I mean obviously if you change your mind but decide that what you have to add is a bunch of comments about other editors not reading the sources then I don't think that will go great. But ''almost'' everyone who has contributed in the discussions on the talk-page has shown a willingness to listen to others as part of developing a consensus. Anyhow, don't mind me, do what you want! --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban'''. This is just blatant [[WP:STICK]] and [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. The consensus in the RFC was clear. The consensus on talk about how to implement the RFC is reasonably clear. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1213533575&amp;oldid=1213481488&amp;title=Talk:Tim_Hunt comments] after the RFC were full of aspersions and battlefield behavior, ending with {{tq|Feel free to disabuse me of the presumption that having &quot;won&quot; and righted a great wrong to expose the terribly sexist misognynist that you don't intend to do that.}} --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban'''. WCM has been popping up at literally anywhere on Wikipedia this is being discussed to re-litigate a view of the RFC that literally nobody else holds. The RFC close even mentions him showing up at the close request I made to pressure whoever was going to close it. Even after the close he's totally failed to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], and thus unfortunately we've got to force the issue with a topic ban. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Comment ===<br /> <br /> [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Wee+Curry+Monster&amp;page=Tim_Hunt&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max=] My contribution history on [[Tim Hunt]]. 100% of it reverted. 0.7% of all contributions on the article.<br /> <br /> Note 2 tags added 13 March 2024. 25 March 2024 - series of edits adding context and information in [[WP:RS]] per [[WP:NPOV]].<br /> <br /> That is all of my contributions.<br /> <br /> [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Wee+Curry+Monster&amp;page=Talk%3ATim_Hunt&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max=] My contribution history on [[Talk:Tim Hunt]].<br /> <br /> Note:<br /> 13 March 2024 - comment on NPOV tags, 17 March 2024 - Further comment, 25 March 2024 - Comment on revert of my contribution.<br /> <br /> In the last month, I've made 3 comments in talk, 2 contributions to the article in total. Hardly the actions of someone who can't drop the stick.<br /> <br /> I note editors have simply alleged misconduct, largely unsupported by diffs. Addressing the talk quote taken out of context by Aquillion. This is a response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213522530&amp;oldid=1213355874], where the editors responsible for the RFC indicate they do not feel the need to respond to the closer's comments. Reference to misoginy is not mine but for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204016425] {{tq|he's just another misogynist}}.<br /> <br /> I am mentioned in the close simply because as noted {{tq|Wee Curry Monster at WP:CR, and others here, have put forth some well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy.}} I have not as claimed disputed the RFC, feel free to add a diff showing where I did but my exact comment was {{tq|a very good closure of that malformed RFC}}. I have commented, because as noted by the closer, I have raised relevant objections to what is proposed. Reference to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] isn't relevant here but [[WP:IDONTHEARTHAT]] certainly is.<br /> <br /> [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]? I haven't raised the topic in any forums. Check my contribution history. This is the one and only time I've gone to a board, in response to an attempt to bait me into an edit war so the connection to the article is tangential. My comments at [[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37#Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks]] were simply to alert any closer to what they were walking into. <br /> <br /> A number of editors have commented that the text isn't neutral and doesn't reflect what neutral sources say on the topic. This is a violation of our [[WP:BLP]] policy. I did in fact seek advice on this from {{U|Drmies}} at [[User talk:Drmies/Archive 147#Question on BLP]]. Which appears to confirm my concerns were well founded.<br /> <br /> Fiveby appears to have given up on commenting because he recognises its futile and I agree its futile. So having raised the issue, I think its time for me to simply walk away. I'm taking this off my watch list, mainly for the good of my own mental health and taking a wikibreak. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:AndyFielding]] - failure to address community concerns ==<br /> <br /> Longterm disruptive removals of birth place/date from Early life sections (examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._J._Novak&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1152634988 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna_Paquin&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1160004138 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_Poulter&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1164808003 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rainn_Wilson&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1199183562 4]). User never responds to talk page warnings (or any talk page comments at all) --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 15:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :This editor began editing in 2007, has made ~17k edits, the vast majority of which are almost certainly good, and has never been blocked. Since the start of his editing he has been using talk pages and has around 1300 edits in talk spaces. On [[Special:Diff/833988692|3 April 2018]] he wrote on his user page: {{tqq|If you disagree with any of my changes, or have questions about them, please don't hesitate to contact me}}.{{pb}}Very disappointingly, on [[Special:Diff/967772956|15 July 2020]], he changed this to {{tqq|I'm afraid I don't have time to engage in debates about my changes. If you disagree with some, undo them if you must— ...}} Since then, he has not stopped being communicative, and has, for example, made more edits to talk pages in 2022 then in all of the previous years combined.{{pb}}So this editor definitely talks in general, but consciously refuses to engage when editors inform him that some of his edits are wrong. Which is not collaborative. AndyFielding should commit to engage in consensus building, and that he understands that receiving feedback from other editors and participating in ocassional disputes does not have to be a &quot;debate&quot; every time. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :See also this announcement on the editor's talk page: {{Talk quote block|text={{fake heading|sub=3|Attention to reversals, feedback, etc.}}I'm sorry I don't have more time to attend to this page. If you feel compelled to undo any of my edits, it's your prerogative—although for the most part, only factual oversights should need correction, as my primary focus is on simpler language. (In reference works, “less is more”.){{br}}As a career writer and copy editor, I'm reasonably confident my contributions benefit WP's readers. Thus I'll continue to follow founder Jimmy Wales's injunction to [[Wikipedia:Be_bold|be bold]]. As he said: “If you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough.”{{br}}Cheers, A.|by=AndyFielding|ts=01:50, 9 January 2019|oldid=877500650}}—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> The core issue here seems to be a content issue. Have they been reverting at all to enforce their preferred version? A quick look at the diffs above shows several constructive changes mixed in with the clearly controversial birth date removals, which they're saying is based on redundancy grounds. Is he just doing step one of [[WP:BRD]], and then simply conceding any subsequent discussion? They do have several edits to article talk pages recently, but at first glance nearly all of those appear to be [[WP:FORUM]] discussions rather than anything editing related. So clearly they have time to be engaging in consensus building and simply choose not to, which ain't great even if it's unclear whether that's actually disrupting anything. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 18:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :On 29 November &lt;big&gt;''2022''&lt;/big&gt;, [[User:FMSky|FMSky]] writes the following to [[User:AndyFielding|AndyFielding]] ([[special:diff/1124561606|diff]], emphasis added):<br /> <br /> ::{{Talk quote block|text=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reese_Witherspoon&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1109721746&lt;br&gt;stop making these kinds of '''idiotic''' edits. the point of having the full name/birth date there is that you can put a source behind it --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 09:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)}} <br /> <br /> :Prior to that, FMSky's added an inappropriate {{tl|uw-vandalism2}} warning issued on 3 October 2022, with an added {{tq|''STOP REMOVING BIRTH NAMES/BIRTH DATES okay??''}} ([[special:diff/1113796103|diff]]), but I now see that it all started on Sept 24, with an identical message as the Nov one, except supplant ''idiotic'' with &quot;nonsensical&quot; and a different url cited ([[special:diff/1112035011|diff]]). And now, here we are: March 2024.<br /> <br /> :What I don't understand, so maybe FMSky can explain this, is the problem with removing the full birth date and names from the body when that info is already mentioned in the lead (AndyFielding's 'redundancy,' 'simplicity,' etc.)? What makes these {{tq|''disruptive removals''}}? Because a reference could be added to a lead, especially as a single footnote as opposed to a normal ref (i.e. so as to prevent the littering the lead with refs). But as much as I disapprove of how FMSky conducted themselves here, AndyFielding stonewalling the issue and continuing to do so for additional pages, even if not reverting anything, might not be ideal. But how intensive and extensive is it? Who knows. And it's not like there's a rule, for or against, such removals. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 08:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Maybe read what other users have posted on his talk page instead of analysing a post by me made 2 years ago. The better question is why do you think its fine to have a sentence that reads &quot;{{tq|Poulter was born{{Dummy reference}}{{Dummy reference|2}}{{Dummy reference|3}}{{Dummy reference|4}}}}&quot;. Also tagging {{ping|Soetermans}} who also left a number of talk page messages on the user's page [[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 11:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[[User:FMSky|FMSky]], I will analyze and review what I see fit and in the manner and pace I see fit. And I find your own misconduct is pertinent. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Ok, thanks for feedback on my behaviour 2 years. Now, whats actually relevant: Why do you think its fine to have a sentence that reads &quot;{{tq|Poulter was born{{Dummy reference}}{{Dummy reference|2}}{{Dummy reference|3}}{{Dummy reference|4}}}}&quot; and what do you think about the comments by other users on his page? --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 11:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::[[User:FMSky|FMSky]], I have no opinion on that, but you need to take it down a notch, or I will block you from this noticeboard. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Yes my bad, I wont post in this thread any further. I feel uncomfortable being on this page anyway (that was originally the reason why I didnt made a report earlier) --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 12:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::That might be best for now. Your reports generally tend to be subpar (lacking context and depth), I'm sorry to say. And same for the history of your interactions with the user whom you've reported. Certainly room for improvement. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Hi {{u|El_C}}, perhaps other people disagree about repeating a date of birth and that's fine. This is a collaborative effort and we try to find a consensus. But as I read [[WP:LEAD]], it is the summation of the article. Any information there should be in the article as well. We try to keep references out of the lead too ([[WP:REFLEAD]]). So it makes perfect sense to mention a date of birth in the lead ''and'' mention it in an early life section, if there is one. AndyFielding has been asked repeatedly to stop and hasn't communicated a bit about the issue. But after so many talk page messages and formal warnings, you can't feign ignorance and leave edit summaries like:<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniella_Pineda&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212952166 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity, WP style (surname except to avoid ambiguity), omitting redundant detail (birth date in lede)&quot;]<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Tucci&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212892529 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity (birth date in lede)]<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lily_Collins&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213830000 &quot;I don't know what it is about celebrity articles that induces so many WP writers to redundantly repeat these details from the lede. Fan overenthusiasm, I'm guessing. (Also, &quot;redundantly repeat&quot; is probably itself redundant—so let's face it, you can't win.) Anyone with reference experience would agree, though: It's sloppy. I just wish we didn't have to fix it one article at a time. 🤷‍♂️&quot;] from three days ago. Fan enthusiasm, really?<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Gosling&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213827719 &quot;I don't know why people do this so often in celebrity bios, but it's redundant and, frankly, seems like fawning. 🤷‍♂️&quot;], from two days ago. First fan enthusiasm, now it's 'fawning' to mention a date of birth?<br /> :So in my eyes, AndyFielding isn't just not aware of consensus, but willfully ignores it, with subtle jabs in their edit summaries. No replies on talk pages, but still going on little rants? That, combined with not communicating, sounds like disruptive behaviour to me. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I don't consider all aspects of the MOS to be mandatory, including this, but from your evidence, it does increasingly appear as a [[WP:POINT]] exercize. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Bit off topic, I was checking their edits if they've done the same. They recently made some smart-assed comments on talk pages. To an honest question, asked nearly seven years ago, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lock_%27n%27_Chase&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214144966 they responded] with &quot;Yes, tricky isn't it? Personally, I won't post videogame records unless they've been verified by space aliens.&quot; Kinda uncivil, unnecessary regardless. In a 10 year old discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Germanic_Reich&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214145396 they replied] &quot;Gee! I'll have some of whatever you were having&quot;, an inappropriate response.<br /> :::The last reply ''on their own talk page'' was in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyFielding&amp;diff=927091593&amp;oldid=927091413 November 2019]. They won't to communicate there or here - but years old discussions not a problem? [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 21:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Hi {{u|El_C}}, did you see my previous message? To be clear, those were after FMSky's note on their talk page. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Understood, {{u|Soetermans}}. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 07:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Another inappropriate edit summary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek:_Enterprise&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214614065 &quot; reckon this is what the writer meant, as &quot;conservatively modest&quot; would mean he was bashful about wearing more individualistic clothing. (By sheer coincidence, many conservatives are morons too, but that's beyond the scope of this comment.)&quot;] [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 20:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benedict_Wong&amp;diff=1214808189&amp;oldid=1214808155 More of the same]. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Take some sort of action'''. Maybe FMSky could have been more polite, but they're 100% correct on the merits. The lede is meant to be a summary of the body, so repetition between the lede and the body is ''expected'' and ''valid''. A check of some random diffs leaves me unimpressed with AndyFielding's copyediting - they appear to be, at best, enforcing a style preference on text that should honor the main contributor's style preference, and at worst making actively bad changes and being a net negative. There have been studies on this: readers do not read articles like they're novels and carefully remember every bit of information from before, but rather bounce around from section to section. So for an example other than removing birth dates from the body, despite his edit summary saying that &quot;most [readers] aren't amnesiacs—pronouns are fine&quot;, no, actually, using a last name again for clarity often makes a sentence read much simpler and work better as an excerpt, without requiring consulting earlier as to who exactly is being referred to. This could be resolved very simply by AndyFielding simply resolving and agreeing to not do things like this, but if he's going to refuse to engage or to communicate despite being reported at ANI five days ago, then a sanction is all we have. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Again: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zawe_Ashton&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214958054 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity, style, omitting redundant detail (in lede)]. I'd also like to point out that I've reverted those edits. {{u|AndyFielding}} can't feign missing notifications like this. It is disruptive. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 10:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Upgrade to ban'''. This is the dumbest and most avoidable reason for a ban, but AndyFielding seems to be of the opinion that talking with other editors is a trap or is too stressful or beneath his notice. Who knows. But simply 100% refusing to engage with legitimate concerns of other editors is not how this works. I placed a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndyFielding&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215004537 direct request] on his talk page to say something, anything, to acknowledge he is actually reading what other editors say. He's ignored it and continued to edit instead. To be sure, some of AndyFielding's copyediting seems fine, and it would be a shame to ban an editor over something so minor, but... come on. No complaint about instantly accepting any unblock request that simply promises to communicate, but communication is not optional on a collaborative project. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 16:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Block instead'''. A long-term, constant stream of bad edits mixed with a larger volume of good edits coming from an otherwise respected and trusted editor is more damaging than your daily vandal. AndyFielding's mission statement when he turned back on the idea of consensus (copied above) is against the philosophy of Wikipedia, and he has stayed on this non-collaborative track ever since. He must have understood what this would lead to and that this moment would come. It doesn't matter that most of his edits are fine when the bad edits will be repeated and there is nothing anyone can do about it but follow him around and detect and revert each one of them. And no one wants to do that and no one should be expected to do that. Alternatively, he could actually even keep not discussing as long as he remembers not to repeat the types of edits that are disputed, and for that he would at least need to read requests on his talk page not to repeat certain things and not repeat them—regardless if he thinks that the request is wrong. If he wants to prove that those particular edits are right, he would have to engage. It should be extremely easy for AndyFielding to be unblocked based on this. He can commit to respond to feedback on his talk page at least a little bit and commit not to do things that others ask him not to do without participating in dispute resolution. Therefore, an indefinite block is entirely preventative and is the only thing that can make this editor realign.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 20:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:no admin hasn’t taken any action yet [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 06:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Another odd edit summary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=District_Municipality_of_Muskoka&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215321136 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity (e.g., contrary to the apparent notion that WP readers are amnesiacs and must be continually reminded what the topic is—LOL)&quot;]. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::That's a fantastic edit with a fine edit summary. Fixing repetitive references to the subject, fixing &quot;located in&quot;, removing unprofessional wording like &quot;from generation to generation&quot;, and other needed copyediting is obviously something that this editor excels at. The problem are the bad edits, not the good edits like this one. The summary is humorous and sufficiently accurately describes the edit. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I find it odd and unnecessary to suggest &quot;contrary to the apparent notion that WP readers are amnesiacs&quot;, but maybe that's just me. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I wouldn't say it's just you. I'd say that's [[WP:UNCIVIL|uncivil]] language on AndyFielding's part. There's no need to {{tq|LOL}} at other editors' best efforts. Pointy word choice about language and style is especially troubling, since some editors are contributing with English proficiencies that are sufficient for encyclopedic language but may fall short of the high-level prose AndyFielding believes they're implementing. Improving on language isn't wrong, but [[WP:BRIE|being right isn't enough]] to justify talking down to other editors through snippy summaries and flatly ignoring collaborative feedback. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 08:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Harvey&amp;diff=1215459940&amp;oldid=1215099122 Behaviour continues]. Now the reference isn't used to source ''when'' Harvey was born, but ''that he was born''. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Someone who removes text so that the only thing left is &quot;XY was born&quot;, and does so in hundrets of articles, should be blocked per [[WP:CIR]] --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 08:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' something, whether a block or ban, or at least a formal sanction of some sort. SnowFire and Soetermans sum up well what's in the linked diffs, and the behavior continuing even with the ANI notice demonstrates how a block or ban would be preventative, as behavior will continue otherwise. Copyediting and editing for concision isn't irreplaceable. Articles will be legible in AndyFieldings's absence—and may well be more legible. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyFielding&amp;diff=1215004537&amp;oldid=1214027386 SnowFire's description of AndyFieldings's approach as constituting {{tq|code golf}} is apt]. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 08:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::And the beat [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mira_Murati&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215811451 goes on]. When is it enough to perform some kind of action? [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Could anyone do anything by any chance? 😃 --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 02:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have drafted a polite &quot;Final warning&quot; message for {{u|AndyFielding}} but I am wondering if tolerating an idiosyncratic editor might be worthwhile. The problem for me is that AndyFielding is producing good edits and it's possible that cleaning up after him might be the way to go. For example, [[Special:Diff/1215998066|this diff]] has a glitch presumably from the visual editor (search for &quot;&lt;code&gt;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&lt;/code&gt;&quot;). That glitch needs to be fixed. Would similarly cleaning up the pointy edits that remove the birth date from the article body be best for the encyclopedia? Any thoughts? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If an editor needs a minder stalking their contribution history forever, there's a problem. As I wrote above, this is the dumbest and most avoidable reason for a block ever - all AndyFielding has to do is literally just acknowledge the feedback and tone down the concision-above-all-else edits to a point that's a mere disagreement on style rather than clearly over the line. It could be done in seconds and by simply doing ''less'' work in his edits. But he isn't doing that no matter how much people have asked him to. There is a solution that doesn't involve a block and doesn't involve expecting other volunteers to clean up after him - it's just him communicating and discussing his edits, or at least just stopping the problematic behavior if he truly can't handle discussions. But if he isn't going to do that... [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 05:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Likewise, I am not proposing an indef block or a ban, but I would like to see this behaviour to stop. This discussion was started nearly two weeks ago. There have been talk page messages, direct mentions (for good measure, {{u|AndyFielding}}, please stop this and maybe reply?) and their removal of date births in early life sections have been reverted. AndyFielding has been notified repeatedly. [[WP:COMMUNICATION|Communication is required]]. Instead, they have a habit of commenting through edit summaries, like I've shown before and which continues still (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holiday_Hell&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215642671 &quot;Let's just assume from now on that, unless there's some obvious ambiguity, &quot;it&quot;, &quot;he&quot;, &quot;she&quot; or &quot;they&quot; refers by default to the article's subject. This will save us all a lot of trouble and save WP untold storage and bandwidth fees. Don't thank me.&quot;] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montegrossi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215817242 &quot;Imagine, we could use this concise format on all WP town articles. Imagine. I imagine many things like this&quot;]). Maybe it's a [[WP:CIR|competence]] issue or just a plain [[WP:IDHT|refusal to want to listen]]. Isn't a temporary edit block an option? They edit frequently, on a near daily basis. A block, say 48 hours or even a week, to prevent this disruptive editing and force them to change their attitude? If the block's over and they changed their ways there is still a competent editor, if they can continue a more drastic step can be taken. Thoughts? [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I admit I'm not very optimistic about how effective a 48-hour block will be—ignoring so much feedback over such a long period of time suggests entrenchment—but it does make sense to start with a temporary sanction and only escalate if really necessary. No need for the project to act on my lack of optimism when we could lead out with a generous attitude toward AndyFielding. All that to say, I '''support''' a temporary edit block as the step to take at this time. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 08:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Could try an escalating scheme. 31h, 72h, week, month, three months, six months, indef. with each block at least a week to a month apart (in spite of the undesirable edits reoccurring) to be able to see if the editing has changed. The [[WP:PREVENTATIVE]] grounds is that the shortest block should be tried first, then the second-shortest etc. instead of immediately indef, or 48h -&gt; indef. Instead of stalking his contributions and cleaning up after him, any editor could identify one (one is enough) undesirable edit of the type identified in this discussion, and ask any admin to implement the next block in the scheme, which that admin should do.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 09:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Please ban Fabrickator from interacting with me. ==<br /> <br /> [Edit: I have copyedited this post in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.] <br /> <br /> I'm not the only user that thinks Fabricator should be banned from interacting with me. In fact, I got the idea from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204671092 this] comment by Asparagusus on my talk page. <br /> <br /> Also, Graham Beards implied [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graham_Beards&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197633758 here] that Fabrickator and I should stop interacting with each other, which I agreed with, and Fabrickator did not agree with.<br /> <br /> I believe Fabrickator has been guilty of hounding me on Wikipedia, and has been incivil about it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196740157 Here] he sarcastically referred to an edit of mine that he disapproved of as &quot;brilliant&quot;. Something went wrong with the formatting (I think Fabrickator caused this somehow, but I'm not sure), but who said what and when is still fairly clear, I think. <br /> <br /> Fabrickator has persisted in communicating with me despite my requests that he leave me alone, and has also repeatedly ignored my questions about why he so interested in me, and in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204670096 one case], cryptically said, &quot;I'm not going to directly respond to your question.&quot; when I politely asked, yet again, why he was so interested in me.<br /> <br /> Fabrickator has reverted several good edits of mine, seemingly after following me to an article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathology&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1182405204 Here] is just one such reversion. It is notable, because firstly, it was re-reverted by Graham Beards, and secondly, Fabrickator did his reversion quietly. He did not tell me what he had done, which is remarkable, given how much irrelevant material he has posted on my talk page . I only found out he had done it much later, after Graham Beards had unreverted it. Thirdly, it is *clearly* a remarkably incompetent and fairly harmful reversion.<br /> <br /> So Fabrickator has not just been wasting *my* time, and a few other editors who have kindly taken some interest in this matter, such as Graham Beards and Asparagusus, but, more importantly, has directly harmed Wikipedia and Wikipedia's readers.<br /> <br /> I think Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, while I am not banned from interacting with him. Having said that, I would be content (delighted, in fact) with a two-way ban, if it is permanent. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 20:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :A few points here. If you want someone to stop posting on your talk page, you should make a clear request. This also means do not ask the editor any questions or otherwise talk about them on your talk page. Such a request should be respected with the exception of essential notices etc per [[WP:USERTALKSTOP]]. If [[User:Fabrickator]] had continued to continued to post on your talk page despite you asked them to stop, I think we would now be at the stage where they received a final warning before an indefinite block. I think your requests were a lot less clear than they should have been. Still I'll warn them. As for your iban proposal, that is a lot more involved and we'd need to see evidence of something more than simply posting on your talk page when you asked them to stop. If they're indefinitely blocked there's no need for an iban. A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 22:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::In [[User_talk:Polar_Apposite#sigmoid_colon_redux]], I offered to abide by an informal 60-day interaction ban. That was on February 8. I asked him to clarify whether he accepted that, he did not &quot;formally&quot; respond to that, but he did acknowledge it, and stated that he was interested in either a temporary or permanent ban. I did not ask for further clarification (the intent being to ''avoid'' interaction). So for about the last 35 days, I have refrained from any interaction with Polar (obviously, aside from this interaction, which I presume that I am obliged to respond to).<br /> ::I viewed this informal approach as having certain advantages:<br /> ::* Save administrators from having to become involved in adjudicating the dispute.<br /> ::* Also save them the trouble of officially tracking the ban, assuming it were to have been granted.<br /> ::If I were to have violated that ban, the voluntary ban would likely be viewed as a &quot;confession of fault&quot;.<br /> ::* There is neither an official determination of fault, nor an admission of fault'<br /> ::* Upon successful completion of this voluntary ban, future requests for a ban should not be based on events that happened prior to the voluntary ban.<br /> ::For the last 35 days, I have avoided any interaction with Polar. OTOH, in spite of Polar's seemingly implied commitment to avoid any interaction with me and 35 days without any interaction, he now submits this IBAN request. I request that it be denied, on the basis of this informal interaction ban. <br /> ::We should be very careful about the restriction of mere communication between users, recognizing in particular that the imposition of a ban places the banned party at a greatly heightened risk as well as creating what can be a problematic situation if (by some coincidence) they both happen to be &quot;participating&quot; in editing or commenting on the same article.<br /> ::Respectfully, [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 22:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 22:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::In point of fact, I had avoided communicating with you for 35 days. FWIW, though, you cannot reasonably avoid criticism by insisting that criticism of you (by myself and/or by somebody else) is not permitted. In any case, the appropriate place for such a discussion would be on one of the participant's own talk pages. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 23:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::If you avoided communicating with me for 35 days, and didn't revert any good edits of mine during that time, I thank you for that. But I want to *never* hear from you again, and *know* that I will never hear from you again, The only way that is possible is with a permanent interaction ban. In my opinion you should be blocked indefinitely (from Wikipedia), but I won't ask for that. You should be very grateful to if you only get a permanent one-way interaction ban. As I see it, you have nearly always wasted my time with your comments, and your reverts of my good edits is even worse, especially since you quietly followed me around Wikipedia reverting good edits of mine without even telling me. And in my humble opinion you have been uncivil while at it. It discouraged me from editing Wikipedia.<br /> :::::And you have, yet again, avoided answering my very reasonable and polite question. So I will repeat it. Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 02:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]], this is very stale. The most recent diff you provide is over a month old. <br /> :An admin should close this. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm glad you've brought this up. I've been busy with some things in real life for the last month or so, that's all. As you can see, I have almost no edits to Wikipedia during the last month. I have in a sense, been away from Wikipedia, to some extent, for the last month. <br /> ::I don't think there's any reason to believe that the situation has changed during the last month. Whether it's &quot;stale&quot; is not a real issue. In fact, the fact that I have been away actually reduces the significance of the fact that Fabricator has not posted on my user page during the last month or so. I don't know whether he has quietly reverted some more good edits of mine. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 02:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] we're supposed to [[WP:AGF]], not [[WP:ABF]]. If you had evidence of them reverted good edits of yours recently then you ought to provide evidence not state that you don't evidence that they haven't done it. The fact that you haven't provided any recent evidence of anything speaks very heavily to this being stale. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I think this is stale as well, but if the consensus is that this is not he the case, I think any interaction ban, if necessary, ought to be two-way. Fabrickator has done a poor job reading the tea leaves and should have backed off even if the request to stay off the talk was not explicit, but Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally. They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly ''announcing'' that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like &quot;harmful&quot; and &quot;incompetent&quot; needlessly in conversations.<br /> :In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 04:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Agreed. I really can't see this going anywhere. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Well I would ask that the implicit agreement of the &quot;voluntary iban&quot; (which was effectively &quot;completed&quot; by virtue of this incident being opened) should be abided by, i.e. that there shouldn't be an iban. It's not that I anticipate a desire to interact with Polar, but it will be counter-productive to have to think about this every time I edit an article or participate in some discussion. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Simply put, it's clear that Polar Apposite does not want you to post on their Talk page. You should abide by that. However, that does not mean you must avoid them on article Talk pages, and conversely Polar Apposite can't just ignore you on article Talk pages when you bring up an issue.<br /> ::::''If'' things escalate, we can start considering a two-way iban, but for now this should suffice. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :[Edit: I have copyedited this post (like I did with the OP a few hours ago) in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.] <br /> :I'll reply to myself to avoid &quot;bludgeoning&quot; anyone :)<br /> :331dot [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214161032 told me] on my talk page that, &quot;It's not bludgeoning to civilly respond to arguments/posts made in and of itself; it might be if, say, if you had a snarky response to every comment about you. I would make a single, calm comment responding to claims made about you. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)&quot;.<br /> :Accordingly, I will respond to everyone's posts in a single (hopefully calm, ha ha) comment.<br /> :I don't know whether Fabrickator should be blocked from Wikipedia, because I don't know how valuable his other contributions have been. Looking at his contributions for the first time (I was not interested until now) just now, in search of reversions of my edits, I see that he has made a lot of edits purportedly fixing broken links, which sounds good. Why stop him from doing that, if it is good work? Banning him from interacting with me would not affect, I would have thought, his ability to fix broken links. His work in general may be valuable. All I am sure of is that his interactions with me have been a huge waste of time, and quite harmful at times.<br /> :I'd like to clarify that I don't think it was ever my intention to tell Fabrickator not to post on my talk page, as that would give him an excuse to continue reverting good edits of mine without proper discussion or even notification. Also, doing so could be seen as uncivil according to the summary of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Keep_off_my_talk_page this] Wikipedia page which says, <br /> :&quot;This page in a nutshell: Editors can request that other editors keep off their user talk page. However, such demands may be considered uncivil. Disobeying such a request may or may not result in sanctions, depending on the circumstances.&quot; <br /> :I didn't want him to never post on my page, just to stop wasting my time with useless posts that seemed aimed at socializing with me, possibly trying to befriend me (we have never been friends, BTW), or to harass me, or possibly some &quot;frenemy&quot;-style mixture of the two. When I asked him why he wanted to communicate with me, and what he found so interesting about me, I really was sincerely interested in learning why. He has always chosen not to answer my question.<br /> :@[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] I thought you might want more examples of bad reversions of my work by Fabricator (I found three more) when you wrote, <br /> :&quot;A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough.&quot; <br /> :Here goes. The egregious pathology article reversion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathology&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1182405204], was not the only bad reversion of one of my edits. Another example would be @[[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] 's reversion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo_Koy&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194372531 here] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo_Koy&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194340489 this other good edit of mine] to the Jo Koy article. Notice how there's no &quot;reverted&quot; tag on my edit, making it harder for me or anyone else to notice that my edit had been reverted. His edit summary says, &quot;revert of 14:10 and 14:41 edits of 8 January 2024: both &quot;Filipino&quot; and &quot;Filipina&quot; are acceptable forms when used with &quot;mother&quot;; remove extraneous space at end of line&quot;. Wikipedia rules say that only positively harmful edits should be reverted, and so this justification makes no sense, because it acknowledges that my edit was harmless at worst. Secondly, even if both forms are acceptable (debatable, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jo_Koy#%22Filipina_mother%22_vs_%22Filipino_mother%22. my comments] on the article talk page, that doesn't mean that they are equally suited to an encyclopedia article, so, again, the edit summary is nonsensical. I argued on the talk page that &quot;Filipina&quot; is foreign or slang, or at least has that vibe about it, and therefore &quot;Filipino&quot; is more encyclopedic. I also argued that &quot;Filipina&quot; is confusing, because then what does &quot;Filipino&quot; mean? Does it refer only to males? English doesn't have this final a vs final o male/female system. But Fabrickator has not addressed any of these objections to his reversion. I have no objection to his deletion of the whitespace character I added to allow a dummy edit (an accepted technique on Wikipedia which Fabrickator seems not to have heard of, leading to his taking me to task for this elsewhere, wasting everyone's time yet again). OTOH, there was no need for him to do that, as it was harmless. If he wanted to do it, I think he should have quietly deleted the white-space in a separate edit, and marked his edit as minor, instead of making a fuss about it.<br /> :To sum up, Fabrickator has done four reversions of my edits that I know about, having looked through all his contributions in the last seven months: 1. the egregious, bizarre, and outrageous, pathology article reversion, 2. the absurd and absurdly defended Jo Koy article reversion, 3. the useless (albeit harmless) and timewasting fuss-laden reversion of a whitespace character, also in the Jo Koy article, and 4. the absurd reversion of my edit adding a citation needed tag and substituting a failed verification tag [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interdental_consonant&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1193331577 here]. Fabrickator's reversion was later unreverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interdental_consonant&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1193331860 here] by Nardog, with an edit summary saying, &quot;Reverted 1 edit by Fabrickator (talk): CN is correct, it's not cited to any source&quot;. To sum up, Fabrickator's four reversions of edits of mine comprise one outrageous one, one absurd one, one bad one, and one theoretically harmless one but accompanied by a lot of time-wasting fuss based on his not knowing what a dummy edit is and his not simply asking my why I added the white-space before berating me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196740157 here] (in quite an uncivil way, I might add. He calls the whitespace character an &quot;extraneous space&quot;.<br /> :Out of four reversions, zero were useful, two were unreverted by other editors, three were harmful, and one was quite harmful indeed. And he followed me to all those articles, it seems, in order to do what he did. And his subsequent discussion has been either zero, ignoring me, or useless and uncivil. He seems to think he is competent to overrule me without discussion, but I think he is wrong about this. I saw that some of his copyedits to the work of some other editors were good, so he should probably continue copyediting, but overzealously trying to correct *me* has led to his getting out of his depth, perhaps. That seems a charitable way of looking at this, and assumes good faith. Let him try his luck with someone else, as long as it doesn't become hounding and incivility, as I would suggest has been my experience with Fabrickator.<br /> :@[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] You wrote,&quot;Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally&quot; First, whether I have a history of &quot;bludgeoning conversations&quot; at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it? Second, could be specific about what I actually did wrong at those pages? &quot;Flooding&quot; is a bit vague. What I did in the latter case *could* be seen as simply making my case in a very thorough way, with appropriate attention to detail. As for the former, I thought I was allowed to ask as many questions as I wanted. It seems I was wrong about that, but since no one had told me about that rule, &quot;flooding&quot; seems a bit over the top, no pun intended. A giant puddle of tea come to mind :)<br /> :You wrote, &quot;They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly announcing that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like &quot;harmful&quot; and &quot;incompetent&quot; needlessly in conversations.&quot; Again, how about being specific? I think I am allowed to use &quot;harmful&quot; and &quot;incompetent&quot; needlessly on Wikipedia, am I not? And you have made no mention of any of the rude things Fabrickator has said to me. That's interesting, isn't it? You don't look very impartial right now.<br /> :You wrote, &quot;In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud.&quot; Again, are you able to be specific? What specifically did I say (you have no excuse for not being specific, as everything is there in black and white) that warrants a reprimand (light or not) to remind me that &quot;every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud&quot;? When did I ever say anything that indicates that I think that? Genuinely curious now.<br /> :@&lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; I'm actually primarily concerned about his reversions of my good edits. Out of a total of four that I could find, zero were useful, three were harmful, two were undone by other editors, and one was egregious. All of them were bizarre, and the result of following me around Wikipedia. And there was no proper discussion or notification to me. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::When people are griping about you bludgeoning discussion, posting massive, badly-formatted walls of text only vindicates those concerns. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I did what I was told to do. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'd be glad to try improve the format. What specifically did you not like about it? [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 20:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thanks for the constructive feedback. The links should have been inside words, and I put them all inside words just now. Was that what you had in mind? What else, if anything made call it &quot;badly-formatted&quot;? Cheers. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 01:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm certainly not going to read all of that. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I wasn't going to speak up in favor of any administrator(s) taking action regarding either you or Fabrickator, but as you continue to [[WP:BLUDGEON]] while ignoring [[WP:AGF]], I'm starting to wonder if you're willing to collaborate with people who disagree with you. It's really unhelpful when you post a giant wall of text, especially when a huge chunk of it is an off-topic wall of text in which you explain that you have your own guidelines that somehow override Wikipedia's at [[MOS:PHIL]]. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 04:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|First, whether I have a history of &quot;bludgeoning conversations&quot; at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it?}}<br /> ::I'm going to single this out, because the rest of that wall of text is just rambling. Yes, it does have bearing because it can indicate that the problem isn't Fabrickator, it's the fact you keep throwing these lengthy diatriabes up instead of concisely making your points. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 20:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I am just appending this comment at the bottom, I'll remind people that (if you're not subscribed to this specific discussion), it's hard to see the edits that have been made at various places in the text. You might want to look at the &quot;diffs&quot; if it matters to you<br /> :::Second, I will note that Polar has stated that he never asked me not to post to his &quot;talk&quot; page, so the fact that I made posts to his &quot;talk&quot; page is not ''per se'' an issue.<br /> :::Third, as Polar has pointed out, the Wiki software doesn't allow you to add an edit summary without making some kind of change. If you try to do this, it just silently discards the edit summary provided, so inserting a space character is just a way to get around this behavior. This was something I had been unaware of, so my criticism that he added an extraneous space was unwarranted, and I apologize for that. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 15:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Apology accepted, but I still want a permanent interaction ban, ideally one way. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 12:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I don't think it's you that should be accepting apologies or demanding things, especially not a one-way interaction ban. You really need to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] on this before it turns into a boomerang in the form of a motion from an uninvolved editor. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Okay, another minor point. The interaction ban had been proposed by [[User:Graham Beards]] in January (though it's in Graham's talk page archives for 2023 ... see [[User talk:Graham_Beards/Archives/2023#Please advise me regarding dealing with Fabrickator.]]). As is clear from this discussion, I do not go along with this proposal. I interpreted this as Graham's attempt to gracefully bow out of the dispute, but I mention it here just because I want to set the record straight. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks for being so reasonable. I think you might want to consider at least acknowledging that you were wrong in thinking that he was bowing out, and maybe apologize to him (optionally). [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You need to stop this, right now. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]], no one, I mean NO ONE, is going to read that wall of text you posted. And they are unlikely to participate in this discussion. And the one thing I remember when I was a regular here at ANI years ago is that you will never get an IBan or TopicBan without considerable community support which you don't have here and are unlikely to receive given these diatribes. You can't just request an IBan and magically have an admin impose it. It has to have support from your fellow editors which isn't going to happen. So, I suggest like most of us, you avoid editors you don't get along with or use Dispute Resolution if that is an appropriate forum for your disagreement. It also seems like this is not a current, intractible dispute but something that has bothered you in the past which makes it even more unlikely that any admin wandering through here will take action. Just my 2 cents. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;&quot;&gt;[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;&quot;&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm appending this to the end, like Fabrickator did with his comment. I'm also omitting all pings. Hoping not to be accused of &quot;bludgeoning&quot;.<br /> *:Although it is true that &quot;I've been busy with some things in real life&quot;, as I said above, it's also true that I was quite discouraged by the hostility that I've experienced on Wikpedia, and that my fellow editors seemed not to care about what Fabrickator (and some other editors, but that's another matter) had done to me. That's maybe *why* I busied myself with real life matters for a month or so. So calling the matter &quot;stale&quot; because I took a month break is not appropriate, I think.<br /> *:Did I do something wrong that can't be said out loud? Why are so many people being so hostile to me? I feel like people don't care or even would be glad to see stop copyediting Wikipedia.<br /> *:Why should Fabrickator continue to get away with wasting my time and worse, reverting my good edits, just because I got in trouble long ago as a newbie, in an unrelated matter? How long am I supposed to be punished for that? Didn't I pay my debt to Wikipedia by being blocked, so to speak?<br /> *:And anyway, shouldn't we be prioritizing the project? Good edits are good edits, regardless of who does them, or even why, right? And there's also the time wasted by third parties who undo Fabrickator's reversions of my good edits, which has happened in two out of the four cases. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 12:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::You've not provided any additional evidence or reasoning with this comment. What is the point of this? You've just repeated yourself. Stop now before this becomes a motion about you. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I was told [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214804087&lt;nowiki&gt; here]: &quot;Shorter is always better. If you feel that you have something new which will positively contribute to a discussion, you should do so. If you have been warned against excessively posting, though, consider whether you &lt;/nowiki&gt;''need'' to post it.&quot;<br /> *:::What I posted was shorter. I felt that I had something new that would be a positive contribution. I considered whether I needed to post it (and concluded that I did). I did exactly what I was I told to do. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 13:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::No, you really didn't. You posted another evidence-free diatribe. This is becoming disruptive. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 16:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Here is a [[Special:diff/1197560620/1197786525|pertinent portion]] of the discussion with Graham Beards, in which I described Graham's proposal as a way of &quot;graciously bowing out&quot; of the dispute. Fairly shortly after posting this message, I received a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&amp;user=User%3AGraham+Beards&amp;page=User%3AFabrickator&amp;wpdate=&amp;tagfilter=&amp;wpfilters%5B%5D=thanks&amp;wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist thanks from Graham]. It would be pretty juvenile to go around parading the fact of having received a &quot;thanks&quot; from somebody, but it is significant here because it seriously contrasts with Polar's interpretation of the situation. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 20:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]]... Before this thread gets closed down, I feel &quot;inspired&quot; to come back to the discussion you and I were having several weeks ago regarding the [[Special:Permalink/1203193236#Length of sigmoid colon in the diagram is not 35-40 cm. |length of the sigmoid colon]].<br /> ::I realize this is very much a sore spot for you, but I felt it showed that you had a blind spot with regard to editing Wikipedia. In this discussion, you expressed doubt about information in the article indicating the length of the sigmoid colon was 35-40 cm., based on your belief that this length was not plausible. The question I asked you was how you would advise an editor asking you this same question, but that had seemed to get you all riled up.<br /> ::I'm here now, and I'm again asking this question. Seriously, if it's not apparent which Wikipedia principle(s) should inform you on how to resolve this concern, then that casts doubt as to whether your continued editing of WP is appropriate. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 06:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'd drop this attempt at discussion. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You wrote, &quot;I don't think it's you that should be accepting apologies [...]&quot;. Did I actually get blamed for accepting an apology? That would be Kafkaesque&quot;. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 15:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::It often takes two to tango. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 23:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::A lot of editors here like to speak in riddles, I see. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::That's not a riddle. It's a [https://www.google.com/search?q=it+takes+two+to+tango+meaning&amp;rlz=1C1SQJL_enAU1053AU1053&amp;oq=it+takes+two+to+tango&amp;gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgBEAAYgAQyCQgAEEUYORiABDIHCAEQABiABDIHCAIQLhiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCjEyMTgxajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8 common saying where I'm from]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Nevertheless, it does kind of ''sound like'' a riddle. I like riddles! [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 19:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Monarchy of Canada ==<br /> <br /> I propose that [[User:Miesianiacal]] be topic banned from [[monarchy of Canada]], either broadly or more narrowly from the base article. It shouldn't require a minimum of two RfCs ([[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Meaning of reside]] and [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?]]) to insert the simple, obvious and uncontentious fact that the Canadian monarch lives in the UK. Yet, we are forced to endure [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] of debates[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213869997], [[WP:DISRUPTSIGNS|disruptive cite tagging]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213576471][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213574889][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211996854] and [[WP:POINT]]y [[tendentious editing]] from this single editor every time any other editor tries to edit an article [[WP:OWN|owned]] by Miesianiacal, who is responsible for more than 75% of edits to the page.[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Monarchy_of_Canada] The article is a farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research perpetuating a ridiculous myth that the King of Canada is Canadian. It will only improve when the influence of this editor is removed. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 21:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> - I would just like to add that, as we can see [[Monarchy of Canada#Consensus|here]], there seems to have been a productive consensus arrived at, and this without any negative behaviour that I can see. I will not pretend to be aware or delved into the material prior to my own involvement, so will not judge specific behaviour of individual editors for which I'm not aware, I only note that from my point of view, it seems that the Talk process worked and is working, and all in a respectful and positive way at Monarchy of Canada Talk and Main Space. Again, maybe there had been a bit of a breakdown warranting something, not sure, I'm only speaking to what I've seen since myself becoming a member of the discussion at that Talk page. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 16:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::If there is a consensus in that article it has been arrived at during Miesianiacal's current absence (and during his temporary ban from editing the article). [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Okay thankyou. What was his main point that was not valid? Which I mean, what part of what he was advocating for is not reflected in the current consensus? I'm having a hard time figuring out what exact statement was meriting a block. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :There seems to be two allegations here. There's bludgeoning etc at [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?]]. This has diffs and looking at the thread seems to have a basis. But the second half of the post broadens out to a [[WP:OWN]] accusation and being responsible for &quot;a farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research&quot;, but there are no diffs for that. The former (for a longstanding editor) deserves a warning. The latter needs more evidence to be actioned to a full TBAN or even a PBAN. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Not long ago, this editor searched out articles with royal-sounding names, and then added that these article were ''named after royalty''. I reverted most of the edits, as they were unsourced and probably not true, but not without pushback. You can see one of the discussions at [[Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty?]]. --[[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|DeCausa}} It took me ages to track down, but I recently removed 3 bits of original research not found in the citations from the article, and they were all added by Miesianiacal or his previous account: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213654233 Removed citation] added by Miesianiacal's old account: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=220192125]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213654233 Removed citation] added by Miesianiacal's old account: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=232790056]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213654776 Removed unverified claim] added by Miesianiacal: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=317637578]. I've only really looked at the first two paragraphs of the Residences section, so there could be more elsewhere. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Those edits are from 14/15 years ago. I don't think they would or could be used to support action now. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::The 'age' of an edit does not necessarily matter, given that there's always the possibility of erroneous information remaining in an article for years to come. &lt;span style=&quot;font:'Pristina'&quot;&gt;[[user:Keivan.f|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #1E7HDC&quot;&gt;Keivan.f&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font:'Pristina'&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:Keivan.f|&lt;span style=&quot;color: purple&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 23:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Is this editor not already block from [[Monarchy of Canada]] articles? &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight:bold;color:darkblue&quot;&gt;[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]&lt;/span&gt;🍁 04:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::He was banned on March 13 for two weeks. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{reply to|DeCausa}} The named after royalty edits were just a few months ago. There's a long-standing issue of problematic editing wrt the monarchy. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 18:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I don't really understand what's meant by &quot;The named after royalty edits were just a few months ago&quot;. All I was saying is that edits from 14/15 years won't be taken into account. I dont think that's much in doubt. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 20:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Magnolia677's post preceding post included &quot;Not long ago, this editor searched out articles with royal-sounding names, and then added that these article were ''named after royalty'' &quot;. That's why I wrote {{tq|There's a long-standing issue of problematic editing wrt the monarchy.}} [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::I did not add &quot;[this was] named after royalty&quot; to any articles, unless with a reliable source. What Magnolia677 is referring to is my adding to articles on places listed at [[Royal eponyms in Canada]] a link to that article in the &quot;See also&quot; section, a number of which were removed and I didn't dispute the deletion. I think [[Victoria Park Collegiate Institute]] is the only article on which I argued for reinsertion and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Park_Collegiate_Institute&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1172829023 found cited info] to support the connection to [[Royal eponyms in Canada]]. It was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Park_Collegiate_Institute&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1172849549 deleted] two and a half hours later and that's the way it's remained ever since. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 02:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support sanctions''', if not an article or topic ban then a revert restriction or talk page interaction ban. I don't think a warning will be adequate. This is essentially the same issue that I raised at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive467#User:Miesianiacal reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: No violation)]] and that was raised at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III]]. Miesianiacal gets away with his behaviour because he acts within the letter of the rules while ignoring their spirit; he knows how to [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|game the system]]. When challenged, he goes on the attack instead of addressing his own behaviour: for example accusing me of harassment even though I was required to notify him[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1152176368] or refusing to listen when challenged on civility: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1151467664][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1151694138]. Before [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III|IncidentArchive1127]] there were multiple requests for comment at Charles III, which closed against him; he then went to third opinion, which was rejected, and then to the dispute resolution noticeboard, which was rejected (diffs are all at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III|IncidentArchive1127]]). So, he went forum-shopping to the administrators' noticeboard with a cherry-picked selection of edits that were better than his own behaviour. That is his typical operating style: delay, dismiss, attack, and never surrender. The tactic is to pursue endless circular debate, blame everyone else, and refuse to listen to or accept any counter-argument or advice. The same thing that happened at Charles III is happening at Monarchy of Canada: we are forced to go through multiple requests for comment to make the simplest change (with the result that editors wonder what we're doing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214219395]). Once the discussion starts, we then suffer through his sabotage of the debate, such as refusing to accept sources that disprove his argument, for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214382428] backtracking from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213733542]. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> I believe there are also [[WP:OWN]] issues at [[Monarchism in Canada]] and [[Republicanism in Canada]], particularly the former. Miesianiacal has strenuously objected to updating the articles to include references to opinion polls taken in the past two years that show there is greater support for removing the monarchy than there is for retaining it. (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchism_in_Canada&amp;diff=1214387299&amp;oldid=1214075662]) and [[Republicanism in Canada]] (see [[Talk:Republicanism in Canada]]). At present the polls cited in Monarchism in Canada are at least 15 years old.<br /> <br /> In Republicanism in Canada he claimed this wording was not neutral: &quot;&quot;Polls conducted on the subject of abolition of the Canadian Crown in 2022 and 2023, following the accession of Charles III, suggested that a majority of Canadians think there should be a referendum on the future of the monarchy and that more Canadians favour becoming a republic than do retaining the monarchy&quot; (he reverted similar wording in the monarchism article.) Instead, he wrote this wording which mentions only that polling occurred without any reference to the polling result. His &quot;neutral&quot; wording was:&quot;[[Debate on the monarchy in Canada#Polls|Polls have been conducted]] on the subject of abolition of the Canadian Crown.&quot;[[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 17:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :What, if any, administrative or community action would you support? [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' - the ban could be reconsidered at a later point but at present the editor shows no capacity to negotiate or seek or accept compromise, or collaborate, let alone accept a consensus view he disagrees with. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]){{pb<br /> }}'''Supplemental''' - there are still plenty of pages regarding the monarchy in the UK and other [[Commonwealth realm]]s that Miesianiacal would be able to edit. If he can demonstrate a collaborative approach on those pages, then the Canadian monarchy topic ban can be revisited. Alternatively, if his approach does not change, the topic ban could spread to cover all articles regarding the British and Commonwealth monarchy (for lack of a better term). In any case, this topic ban wouldn't be the end of the road and he would have avenues where he could prove himself. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 16:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> * I read [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?]] and my brain attempted to leave my skull. I have ''never'' seen such a nonsensical collection of distorted logic, and yes, a narrow article ban should be considered for at least one editor (the one mentioned in the lead here). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban for Miesianiacal from the Canadian monarchy, broadly construed. If this type of behavior migrates to other topic areas, broader restrictions may be required. This is classic POV pushing. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Do not support''' There are a multitude of pieces including several articles and different conversations in this accusation, however, I did read one (the question of residency), and I am not comfortable with the idea of sanctioning a long-time editor with considerable expertise in the area simply for being firm on a specific point on a Talk page which would seem to me to undermine the point of the Talk page in the first place, and in the spirit of lively debate with a minimum standard of decorum, as that's how we elucidate (ideally) the best way forward in good-faith, as opposed to single-editor dictatorship or mob-rule, both of which are to be strenuously avoided. {{pb<br /> }}Second, the article states that Charles III lives in the UK last I checked, so I'm not quite sure what the core issue is. Clearly no one is currently standing in the way of portraying that fact.{{pb<br /> }}In this case's Talk Page, there is a valid logical argument to made on the important distinction on the separation of office from an individual person. A slightly humorous example would be that, just because the current Prime Minister is Justin Trudeau, the official residence of the Prime Minister is 24 Sussex, and Justin Trudeau is also the coach of the little league team the Ottawa Cubs, that does ''not'' mean that the official residence of the Coach of the Ottawa Cubs is 24 Sussex, nor even that Justin Trudeau even lives at 24 Sussex. So, in this case, the monarch of the UK is, from Canada's point of view, a foreign head of state. The King of Canada does not have any official residences in the UK, but the King of Canada does have official residences in Canada. Where Charles III sleeps at night, or where the King of the UK as a foreign head of state lives has no bearing on the status or the location of a Canadian official residence. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that was the sticking point or the point that was trying to me made, and as I said, I think such a point is valid as is the logic behind it. And so the consensus I believe that is reflected in the article, or should be, is that the King of Canada has official residences in Canada, and that Charles III himself predominantly lives in the UK. No one should be censured for contributing to that consensus. {{pb<br /> }}Is it a little bit arcane and pedantic? Yes. But that is often the nature of deep-dive discussions of certain topics, particularly ones swirling around constitutional politics. {{pb<br /> }}As there was a bit of a swirl of allegations, please feel free to be more specific if you feel I've missed the most salient or fundamental issue under discussion here. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 18:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I take it all are aware these are called &quot;Canada’s Official Residences&quot; would be best if terms are not madeup. Would help things alot I think. &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight:bold;color:darkblue&quot;&gt;[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]&lt;/span&gt;🍁 18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' topic ban per Cullen328. The bludgeoning has to stop. Look, I understand the kind of pedantry that surrounds the issue. My first few years on this project were almost solely devoted to peerage matters. But this is too much. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 19:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support some sort of action if''' Miesianical doesn't strongly commit to accepting feedback and accepting consensus does not always line up with his personal slant. On one hand, Miesianiacal has contributed a lot of content on royalty in Canada, which is mostly good, and deserves some shout-outs for that. And... I get it. There are some articles on Wiki where having a &quot;guard dog&quot; editor hazing new edits closely can actually be a good thing (medical articles most famously, perhaps). If Miesianiacal was providing &quot;stewardship&quot; that occasionally was a tad tendentious, I get it. However... I'm not sure that's really the case here, and rather Miesianiacal himself is the issue, inserting POV slants in articles that do not accord with the sources, which makes any OWNership concerns much more pressing. So yes, this is ANI not a content board, but it's relevant, so let's look at Miesianiacal's grasp of content. Take a look at this old revision of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchies_in_the_Americas&amp;oldid=258665472 Monarchies in the Americas] for example: it distinguishes &quot;American monarchies&quot; from &quot;Foreign monarchies&quot; as if there was some sort of substantive difference between the King of Denmark ruling Greenland from afar and Charles III ruling Jamaica from afar. Which, strictly speaking, there is a difference of course, but a wildly overblown one that is hardly section-heading level worthy. Or take the line &quot;Most pre-Columbian cultures of the Americas developed and flourished for centuries under monarchical systems of government.&quot; Totally bonkers and unsourced, and tying the &quot;flourishing&quot; to the monarchial system of government. More generally, we simply ''do not know'' the details of the government system of &quot;most pre-Columbian cultures.&quot; It's just wild speculation. That's just the start of the problems with the old article. (I'm picking on it specifically because it was at GAR a bit ago and I took a look into it, where it was wildly overplaying certain &quot;monarchies&quot; and their level of support, like treating Arucania &amp; Patagonia as if it were a real state and not a fantasy.) I'd argue that all of the provincial level &quot;Monarchies of XYZ&quot; are problematic for example, with the possible exception of [[Monarchy in Quebec]] (although... I'd really want to triple-check all the sources talking about just how much the Quebecois loved their monarch back in the day as being valid and not Anglophone Canada wishful thinking.) Take a look at [[Monarchy in Alberta]], for example, which should probably be reformulated into something else as it's a lot of talking about nothing in particular. A very small number of people turned out for some event honoring the Queen? Stop the presses. Okay, back to conduct: Miesianical being a Canadian monarchist isn't a ''problem'', exactly. But going against their wishes is really not worth it due to the risk of bludgeoning talk page conversations or edit wars (the one time I did, on something I considered a slam dunk on sourcing grounds, felt like pulling teeth, but also happened ages ago at this point, so not worth rehashing). If Miesianiacal can just seriously commit to toning it down a bit and being willing to take the L when others disagree, then no need to do anything other than verify he's keeping the commitment. But otherwise, yeah, maybe time for a topic ban. (And per above, if a topic ban happened, I'd strongly encourage Miesianiacal not to continue the exact same behavior at other Commonwealth monarchies- going around to give the same treatment to Monarchy of The Bahamas subarticles would not really solve the problems here.) [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Upgrade to support topic ban, broadly construed'''. Miesianical's response below is that actually, there is no problem and everyone is getting upset over nothing, because there's no proof of anything. I guess all the editors here taking exception to his collaboration style don't count as proof either? If he doesn't think there's a problem, then he can't fix it, so we are left with this. It's really not that hard to commit to accepting feedback, but he isn't even bothering to try. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:I ''literally'' said that I'm open to accepting I've done wrong. But, since my analysis of the evidence (spelled out below) doesn't show me how I bludgeoned or abused tags, I'm ''asking'' (like, three times now) for clarification, so I can see what I might currently be missing or reevaluate what I see. Telling me &quot;you did bad&quot; tells me nothing about what exactly I did that was bad and, therefore, gives me no idea of how I'm supposed to modify my behaviour. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 20:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:* {{ping|Miesianiacal}} I believe you that was your intent. But intentions don't matter. Just as I'm sure you thought you were making a peace offering good faith, you have to believe everyone else that what ''actually comes across'' in your posts below is a desire to continue axe-grinding and bludgeoning with DrKay. As if that was the only problem, which it isn't, nor is it even the most important problem - it's your interaction with other editors in general.<br /> **:* You mentioned below that you need to work on brevity. I can't speak for others, but for me, I'd have been willing to change my vote to avoid a formal sanction with just three sentences or so. Something like &quot;While I stand by my edits, I understand that consensus will sometimes be against me. I'll discuss these matters on the talk page rather than revert war, keep it to just a few paragraphs or so on the talk page, and let the matter drop if it seems like a one-against-many situation.&quot; And then actually do that. Something to keep in mind for your future editing. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 20:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Perhaps I'm misunderstanding AN/I, then. It appears to me it sometimes, as in this instance, acts as a quasi-court. Someone's laid a charge against me. Unrelated, some misrepresented, incidents from months or years ago have been dragged in. To my mind, ''that'', collectively, is ''all'' I'll be judged on, if I don't mount some kind of defence. Yet, at the same time, I don't want to be adamantly defens''ive''--I want to say I don't see the charges as valid, here's why, but, I still accept they could be valid and I'm open to hearing--no, literally asking to hear--how so. Up to now, I would've thought something like your suggested statement would've been taken as a kind of flippant disregard of everyone's criticisms and ''that'' would be used against me. But, what you've said has made me question my interpretation of this as a trial.<br /> :::::Alright. Well, I have no idea how long something like this goes on for. But, I hope there's time for me to reconsider my main response; I mean, what I've already written is there and, well, the consequences will be the consequences. But, my feelings and opinions aren't immutable. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 21:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Also support some sort of action''' if Miesianical doesn't make efforts to be more collaborative. I haven't had any run-ins with them in quite some time because, frankly, I have very limited interest in monarchy. However my past interactions with them are very much in line with what others have said here - a tendency toward [[WP:OWN]], bludgeoning on talk page and walking right to the edge of [[WP:3RR]]. If they're still up to these antics nearly a decade on then I'd say they should be invited to consider making some changes to their editing behaviour. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' from anything to do with the Canadian monarchy &amp; perhaps the monarchies of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms (past &amp; current) broadly construed. Indeed, ''two'' RFCs shouldn't have been required at [[Monarchy of Canada]], but I didn't know what else to do to stop the disruption. Also see [[Talk:British royal family#RfC on lede|this RfC at British royal family]], from about a year ago. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban per [[user:Cullen]]. Off the top of my head I don't remember noticing this editor's work in other areas, but certainly the Canadian area is an issue. I don't believe this editor's bludgeoning is made in good faith. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 18:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' - As mentioned, my experience at [[Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty?]] and similar articles was not positive. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 20:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' - The response by Miesianical below speaks for itself. In the RFC I asked for Miesianical to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK|drop the stick]] and the response was baffling. Hopefully the editor learns something from this discussion so the behavior doesn't spread elsewhere. - [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 20:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' on Canadian monarchy and perhaps on the Commonwealth monarchy per above. Clearly a widespread and longstanding complex of issues. Especially the apparent suppression of information regarding support for republicanism in Canada, that's the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Enough of the bias, I'll support the topic ban. [[User:JM2023|JM]] ([[User talk:JM2023|talk]]) 03:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' on all Commonwealth monarchies. I feel like a more &quot;broadly construed&quot; topic ban would be best suited here, because of how inter-connected everything is. Charles, the King of Canada, is ''legally'' distinct from Charles, the King of the UK, but I fear a &quot;Canada only&quot; topic ban would lead Miesianiacal to bring their issues to other pages like [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom]], [[Monarchy of Australia]], etc... under the guise of the fact that they are ''technically'' not discussing the &quot;Canadian royal family&quot; anymore. &lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;Canuck&lt;/span&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;89&lt;/span&gt; [[User talk:Canuckian89|(Converse with me)]] or visit [[User:Canuckian89|my user page]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; &lt;small&gt;09:04, March 26, 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> As the person who started this is pointing specifically to [[Monarchy of Canada]] and disputing something is not a crime (if it were, all those here referencing the disputes they were engaged in with me on other articles over many months through the past would be guilty of it, as well), I'm only going to address matters at [[Monarchy of Canada]]; for now, anyway. Alone, I can only deal with one thing at a time.<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213869997 This] is not ''proof'' of bludgeoning. It's one person's opinion and one can see, preceding the person's remark, they asserted, &quot;you've said your piece,&quot; when I hadn't actually said any piece, I'd [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213733542 asked a question]: &quot;So, what now?&quot; That's an invitation to move forward toward a resolution. Indeed, in the preamble to that question, I ''acknowledged'' [https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2022/10/falqs-canada-and-the-monarchy/ the source] DrKay provided and the fact it supported the statement, &quot;the Canadian monarch lives in the United Kingdom&quot;. I even made the point of the question clear: &quot;there are now two takes on this: 'the monarch is represented by viceroys in Canada because he lives in the UK' and 'the monarch is represented by viceroys in Canada because he is monarch of 14 other countries and his principal residence is in the UK', each supported by one RS.&quot; That very evidenlty ''accepts'' DrKay's source, as it sought to find a way to deal with two sources--DrKay's one and [https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pch/documents/services/royal-symbols-titles/crnMpls-eng.pdf this one]--saying two not necessarily mutually exclusive, but, different things. DrKay chose never to answer the question, thereby exacerbating dispute, rather than working toward a resolution.<br /> <br /> That continues in the same vein:<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213624979 This] is a question<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214382428 This] is agreeing with someone<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214398286 This] isn't pushing anything; it's a comment on DrKay's misunderstanding of the dispute ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214166029 he thinks] I (and at least one other) want to have the article say the monarch lives in Canada, when I never, ever (and I mean ever) did)<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214382671 This] is again agreeing with someone<br /> * [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Discussion|This]] is a civil attempt to get a reverting editor to explain his edits and/or desired edits<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214384628 This] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214396977 this] were part of an agreeable discussion<br /> <br /> And that's the sum total of my contributions to the RfC, aside from my own answer to it. If anyone can explain how that meets the definition of &quot;bludeoning&quot;, I'm truly fascinated to read it.<br /> <br /> I haven't been blocked from [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada]]. So, my absence from the discussion is only because I haven't been on Wikipedia over the past few days and correlation does not imply causation.<br /> <br /> There was more than a week between the placement of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211996854 This] tag (which was quickly thereafter [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Park_Collegiate_Institute&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1172849549 moved by me] to make clear I was ''not'' challenging the claim that the monarch resides in the UK) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213574889 these] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213576471 tags]. The latter two are two completely different tags addressing two different variations of an edited sentence. Tagging disputed material is not a crime and I clearly brought up at talk the issues the tags were flagging, exactly as one is supposed to do. Again, how that's &quot;disruptive cite tagging&quot; (even the spirit thereof) requires further explanation, including how DrKay placing numerous tags on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211858095 4 March] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211912250 5 March], employing his usual tactic of &quot;discussion by edit summary&quot;, is not.<br /> <br /> There's no proof given of &quot;WP:POINTy tendentious editing&quot;. There's no proof given of my making such edits &quot;every time any other editor tries to edit [the] article&quot;. There's no proof given of the article being a &quot;farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research perpetuating a ridiculous myth.&quot;<br /> <br /> And &quot;[this proves] how nasty and desperate you are&quot; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214420204], from DrKay on [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada]], is an overt personal attack, which a continuation of the earlier attacks from him that both crossed and didn't quite cross [[WP:NPA]]: &quot;Don't play stupid, you know damn well what's meant&quot; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1143261256]; “you are ruining more than one article on my watchlist” [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKay&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1143265674]; &quot;you don't assume good faith [...] Treat them like shit you've scraped off the bottom of your shoe and they will likely respond by blanking your messages to them and asking you not to message anymore. Please do not message me anymore&quot; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1143291211]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKay&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1152036372 this] accusation of bad faith; [[User talk:Miesianiacal/August 2022-March 2024#Accuracy of edit summaries|this]] unconstructive attempt at besmirchment; etc. There are certainly zero examples of my expressing anything to DrKay that violates WP:NPA.<br /> <br /> Again, eludication on the matters of bludgeoning and abusive cite tagging would be helpful so I can have clear understanding of the rules so I can follow them properly, if, indeed, I haven't been, so far. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 02:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :To sum up, &quot;I did nothing wrong. It's all DrKay's fault.&quot; This is a version of what I said above: blaming others and refusing to accept you've done anything wrong. You claim here that there is no evidence of bludgeoning, but then in your final link here (&quot;[[User talk:Miesianiacal/August 2022-March 2024#Accuracy of edit summaries|this]] unconstructive attempt at besmirchment&quot;) you link to a discussion where there are 13 diffs showing you making the same comment 13 times, which you claim is not bludgeoning. DrKay's behaviour is far from laudable but then you shouldn't have goaded them should you? [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 08:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I asked above for clarification on how my interactions at [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada]] constituted bludgeoning and my use of tags on [[Monarchy in Canada]] was abusive cite tagging. That is altogether different from &quot;it's all DrKay's fault&quot;. (DrKay's personal insults being my fault is an opinion I'll ignore.) DrKay making two accusations of bludgeoning against me doesn't prove I ever engaged in bludgeoning; and I need to point out here, because mention of it is absent from your remark: in response to his first accusation back in May 2023, I presented DrKay with the proof that I didn't actually &quot;[make] the same argument over and over, to different people&quot; (it was just a weeks-long and wide-ranging dispute involving many different people and some requests outside it for new people to join and possibly help break impasses). After that, he dropped the argument.<br /> ::DrKay might be at fault here; given he's violated WP:NPA numerous times to make his hatred of me clear and half of his OP at the top is unsubstantiated, negative opinion, he may possibly have revealed that his motivation is personal. He might ''not'' be at fault. It might be that he I and are ''both'' at fault, in our own ways. Even if, hypothetically, for now, DrKay did start this for the wrong reasons, that wouldn't mean I didn't actually do some of what he's accused me of. Hence, I'm requesting edification, preferrably from neutral, dispassionate parties who'll consider ''all'' the evidence in its proper contexts. Because, as I explained above, I personally, right now, don't see how the evidence backs up the charges (particularly the bludgeoning one). --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::One thing I would dispassionately recommend is to work on being more concise. These text walls contribute in part, though not in whole, to the sense of bludgeoning. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Well, I feel hung between a need to be thorough and to be concise. But, brevity is a challenge for me here and off Wikipedia; I'm working on it for reasons that exist outside of this realm. However, the walls of text contributing to a sense of bludgeoning on talk pages is a new perspective to me and interesting; I can get it. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 17:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> My edit on 4 March: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211858095], tags a self-published vanity project, an anthology of fictional works, and an official Canadian government source that says explicitly, not that the Queen resided in Canada, but that she belongs in the same category as &quot;foreign heads of state&quot; and that she &quot;visits&quot; Ottawa along with &quot;other royal visitors&quot;. The edit on 5 March: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211912250] removes an invention of Miesianiacal's that George VI's 1939 state visit to the United States was on behalf of Canada uniquely. He knows this invention is untrue because we had a long discussion about it at [[Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother/Archive 2#Royal tours]]. The same edit tags a source that does not support the material it is next to. The edits therefore demonstrate that sources are twisted and that the article includes original research. He also lists a series of uncivil edits but fails to mention that they are all in response to his baiting, which can be seen by looking at the comment(s) to which they respond or the preceding edits. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214420204] is in response to the unsubstantiated claim that I think the article used to say the Canadian monarch lives in Canada. That is untrue. I should not have taken the bait but it is difficult to avoid doing so when it is so frequently flung in my face. If Miesianiacal doesn't want to awaken bears, he shouldn't poke them with a stick. Once again in his response to this discussion, we are faced with his absolute refusal to acknowledge any bludgeoning. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 17:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' - I was not involved in this original dispute, but became involved in discussions after commenting in the second RfC. As I wasn't involved at that time, I don't think I have anything useful to add about users' conduct while the first RfC was taking place. I will say though that some of DrKay's comments since have not been particularly productive. Calling other editors comments (mine included) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215025473&amp;oldid=1215012120 &quot;Farcical garbage&quot;], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215042417&amp;oldid=1215039825 wrongly accusing them of strawman arguments], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215044541&amp;oldid=1215043365 ad hominem attacks], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215047616&amp;oldid=1215046927 deflection] aren't really helping anyone reach consensus there. It seems the temperature needs to be lowered across the board.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 19:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I withdraw &quot;farcical garbage&quot; pursuant to [[Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility]] #1d.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1216052301&amp;oldid=1216048196]. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 19:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> With all due respect. [[Talk:The Worldwide Privacy Tour#Royal family description|This discussion, concerning a cartoon episode]], was memorable. I'm not certain how to describe the content dispute that took place there, a year ago. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Okay. My apologies for the length of the following. But, there's a lot to address.<br /> <br /> I've taken some feedback and looked at the whole of what this expanded into from the initial accusations. I've been editing here for 20+ years; I have crossed paths with many, many editors. The vast majority of interactions have been without significant problem. However, I have also sometimes been a problem. Admitting as much has prompted me to improve my collaborative manner; over even eight months ago (these recent discussions--[[Talk:Royal standards of Canada#Terminology|1]], [[Talk:Republicanism in Canada#Opinion polling|2]], [[Talk:King Charles III Coronation Medal#Canadian medallions/medals|3]]--are perfectly fine). I'm okay with disagreement; I'm willing to compromise (if it's not a policy matter).<br /> <br /> But, if my self-reflection is accurate, what's still been problematic up to now is my reaction to what I perceive as not being heard; in whatever manner. I've taken it as an unnecessary drawing out of the dispute and felt an RfC will do so even more (implying an impatience on my part). I become not incivil, but... blunt in my interactions with the other party. Now I see that, ironically, my insistence on getting the other party to hear me (driven, again ironically, by a want to find a mutually agreeable resolution) often leads to an RfC, anyway. The ends truly don't always justify the means. This is not to pick on DrKay; I just think it's relevant to show that even he and I ''can'' interact in a completely decent way: [[Talk:Head of the Commonwealth#Dubious|1]], [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 20#Official lists|2]]. So, ''my'' problem must be how I've been dealing with communication breakdown; between myself and anyone I think it's happening with.<br /> <br /> Putting whatever restrictions will inevitably be imposed on me aside, going forward, I'll accept what I think are failures to communicate as soon as I believe they've happened and that the wider community then has to be brought in; I'll accept there's no deadline to complete an edit. Of course, consensus is, as always, consensus. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 05:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :In the 20+ years, there seems to be (from you) a tendency to advocate for the monarchy in Canada, to be viewed in a certain way on Wikipedia. One ''might'' see this as breaching [[WP:RGW]]. Charles III, like his mother, grandfather, etc, before him, are/were most recognized as British monarchs. That's simply how the world sees it. At [[Monarchy of Canada]] (for example), we can't be suggesting in anyway, that the monarch resides/lives in Canada. Anyways, that's my theory on what's the core of your problematic behavior. It's up to the community to decide on what to do. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If there has been [[WP:RGW]] behaviour by editors at [[Monarchy of Canada]], it appears to have occurred on both sides of the initial debate there. With all due respect, I am not sure someone calling for a Canadian Republic on their user page is the best person to cast that particular stone. It seems to me many users are talking past each other on the talk page, which seems to be continuing in the new discussions on [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Residences]]. MIESIANIACAL is one of the editors commenting in the debates there, but the persistent content dispute(s) there, and the resulting walls of text, are of many editors makings. As I said above, I think the temperature needs to be lowered across the board.-- [[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't edit as a republican &amp; have at times been considered a closet-monarchist. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::A person dusclosing a political position on their user page should not guide which pages they are permitted to edit. Only whether their edits adhere to Wikipedia standards. As an example, my strident anti-monarchism had nothing to do with my positions regarding the [[Where is Kate]] article - only BLP standards. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I think it would be dangerous if we went down the path of declaring people to be in a COI because of their ideology or belief. Monarchists (or republicans) should no more be banned from editing articles on the monarchy than Christians should be banned from editing articles on Christianity (or even articles on the church they belong to), or Liberals or Conservative supporters or members be banned from articles on the Liberal or Conservative parties or liberalism or conservatism as ideology. What we should look out for is editing conduct and POV-pushing. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 18:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Deletions of (article) talk page material ==<br /> <br /> I have a long-running dispute that has started on 8. January when [[User:Chaheel Riens]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194299127 deleted 26 KiB of talk page material]. I would like the mentioned 26 KiB of deleted talk page material to be restored (archiving it would also be fine with me). However, this dispute is interrelated with the correct interpretation of [[WP:TPO]], and it might have important consequences as such.<br /> <br /> As a justification for his actions, [[User:Chaheel Riens]] provided [[WP:FORUM]], [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:NOTHOWTO]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1194383866 here]. After some further arguments and counter-arguments, he <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1194505317 refused to properly argue]<br /> . I think that there was some amount of [[WP:LAWYERING]] involved on his part, but I don't see that as important.<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_241#Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Summary_of_the_discussion_so_far I took the issue to the DRN],<br /> but it was not successful. However, my conclusion was that DRN was not a proper venue, because the central issue is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material, which is a conduct issue.<br /> <br /> The relevant guideline related to this problem seems to be [[WP:TPO]]. Some experienced editors are interpreting it as supporting the disputed deletion, while other experienced editors are of the opposite opinion. The editors who support the deletion are referencing various parts of [[WP:OR]] to justify the disputed deletion. In my opinion, such justifications are invalid, because WP:OR clearly states: {{tq|This policy does not apply to talk pages...}} Other justifications for deletion are invalid due to similar reasons. My conclusion is that the policies are supporting my side of the argument, therefore the deleted talk page material should be restored and then archived.<br /> <br /> Currently, this dispute is stuck at some kind of status quo, as I was absent for a month, and other editors apparently refused to argue further. I think that further arguments would be futile anyway, because this dispute is essentially about two widely different interpretations of WP:TPO, as it was noticed <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Some_Follow-Up_Comments_Regarding_Removing_Material here]<br /> .<br /> <br /> This dispute is unlikely to be resolved by any kind of discussion between involved parties. I judge that WP:ANI is the relevant authority for this kind of disagreement, because deletions of talk page material are conduct issues. To escape the status quo, some definitive guidance is needed about the proper course of action in this dispute.<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Someone_has_just_deleted_all_of_my_suggestions Initial discussion at ZX Spectrum graphic modes]<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Removed_sections Link to the continuation of discussion after DRN failed].<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Removing_material_from_article_talk_pages Link to the discussion at WP:TPG talk page].<br /> <br /> - [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Is this still the same discussion where you pretty much accused me of being a scammer and a liar? I distanced myself when it because clear it was turning into a slow-motion train crash while beating the dead horse at the same time. I've given a cursory glance over it since I last commented, and you don't seem to be gaining much favour - even the editor who was critical of me seems to have washed their hands of you and the discussion. This could be a case of [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|WP:FILLIBUSTER]] where you just go on and on and on and on and on until everybody simply gives up in exasperation. I've taken the liberty of pinging the other involved editors who were missed, but the discussion is such a mess it's hard to see if all have been included. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 16:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I have never accused you, or anyone, of being scammers and liars. It is just your interpretation of one '''hypothetical statement''' of mine, which I posted in a separate discussion about copyright issues [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_136#ZX_Spectrum_graphics_(modes)] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Parrot_standard.png] that isn't really related to this one. I apologize to you any everyone involved if you were offended by a lack of clarity in my writings, because I don't think that you are a scammer or a liar.<br /> ::I argue that what you have just suggested is essentially an attempt to perpetuate the status quo. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Z80Spectrum}} You mentioned &quot;''the possbility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers''&quot;. Would you have included Chaheel Riens in that group? &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Segoe Script;&quot;&gt;''[[User:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#BC49A6&quot;&gt;City&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:Green&quot;&gt; o&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:Red&quot;&gt;f &lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]]''&lt;/b&gt; 18:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I must admit that, at that specific moment, I was quite confused about what is happening. Therefore, my statement in question did not refer to anyone in particular. The copyright issues are a serious problem, and my statement was intended to alert to the importance of those issues. I [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01#c-Z80Spectrum-20240129030400-Clindberg-20240129005500 appologized here] to another user, [[User:4throck]], who might have been most obviously affected by that unfortunate statement of mine. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This doesn't belong here or indeed anywhere. The proper path forward is to work on something else. What practical difference is there between moving this information to the talk page archive vs having it available in diffs? Unwillingness to repeat oneself endlessly is not &quot;refused to properly argue.&quot; [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 18:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Not again!''' - I tried to mediate the dispute, which was originally presented as an article content dispute, but was really mostly a dispute about the removal of talk page material. I developed [[WP:DRN Rule F|DRN Rule F]] and was preparing to mediate a discussion about the removal or restoration of the article talk page material. [[User:Z80Spectrum]] then began discussing the dispute with [[User:Ritchie333]], an end run around my mediation, so I failed the mediation. <br /> *I will comment that I started off sympathetic to [[User:Z80Spectrum]] about the talk page edits. The [[WP:TPO|guidelines on editing other editors' talk page posts]] are poorly written, and do not clarify when the removal of talk page material is in order. My opinion is that they should state that removal is only rarely appropriate, and that normally disputed talk page material should be either archived or userfied. So I started out thinking that [[User:Chaheel Riens]] had been overly aggressive, but I tried to maintain neutrality. [[User:Z80Spectrum]] soon acted aggressively, making an accusation on the talk page of [[User:Ritchie333]] that I still don't entirely understand, but that appeared to be [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]]. Two months later is late to apologize for a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] that was called out at the time. Now [[User:Z80Spectrum]] wants to reopen a dispute that had faded away more than a month ago. <br /> *This filing is a [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] thrown by [[User:Z80Spectrum]]. If the community agrees with [[User:VQuakr]] that there isn't a current issue, then the issue is what to do about this [[vexatious litigation]] by the filing editor. I think that there wasn't a current issue until this report was filed, but now this report is reopening something.<br /> *One possible resolution to this case would be a one-way [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]] on [[User:Z80Spectrum]] against interacting with or attacking [[User:Chaheel Riens]].[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm not very glad to read this opinion of yours. I would have liked it better if you had communicated it to me earlier, which wasn't the case. I'm not &quot;reopening&quot; this dispute, as the dispute was never closed. <br /> *:I would like to point out that all I want is the 26 KiB of deleted talk page material to be restored and archived (that's the primary reason for this WP:ANI report). I will accept the interaction ban on my behalf, or any similar measure, to get that deleted content restored. I also wanted to clarify the ambiguities in the WP:TPG guideline, but that is secondary. This dispute is not about opinions, it is about proper application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and those are not decided by a community vote.<br /> *:I think that your accusation of vexatious litigation is not very nice. What else should I have done to get the deleted content restored? Did I not do everything you have suggested to me? Did you communicate any other suggestions to me earlier? I do not care about any measures to [[User:Chaheel Riens]], as I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_48#ZX_Spectrum_-_additional_note said earlier on your talk page]. <br /> *:From my point of view, [[User:Chaheel Riens]] was misinterpreting my words so I felt no need to apologize on my own incentive. If he had asked me to apologize on my talk page, I would have apologized. I even apologized to one unrelated editor, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dionysius_Miller#My_aplologies]. The discussion at DRN was interrupted due to the copyright issues, and I considered those a priority over the DRN discussion. In spite of your alleged &quot;sympathetic&quot; stance towards me, your post is a one way attack against me, with not a single word said in defense of my perspective. Therefore, I doubt your neutrality.<br /> *:I certainly don't want this discussion to get derailed again by off-topic comments, so I would like to remind that the reported issue is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material. If my conduct had not been stellar, I will accept the consequences, I will accept the boomerang, but I won't accept if the reported issue is completely ignored. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 06:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': I think this boomerang has NOTHERRE written on it; way too much valuable time has been wasted on this. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 05:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ===Another Reply to [[User:Z80Spectrum]]===<br /> ::[[User:Z80Spectrum]] writes: {{tqb| I'm not very glad to read this opinion of yours. I would have liked it better if you had communicated it to me earlier, which wasn't the case. I'm not &quot;reopening&quot; this dispute, as the dispute was never closed.}}<br /> :::When earlier would you have wanted me to communicate with you? In early February? I started a discussion of talk page removals at [[WT:TPG|the Talk Page Guidelines talk page]], in which I said that the talk page guidelines about removal of talk page posts were poorly written. Between 4 March and 17 March? You took a break from editing. If you were ill, I am sorry that you were ill and hope you have recovered. If so, I apologize for any rudeness on my part. <br /> :::You say that the dispute was never closed. It was never closed at [[WT:TPG|the Talk Page Guidelines talk page]]. It was closed at [[WP:DRN|DRN]]. It appears that it was closed there because you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue, in which you said that you had evidence that some editors were scammers and liars. It was your fault that you entangled two disputes, which confused me and confused [[User:Ritchie333]], and looked to me like a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] on [[User:Chaheel Riens]]. <br /> ::It is true that I am no longer sympathetic or neutral. That is your own fault.<br /> ::If you were ill, I am sorry, and I hope that you have recovered. In any case, the talk page removal is not a conduct issue, because it is an issue of a poorly worded guideline. If there is any conduct issue, it is your conduct. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 15:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt1.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|When earlier would you have wanted me to communicate with you? }}<br /> :::For example, at any time after 21 February 2024 would have been fine, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Z80Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209366787 after I had pinged you].<br /> :::'''Pt2.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|It was closed at DRN. It appears that it was closed there because you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue [...cut...] It was your fault that you entangled two disputes [...] }}<br /> :::No, it was not my fault. Or, maybe it is my fault, if I was supposed to stop the editing completely while the DRN case was in progress. How could I had known in advance that my attempt to coordinate efforts with [[User:4throck]] would lead me to stumble upon [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:4throck&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196226931 the copyright issue] (which is at the end of a discussion with him)?<br /> :::[[User:4throck]] was previously mostly sympathetic towards me and my writings, like in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1184433585 this comment], which is a part of the 26 KiB of deleted content.<br /> :::'''Pt3.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq| [...] you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue, in which you said that you had evidence that some editors were scammers and liars. }}<br /> :::No, that is just your interpretation. I have said: &quot;You must consider the possibility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers.&quot;, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197434065 here]. There is a big difference. Notice the words &quot;'''possibility'''&quot; and &quot;'''might'''&quot;. I don't like such serious misinterpretations of my words.<br /> :::'''Pt4.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq| It is true that I am no longer sympathetic or neutral. That is your own fault. }}<br /> :::The evidence is mounting that you were never sympathetic or neutral. For example at DRN, you took no action against [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197162384 this comment], where another editor is acting contrary to your [[Wikipedia:DRN Rule F]], section 9 (also, in my opinion [[User:Chaheel Riens]] is completely misinterpreting the &quot;archiving problem&quot; there).<br /> :::Two days before that, I reported this case to WP:ANI, based on what you have said <br /> :::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1195796819 here], and based on behavior of [[User:Chaheel Riens]], where it took him 42 hours to reply with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196399728 this comment] where I was accused of making a &quot;threat&quot;.<br /> :::After I reported the case to WP:ANI, you have proposed to continue the moderated discussion, which was fine. However, after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196480778 I objected ], the case at ANI should have been reopened, and the case at DRN should have been closed, as you have previously stated. Instead, you said {{tq|I would suggest that you follow the guidance of User:Ritchie333 who closed your complaint at WP:ANI. }}, defending the inappropriate closure of my case at WP:ANI. I agreed, nonetheless. However, given all that has happened at the DRN, it was quickly getting obvious that the case has no chance of succeeding, and it was getting worse by a series of misinterpretations by [[User:Chaheel Riens]]. For example: I was the one who agreed to archiving, and I clearly stated it at least three times: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196507327 here ], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196752695 here], and much earlier, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chaheel_Riens&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194929135 here] on [[User:Chaheel Riens]] talk page. In the DRN discussion, [[User:Chaheel Riens]] was constantly making it appear as if I had something against archiving, by citing various technical trivialities, and by attempting to dodge the archiving question as long as possible.<br /> :::'''Pt5.''' However, I decided to interpret all that as a honest mistake on your part, [[User:Robert McClenon]]. I considered that the &quot;honest mistake&quot; interpretation is the most likely one.<br /> :::'''Pt6.''' By the time I raised the copyright issue, the discussion at DRN had already have failed, at least from my point of view. I also consider the legal situation with copyright to be of much higher priority.<br /> :::'''Pt7.''' I judge that all the arguments against me are either gross misinterpretations of my words or gross misinterpretations of the entire situation. From my point of view, it is now quite likely that some of those misinterpretations were intentional, and some are a consequence of common human biases (i.e. [[User:Robert McClenon]] is far from being neutral, he is just acting in support of a long term editor, and against me as a newbie). I judge that even such are a normal and expected part of discussions.<br /> ::: All the evidence shows that I was the one who had a lot of sympathy for both [[User:Robert McClenon]] and for [[User:Chaheel Riens]], and I still do. I'm willing to instantly forget all the injustices that you have done to me, under the condition that the 26 KiB of deleted material is restored. Then we can engage in a discussion whether that material is WP:OR, or not, on the &quot;ZX Spectrum graphics modes&quot; page, and any further implications of that material.<br /> :::Took me three hours to write this. I hope that you appreciate it. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 21:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Boomerang''', whether that's a [[WP:CIR]] block, or a topic ban to prevent future disruption. This should have been dropped months ago, but instead [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] has chosen to drag it out. [[WP:FORUM]] is definitely a bit vague, but this is not a good choice of edits to pick a fight over. What's more concerning is Z80Spectrum's insistence that this must be resolved to their satisfaction, after leaving it fallow for a month, as well as trying to insist the ''real'' problem is {{tq|the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material}}, rather than their dogged insistence on litigating this. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 16:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I was not &quot;insisting&quot; on anything. I don't have the power to do so. I was saying that I would very likely consider it unjust if my complaint about the deletion of the 26 KiB of deleted material is disregarded. I don't see any way in which that deletion can be justified, in the sense that I expect the deleted material to be restored.<br /> *:[[User:HandThatFeeds]] said {{tq|after leaving it fallow for a month}} ... Wikipedia is not my full-time job. As I red in one of the essays, time passes slowly here, and breaks in disputes are usually welcome. It can be easily verified that all the last comments (before I took a break in this dispute) are mine, and that it was other editors who all went silent before I took a break. I can't reply to their silence. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 22:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Z80Spectrum, I mean this with all due respect and in all good faith, but for your own good, walk away. Deciding to go to battle with Robert McClenon, who is basically Wikipedia's aptheosis of equanimity, is not going to find you favor. We know how you judge your situation, but please take into account that others may judge it differently. All the best. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 22:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Thank you for your reply, which I judge was in very good faith. Unfortunately, I habitually don't respond affirmatively to any [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority arguments from authority]. All arguments with me have to be properly justified, in a properly conducted and fair discussion. If that is unacceptable on Wikipedia, feel free to ban me. So yes, I'm going to argue against the respected [[User:Robert McClenon]], until the arguments show that I'm in the wrong, or until I'm banned. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 23:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::To be clear, I am not saying you must agree with anything Robert says. I am merely saying there is a vast swath of territory between 'disagreement' and 'picking a fight.' Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 15:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::I didn't pick a fight with him, he picked a fight with me. I didn't invite him here. I said nothing about him before he did it here first, and I only replied to his comments. I'm also giving a peaceful offer, which is the same one from the very start of this case: to forget it all, if the deleted material is restored and archieved. Perhaps I forgot to say that I will likely write about this incident on my user page, but I can try to avoid mentioning names there. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::{{tq| I'm also giving a peaceful offer[...]: to forget it all, if the deleted material is restored and archieved.}} <br /> *::::::It's [[argumentum ad baculum|either your way or total war]]?!?? &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 18:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|Wikipedia is not my full-time job.}}<br /> *::No one is saying it should be. But, after a month, the discussion is dead and over. Dragging it back out over and over to get your way is just [[WP:TEND|tendentious]]. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 15:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *{{re|Z80Spectrum}} in reviewing past interactions I was reminded of [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3AParrot_standard.png&amp;diff=843591192&amp;oldid=843256802 this] (quite specious) interaction regarding copyright. When people are talking about [[WP:CIR]] in this context, &quot;competence&quot; is regarding your ability to collaborate on a project that is defined by its collaboration. It seems to me that you have battled or argued with nearly everyone you've interacted with; is that a habit you are able to change? [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 00:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:A fair question. Primarily, Wikipedia is a system. More precisely, Wikipedia is a complex system consisting of a community of people, principles, policies and guidelines, server-side software and data.<br /> *:All complex systems have faults of significant importance, and no human-made system ever has worked without failures. I am a newbie user here. I have to defend myself from all the consequences of the Wikipedia-as-a-system, including its many faults.<br /> *:In the case you have mentioned, if the copyright information of the problematic image was invalid, then I would have been legally liable to persecution. I consider such circumstances as a physical attack on me, as a consequence of one of Wikipedia's failures. I considered it as a grave and important situation.<br /> *:Wikipedia can't claim infallibility. I can't just rely on opinions of a few editors, or on information displayed by Wikipedia. Thus I demanded an opinion of an expert. I had every right to defend myself, in my opinion. When I got a good-enough explanation, I accepted it. If I have extensively argued before that moment, it means that I always had some unanswered objections.<br /> *:'''The problem would not have existed if the disputed image was hosted on Wikipedia''', instead of a third-party website.<br /> *:Instead, Wikipedia-as-a-system forced me, under a possibility of a legal threat, to extract the necessary copyright information from Wikipedia in a somewhat aggressive way. '''No one was seriously harmed''', as far as I can tell.<br /> *:You are correct in stating that I have argued with many people on Wikipedia. '''The problem is that I joined Wikipedia with a dispute-at-hand'''. It was not just an ordinary dispute, but a dispute where [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Some_Follow-Up_Comments_Regarding_Removing_Material conflicting interpretations already existed] before I joined Wikipedia. '''That is not my fault'''.<br /> *:I would honestly suggest to Wikipedia-as-a-system to try to fix its own faults first, and to not shift blame on the users, and especially not on newbie users. Unfortunately, complex systems are similar to persons, and they don't like to be criticized, so they usually don't listen to criticisms. I would also suggest to Wikipedia-as-a-system to be more tolerant of newbies, to not try to immediately intimidate them with [[WP:LAWYER]]. When reading many pages and essays here, I came under the impression that this criticism is already well-know, and that '''the real problem is in Wikipedia's reluctance to improve itself'''. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 03:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::My thoughts:<br /> *::- There are many ways you could improve Wikipedia that don't involve trying to restore that talk page - ways which it seems to me that a lot of others in this discussion would rather be doing instead of discussing this even more. Maybe seems unfair, but it appears that that is the current state of things.<br /> *::- If you want to improve the article and discuss it in the talk page, you can still do that, if you want to look at the deleted talk page content to find ways to improve the article, you can also still do that (by looking at the talk page from before it was removed).<br /> *::- Are you right? Are you wrong? Those questions should matter a lot less than questions like &quot;How can we move on? What can we still improve? How can we discuss it in a way that won't result in someone interpreting it as violating [[WP:TALK]]?&quot;.<br /> *::The big thing here, is that this does not appear to be an issue of great significance, and the more time that is taken to either try to resolve the dispute or discuss things here in ANI (honestly, the more time that it takes to read big walls of text too) the less people are going to want to do that, because it's a lot of time for little gain.<br /> *::&lt;br&gt;<br /> *::I don't agree with people saying that you should be sanctioned for making this ANI thread and for having dug this topic after people had moved on, because you made this thread as a way to continue the dispute (which seems to have been left as a possibility in the conclusion of the the DRN discussion) and because of what your intentions appear to have been when making it, but I think that you should withdraw this ANI thread and move on from and forget this dispute before people actually do get you blocked for it.<br /> *::The value you bring to Wikipedia is directly weighed against the time that is taken away from other editors without that time being used to improve or protect the Wikipedia.<br /> *::&amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|talk]]) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::And just to be clear, since I'm unsure how aware of how things work you are, withdrawing means saying that you do, that's all. &amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|2804:F1...7E:615D]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|talk]]) 04:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::If I understand it right, you are suggesting a compromise in which I withdraw, and I also suffer no consequences. I decline such a compromise (which was provided in good faith) due to the following:<br /> *::::'''Objection 1.''' Such a compromise implies that I consent to devaluing most of my work on Wikipedia so far, in return for some kind of &quot;safety&quot;. I would turn out to be a complete coward, which I am not.<br /> *::::'''Objection 2.''' Such a compromise is not in accordance with my stated principles of justified and fair discussions. I would much rather see and suffer the consequences of the outcome which is at this moment uncertain, than to retreat without being given proper justifications.<br /> *::::'''Objection 3.''' I think that I'm fighting for the right cause. The outcome of this ANI case would likely serve as a precedent that clarifies the ambiguities of WP:TPO, which was one of my goals. One of the worst outcomes from my point of view would be the perpetuation of the status quo, in which WP:TPG remains ambiguous. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 06:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::{{tq|The outcome of this ANI case would likely serve as a precedent that clarifies the ambiguities of WP:TPO, which was one of my goals.}}<br /> *:::::You are vastly overestimating the importance of this discussion. You're also [[WP:RGW|fighting the wrong battle.]] If you want sanctions, I expect you're going to get them now. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 15:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::This isn't a battle to be won and lost based on courage or cowardice. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 00:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Z80Spectrum, if you feel being banned from the topic page or Wikipedia in general is worth making your point, then that is certainly fine. I just want to make sure you're aware that you are making the former a near certainty and the latter more and more probable. All the best however things should go. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Thank you, Dumuzid. If I'm banned, I can take it. I wasn't editing Wikipedia much before this incident, and I can certainly live without editing Wikipedia in the future. I wasn't even planning to edit Wikipedia, I was just bored, about 4 months ago. So, don't worry about me. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 01:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ===Yet Another Reply to [[User:Z80Spectrum]]===<br /> :You seem to be arguing with yourself, and one of the risks of arguing with oneself is that one may lose the argument. On the one hand, you agree that [[WP:TPO|the guideline on editing the talk page posts of other editors]] is poorly written and ambiguous. On the other hand, you say that you have reopened this [[WP:ANI]] thread because the removal of your 26K post is a conduct issue on the part of [[User:Chaheel Riens]]. If the guideline is poorly written, it is unfair to argue that there was a conduct violation, but maybe you are arguing both ways.<br /> :You have now decided that I was never neutral. You probably won't believe me, but I started out thinking that your 26K posts should be restored, because I thought and still think that deletion of talk page posts should only be done rarely. I disagreed with [[User:Chaheel Riens]], and thought that they were overreacting when they deleted your 26K post. I still think that, other things being equal, your 26K should be restored either to an article talk page archive, to your user talk page, or to a user talk page archive. I was inclined in that direction until you went to the talk page of [[User:Ritchie333]]. It appeared to me that you are asking for his help with regard to the dispute about the talk page post. I now see that you were asking for his help with regard to a copyright dispute. I still don't know what the copyright dispute was, and I am not sure whether I want to know. <br /> :You say, in '''Pt 3''', that I misunderstood what you were saying, about scammers and liars. That is probably true, but you said that you had evidence:<br /> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARitchie333&amp;diff=1197436589&amp;oldid=1197435165<br /> :You said that you had evidence. Now you say that is only my interpretation. <br /> :You write: {{tqb|I didn't pick a fight with him, he picked a fight with me. I didn't invite him here. I said nothing about him before he did it here first, and I only replied to his comments.}} If you mean me, I didn't pick a fight with you. You say that you didn't invite me here. By &quot;here&quot;, do you mean [[WP:ANI]]? It is true that you didn't ping me, but I was always here. Unlike you, I didn't take a two-week or four-week break from Wikipedia. You wrote: {{tq|I'm not &quot;reopening&quot; this dispute, as the dispute was never closed.}} So did you think that I would have forgotten about it? <br /> :I didn't pick a fight. <br /> :Thank you, [[User:Dumuzid]], for your positive comment.<br /> ====Starting Over ? ====<br /> Now, at this point, here are the issues that I think remain:<br /> *1. [[User:Z80Spectrum]] wants their 26K of deleted posts back. That material has not been [[WP:REVDEL|revision-deleted]]. Z80Spectrum can copy it to a user subpage in user space. If they want it in article talk space, they can resume the discussion of [[WP:UPG|the talk page guidelines]], but at least they will have it. A user has more control over their own user space than over article talk space. If anyone else thinks that the material is inappropriate for user space, they can nominate the material for [[WP:MFD|MFD]]. Userfication should be a satisfactory compromise that doesn't require a community decision.<br /> *2. Z80Spectrum did say that they have evidence. That was not a hypothetical statement, but an allegation against someone. They should either present the evidence, or say that they were just talking wildly. <br /> *3. Is there anything else?<br /> [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Z80Spectrum said they want {{tq|the deleted material [...] restored and archived}}, or else. &quot;Material&quot; being his [[WP:OR]]. No thanks. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 04:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I dislike your comment, Paradoctor. I repeat, again, a quote from [[WP:OR]]: {{tq|This policy does not apply to talk pages}}. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Article talk pages exist to discuss changes to the corresponding article. &quot;I dislike your comment&quot; is an oddly (bizarrely, even!) confrontational way of putting things. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 17:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Pt11.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq| You seem to be arguing with yourself ...}}<br /> :Your argument depends at least on a presumption that the property of being ambiguous can only have a yes or no answer. I argue that there exist many intermediates, or degrees, of ambiguity. WP:TPO is not ambiguous to such a degree that absolutely no conclusion can be reached. I judge that, upon careful reading, WP:TPO supports my side of the argument to a level significantly higher than the case for deletion.<br /> :I will skip the detailed justification of my previous sentence. Instead, I ask you this: '''can you quote a part of''' [[WP:TPO]] which, in your opinion, supports the case for deletion of the disputed 26 KiB? Such a quotation would be a good start of a fair discussion.<br /> :On the other hand, you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1195796819 have stated at DRN] : {{tq|However, it is my opinion that the removal of material posted by another editor to an article talk page is only allowed under unusual circumstances, and those circumstances were not present. So the removal of the large amount of talk page material was an error. }} From my point of view, it appears that you are the one who is now arguing against own previous statements.<br /> :'''Pt12.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|You probably won't believe me, but I started out thinking that your 26K posts should be restored ...}} Actually, I believe you. In the vast majority of cases, bias is sub-conscious. Biased persons are usually not aware that they are biased. Or, perhaps you were not biased, and it was some other kind of a honest mistake. Still, that DRN case was unjust towards me, primarily because it should have been closed and moved to WP:ANI when I requested it.<br /> :'''Pt13.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|I still think that, other things being equal, your 26K should be restored [...]. I was inclined in that direction until you went to the talk page of User:Ritchie333. …}}<br /> :I judge that as invalid. One thing has nothing to do with another. I see no valid logical connections between whether the content should be restored and what I said on the page of User:Ritchie333 .<br /> :'''Pt14.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|You said that you had evidence. Now you say that is only my interpretation. …}}<br /> :I have already apologized for that entire discussion on User:Ritchie333 talk page, three times: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215019037] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dionysius_Miller#My_aplologies] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01#c-Z80Spectrum-20240129030400-Clindberg-20240129005500]. I now apologize for the fourth time. I would also like to point out that I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1197467546 ended that discussion with] {{tq|You win. I've had enough. I don't even know why am I wasting time here. }}. That final post of mine was an attempt to cancel what I have said there. Obviously, it wasn't clear enough.<br /> :This insistent objections concerning those few sentences on User:Ritchie333 talk page are getting in the way of a fair discussion. I have a feeling that you and [[User:Chaheel Riens]] are trying to scare me and silence me by quoting that discussion only when I try to argue for the restoration of the deleted material. I won't search now for evidence in support of that feeling of mine, but I will do it if the issue is brought up again.<br /> :I repeat: I see no valid logical connections between restoration of the deleted material and what I have said on the page of User:Ritchie333 .<br /> :'''Pt15.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|If you mean me, I didn't pick a fight with you. […] By &quot;here&quot;, do you mean WP:ANI? }}<br /> :Yes, I mean/meant you, [[User:Robert McClenon]]. I was replying to an answer of another editor who used the phrase &quot;pick a fight&quot; first. I re-used his phrase due to concerns of clarity. Yes, I meant WP:ANI.<br /> :'''Pt16.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|Unlike you, I didn't take a two-week or four-week break from Wikipedia. }}<br /> :On WP:ANI, I have already provided an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215232772 answer to your allusion].<br /> :So, you claim that you were present on Wikipedia. Tell me, have you done something related to this dispute since February 21st? If you did, I'm still unaware of it. I was mostly absent, and I might have missed some important development, so I would like to get informed. Or, perhaps you did nothing since February 21st?<br /> :-<br /> :'''Answers to the three points titled &quot;Starting Over ?&quot;:'''<br /> :'''Pt21.''' (answer to 1.) The question is not where can I copy the deleted material, but primarily whether the deletion was justified. Perhaps you are trying to say that the deleted material belongs better to my user space, but I don't think it does. The deleted material is strongly connected to the &quot;ZX Spectrum graphics modes&quot; article, where it should be discussed. The deleted material specifically discusses improvements only to that article, and also discusses and documents methods of generating images specifically for that article.<br /> :I see no justification in the guidelines for your proposed compromise. '''Can you quote a part of''' [[WP:TPO]] that would support your proposal to move the disputed material to my user space?<br /> :A rhetorical question: '''What would you say if I proposed that every comment you wrote on any talk page should be moved to your user space, as a compromise?'''<br /> :I propose as an equally good &quot;compromise&quot; (ironically): If the 26 KB of disputed material is moved to my user space, then I should be allowed to pick 26 KB of yours and User:Chaheel Riens posts and move them to your and his user space.<br /> :'''Pt22.''' (answer to 2.) When I said &quot;I have evidence&quot;, I meant that [[User:4throck]]<br /> :a) provided me with a link to an image hosted on a third-party website<br /> :b) didn't upload the disputed image to the Commons, even after I notified him; that inaction appeared to me as a possible attempt to hide information about copyright.<br /> :c) the image he previously uploaded to the Commons was modified in a strange way, which made me extremely suspicious<br /> :'''Pt23.''' (answer to 3.) Yes, there is more. Given the totality of your objections and proposals in this discussion on WP:ANI so far, I would estimate that, generally speaking, you are not arguing properly. I ask for arguments and justifications of better quality. I especially dislike apparent constant attempts to blame me for as many things as possible, which then causes me to spend unnecessary time and space for rebuttals of each accusation (since I might be punished by WP:ANI for any single accusation of yours). To accusations, I might respond with counter-accusations, as I did. To valid arguments, I will respond with arguments.<br /> :Please, if you want to improve the quality of this discussion, then try to provide a small number of well-thought out arguments, instead of a multitude of short, but easily rebutted arguments. You can start by answering the two questions that I have partially bolded/highlighted. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Good Lord, this is becoming a veritable black hole waste of time. I didn't realise it was still ongoing, as my username was incorrectly spelled in some of the earlier pings, so I never received them. However, I'll make just a couple of observations and try to keep away in general:<br /> ::# {{tpq|I propose as an equally good &quot;compromise&quot; (ironically): If the 26 KB of disputed material is moved to my user space, then I should be allowed to pick 26 KB of yours and User:Chaheel Riens posts and move them to your and his user space}} - that depends on whether the 26Kb in question has been challenged, and the reasons behind it. As this would obviously be a [[WP:POINTY]] edit, then you would most likely find your actions had consequences that you would undoubtedly feel were unfair. (Incidentally, you state that this is a rhetorical question, but also ask for it to be answered. It can't be both, but I chose the latter.)<br /> ::# The issue here that you are still fixated on the talk page removal, and [[WP:STICK|will not let it go]] - to the extent where everything else fades out and your position ''must'' be accepted. However, to every other editor this is no longer the case - even those who supported you at first. It's now turned into a primarily a conduct issue, albeit ''your'' conduct around the original issue (even if mine was questioned at the start) - yet you refuse to accept or take advice in that respect. Even back when DRN was first mooted I was prepared to accept the outcome regardless, and recognised that {{tpq|I've interacted with Robert before in passing - he's to be respected}} [[User_talk:Chaheel_Riens/Archive_1#ZX_Spectrum_modes|here]]. I ''tried'' to support you, I really did - when you first joined I left you a [[User_talk:Z80Spectrum#Welcome!|Welcome template]] on your talk page, and recognised that you were just venting with your userpage, voting to '''keep'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Z80Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197682148], but you make it a hard row, and I feel like it's against the current. You seem to be making it personal, and that's not a good place to edit from. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt31.''' (answer to 1.) Perhaps I used a wrong word there (i.e. &quot;ironically&quot;). Precisely: that last &quot;compromise&quot; of mine should not be understood at face value. I also think that you didn't correctly identify the &quot;two questions that I have partially bolded/highlighted&quot;. It is likely a honest mistake on your part.<br /> :::Whether the disputed content should be moved to my user space is a question of justification and a question of consistence. A justification has to be found in the policies and guidelines. &quot;Consistence&quot; is about the usual and accepted ways to solve this kind of a dispute. It would be the best if both the justification and the &quot;consistence&quot; coincide into one and the same action.<br /> :::'''Pt32.''' (answer to 2.) I'll only let go if I'm provided with a valid justification (which can also be based on the concept of consistence, but such is a much more complex argument to make). &quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Without a proper justification, you can't convince me. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::[[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. If you can't convince other editors you're right, then you ''have'' to drop it. This is policy on Wikipedia. If you can't handle it, you're in the wrong place. <br /> ::::[[WP:CONSENSUS]]: {{tq|'''Consensus''' is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making [...] [[Consensus decision making|Consensus]] on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity [...] nor is the result of a [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|vote]].}} &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::No, I don't have to convince other editors. Conduct issues are decided by WP:ANI, and the deletion od 26 KB is a conduct issue. I'd like to hear the judgement of WP:ANI. I hope that it will be properly justified. Until then, I'll be posting my counter-arguments, in order to better inform the administrators at WP:ANI of my side of the argument. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 01:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|The question is not where can I copy the deleted material, but primarily whether the deletion was justified.}} This seems quite a lot like a [[WP:BATTLE|battleground mentality]].<br /> ::{{tq|...didn't upload the disputed image to the Commons, even after I notified him; that inaction appeared to me as a possible attempt to hide information about copyright....which made me extremely suspicious.}} All editing is voluntary. It is not reasonable to make demands of other editors. [[WP:AGF|Assuming good faith]], however, is not optional. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 17:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt41.''' [[User:Vquakr]] said: {{tq|All editing is voluntary. It is not reasonable to make demands of other editors. Assuming good faith, however, is not optional. }}<br /> :::OK. However, I argue that I had good reasons for being suspicious, due to the gravity (i.e. importance) of legal problems. I argue that I had the right to demand immediate clarification of the copyright problem, and that I had sufficient reasons for being suspicious. Even if it wasn't entirely so, that has no implications on the restoration of the 26 KB disputed material. The issue of my conduct is a separate issue. I can't tell how much have I overstepped, as I am a newbie here. I have already agreed to accept the boomerang. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*{{tq|'''can you quote a part of''' [[WP:TPO]] which, in your opinion, supports the case for deletion of the disputed 26 KiB?}}<br /> ::Can't speak for Robert, but ''I'' do. <br /> ::[[WP:TALKOFFTOPIC]]: {{tq|It is common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself}} <br /> ::Which OR always is, by definition. <br /> ::Which I told you more than five weeks ago, on your talk page. You have [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|hearing issues]]. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt42.''' [[User:Paradoctor]] said: {{tq| WP:TALKOFFTOPIC: It is common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself }}<br /> :::I think this is a repetition of the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Z80Spectrum#Talk_page_guidelines_vs._ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes on my talk page], in which you participated. I'll reply [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Z80Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209392534 the same as I did there], but shorter : {{tq| The deleted discussion is not a discussion about article's subject (the subject are the graphics modes), but about article content (images in the article are content). }} [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{tq|I think this is a repetition}} Uh, I literally said so. Let me repeat another bit of yours from slightly further down: {{tq|Frankly, I can't see your side of the argument at all}}. <br /> ::::Me and everyone else. So, lots of not seeing on all sides. What are we to do? The fact is, for whatever reason, and whomever you wish to blame for that, you couldn't convince anyone to accept your position. Which means your position won't result in content. <br /> ::::You dislike this, sure. I understand. But it is clear that further discussion will not lead to conversions. Attempting to continue the campaign will only waste the time of other editors. So, unless you ''wish'' to be sanctioned, it is time to [[WP:DEADHORSE|drop it]] now. Remember what Obi Wan said to Anakin on Mustafar. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 01:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I don't know what's the best way to say this, but I want to say to you that you are, by your nature, quite an amusing person. You make me smile. I would like that to be understood in a positive way. So, I can't say that I dislike your comment.<br /> :::::That was a slight digression. On the serious side, your argument is just a version of a fallacy known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Argumentum ad populum]. I would like to be given proper justifications, not fallacies. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::You know, if you try to condescend to someone, at least make sure you're right. I never said consensus makes right. I said [[WP:CONSENSUS|Wikipedia operates through consensus]], and consensus is not with you here and now. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 02:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I forgot to say that I accept only the original trilogy, so Obi Wan on Mustafar didn't happen. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :* And from [[WP:NOTFORUM]]: &quot;Per our policy on '''original research''', please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: ... #4 Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia ... bear in mind that '''article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles'''; they are '''not for general discussion''' about the subject of the article&quot; &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 18:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:'''Pt43.''' I have already discussed that in other forums. I argue that the deleted 26 KB is solely about improving the article. To verify it, you have to read the deleted 26 KB: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;oldid=1194297511#How_to_simulate_Spectrum's_PAL_output this topic (at least the first post)], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;oldid=1194297511#c-80.80.52.99-20231111154100-80.80.52.174-20231111033300 this part, which is about improving the &quot;Colour palette&quot; section of the article] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Colour_palette].<br /> :*:Also, I would like to remind that [[WP:OR]] does not apply to talk pages. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::This is your research: {{tq|Let's compute this conversion of &quot;theoretic&quot; ZX Spectrum PAL colors into sRGB color space. They are &quot;theoretic&quot; because we are assuming the maximum possible saturation that a ZX Spectrum could possibly achieve on the PAL output. The real colors produced by a ZX Spectrum on the PAL output are probably less saturated. The real colors are currently unknown, and the only way to find them out is by an oscilloscope, via the UV voltages method (by measuring amplitude-phase shift of chroma sub-carrier).}}<br /> :*::Where is the [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that says what you are saying there? <br /> :*::What do you not understand about [[WP:V]]?<br /> :*::{{tq|content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or [[Wikipedia:No original research|previously unpublished ideas or information]]. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.}} &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 01:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::I would like to remind that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::::WP:OR does not apply to normal appropriate talk page discussions, this means discussing with reliable sources improvements to the article. This type of discussion is not original research. You however are not using the talk pages for discussion within these talk page guidelines, you are using talk pages to try and publish your own thoughts, this is original research and per WP:NOTFORUM is is not allowed. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 02:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::Oh, [WP:V], sorry, here you go: {{tq|All material in Wikipedia mainspace, ...}} [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::::You are abusing talk page discussions to publish your own thoughts, these cannot be WP:V and using talk pages to try and end run around WP:V won't work. I think this is why you are so desperate to have this content put back on a talk page instead of your userspace, you can't get your WP:OR in the article directly, so the talk page is the next choice. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 02:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::::I have replied below at the start of &quot;Courtesy Break (1)&quot;. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Firstly, I'd like to clarify that I'm new to ANI, so forgive me if I miss any formalities. However, I wanted to chime in because like other editors here, I really don't see how this content dispute qualifies as a ''{{tq|chronic, intractable problem}}''. The dispute effectively amounts to a several month-old removal of talk page content, which has been dragged to death via various noticeboards. What exactly is the point of bringing this here? If it's content, this discussion does not belong here. I agree with the IP's suggestion for Z80Spectrum to withdraw this thread, before they continue to dig a hole for themselves, running the risk of potential sanctions. What I ''do'' find intractable, however, is Z80Spectrum's [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground mentality]], which has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout this thread, e.g ''{{tq|users are trying to scare and silence me}}'', (which is demonstrably false, since your own actions have led you to this point, not mine, nor anyone else's), and ''{{tq|I would turn out to be a complete coward, which I am not}}''. As @[[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] succinctly put it, this isn't a battle to be won and lost based on courage or cowardice. Irrespective of whether or not the removal was justified, I think Z80Spectrum needs to stop digging a hole for themselves. This really isn't a hill that one should die on. [[User:Bandit Heeler|Bandit Heeler]] ([[User talk:Bandit Heeler|talk]]) 22:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Courtesy Break (1)===<br /> <br /> After an approx. 15 hours break, I would like to continue the argumentation here. I'll skip the replies to all the argument so far where I estimate that they are either obviously false, fallacious, off-topic, irrelevant, or without sufficient substance. <br /> <br /> As far as I can tell, that leaves only two posts unanswered, by [[User:TimothyBlue]], where he talks about applicability of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]] policies. [[User:TimothyBlue]] said: {{tq|You are abusing talk page discussions to publish your own thoughts ... }}<br /> <br /> '''My answer is as follows.''' Generally speaking, Wikipedia talk pages contain thoughts of users. I estimate that user's thoughts form over 50% of the total Wikipedia talk page material. Wikipedia does not require user's thoughts published on talk pages to be verifiable. Upon reading the [[WP:V]] policy, it can be easily noticed that it speaks primarily about article content, and not about talk page material.<br /> <br /> Additionally, most parts of the disputed 26 KiB material are actually easily verifiable. You just need to use a calculator, and you need some introductory knowledge in the topics covered.<br /> <br /> Similar reasoning applies with regards to [[WP:OR]], which explicitly and clearly states: {{tq|This policy does not apply to talk pages... }} . If Wikipedia was to apply [[WP:OR]] to content of talk pages, it would imply that all the talk page discussions have to be just slight re-interpretations of material already published somewhere else. That would further imply the need to put inline references into all sentences published on talk pages. So, it is not any kind of a wonder that [[WP:OR]] does not apply to talk pages.<br /> <br /> [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :[[WP:PLAYPOLICY]] &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You have a right to state that opinion of yours. I argue that it is an undoubtable and obvious intention of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]] to be applicable only to mainspace (i.e. to articles, and not to talk pages). Therefore, I'm not gaming the use of policies and guidelines. Instead, I'm providing a very obvious interpretation of WP:OR and WP:V. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Topic ban===<br /> <br /> Given the above lengthy comment, which dismisses concerns as {{tq|easily rebutted arguments}} and that users {{tq|are trying to scare me and silence me}}, I can see no option besides the following:<br /> <br /> *&lt;s&gt;'''Topic ban''' [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] from [[Sinclair Research]] and related articles.&lt;/s&gt; I chose this more broad topic ban (rather than just the [[Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes]] page) as I expect this will continue at those related pages otherwise. This is the only way to put this interminable argument to rest and bring focus back to improving these articles, rather than going in circles over a months-old [[WP:FORUM]] removal from the Talk page. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 21:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|HandThatFeeds}} their area of interest/expertise is clearly linked to that subject area given their user name and editing history; topic banning them from that area rather than addressing the behavioral issues seems like an indef block by another name, and ''if'' they started editing in another area with the same behavior the same issues would arise. Put another way, this boils down to battleground mentality not the subject area so I don't think a topic ban is the right tool. As an alternative: what about a ban from arguing against or uncollapsing off-topic talk page posts, with a warning that future forum-like posts, synthetic talk page posts, or battleground behavior will likely result in a block? [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::&lt;s&gt;Z80Spectrum seems to have an interest in technology in general - a look at their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Z80Spectrum&amp;target=Z80Spectrum&amp;offset=&amp;limit=500 contributions so far] (once the talk page and ANI chaff is filtered out) shows a fairly wide breadth of computer related interests. A topic ban here would not restrict them as much as a block, indef or not. Additionally, they have made constructive edits to the [[ZX Spectrum]] article - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZX_Spectrum&amp;diff=1214435159&amp;oldid=1214433745 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZX_Spectrum&amp;diff=1211653251&amp;oldid=1211596298 here] for example. I think a topic ban would work for just the [[ZX Spectrum graphic modes]] article &amp; talk page. Not being a mop-holder, I'm also unaware, but I do - best will in the world - think that some kind of attitude warning or restriction based on the [[WP:STICK]] and battleground mentality is in order. As an involved (!) party, I'm not sure how much weight my observations carry though. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 22:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/s&gt;<br /> :::'''Indef block''' - Changed my mind based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215583779 this comment] in '''Pt32.''' (answer to 2.): {{tpq|&quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me.}} Although it's abundantly clear he has no intention of stopping, this is where he categorically states and admits it. He's not going to stop and will keep filibustering until somebody stops him instead. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 08:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::15 years, 37,619 edits, carries a bit of weight. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't think a behavioral topic ban will suit, because that's just too vague to enforce. Either an article topic ban, or a CIR block, are the only solutions I can think of to end this. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''': They really have left everyone with few options. I suppose this comes down to how much more time needs to be wasted? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215287811 Based on this] I think the underlying problem will resurface in a different form. After looking at their userpage, I think they want to be blocked to prove what they think is a point. Wikipedia has flaws large and small, but their userpage rant is even more unhinged than this discussion. However the tban is crafted, it needs to be crystal clear that if the problem repeats a block will be fast in coming. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * &lt;del&gt;'''Topic ban''' for [[ZX Spectrum graphic modes]]. I think the crux is that this is about something they put a lot of work in, and the rejection of their work has them [[WP:WIKISTRESS|running a lot hotter]] than their usual self. Let's not forget they are new here. If I'm wrong, we'll learn soon enough, but I'm willing to give them a chance to cool down.&lt;/del&gt; &lt;br&gt; '''Block indef''' Reassessed. &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paradoctor|contribs]]) 23:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt; &lt;ins&gt;; edited 02:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/ins&gt;<br /> *:However it turns out, I would like to say that I mostly enjoyed conversations with you. I'm saying this just in case that I'm banned and therefore unable to say it. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Topic ban''' or '''just block indef'''. Based on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215583779 comment in this discussion]: {{tq|&quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me.}} - it is obvious that some sort of sanction will be required. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 00:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support Indef block''': They just replied above (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;curid=5137507&amp;diff=1215583779&amp;oldid=1215582006]). They made it clear they have no intention of stopping. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' any topic ban from article space. The conduct issue here is the editor's [[WP:FILIBUSTER|filibustering]] in project space about an article talk page. I am not stating a position for or against an indefinite block or site ban, but those are not what is being considered here. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 01:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Indef block''' even now, with this discussion open, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=1215618454&amp;oldid=1215616779 just] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1215618454 can't] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1215618585 help] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1215618692 themselves]. Hopeless case of [[WP:BATTLE]]. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 07:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support Indef''' - Given the new rants and declaration they will not stop until a &quot;justification&quot; which satisfies them is presented, I'm striking my topic ban suggestion and supporting an indef block. User is [[WP:NOTHERE]] to collaboratively edit. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' a '''Site Ban''' after the subject editor wrote: {{tq|&quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Without a proper justification, you can't convince me.}}, since it is also apparent that they want to decide what is a &quot;proper justification&quot;. That insistence may be good mathematical logic, but it is not collaborative work in an electronic office. They threw a [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] at a [[kangaroo]] that wasn't there. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support site ban''' – In the course of human events, sometimes words simply fail. Here, they likely failed months ago. Z80 has been given months more time to adjust their behavior than I had initially expected—time during which they have been consistently afforded a wide variety of patient advice from fellow editors. At several points, it seemed to me that there may have been some getting through to them. Unfortunately, that no longer seems plausible. Beyond a very shallow threshold, Z80 is completely unreceptive to other editors' perspectives. This threshold is unacceptably shallow for Wikipedia. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 07:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Accusations of deception====<br /> Just a heads up that [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] is still engaging in battleground mentality, albeit on a much more low-key level over at the [[Talk:ZX Spectrum]] page, where everybody who he disagrees with is being deceptive - although it's probably an honest mistake, so he'll forgive them: (paraphrase, but also my sarcasm)<br /> *{{tpq|I also estimate that I have been deceived by Paradoctor's and VQuakr's interpretation of the situation so far, but it was probably an honest mistake on their part, so at this moment I'm willing to just forget it}}<br /> *{{tpq|This is Paradoctor's statement that I find deceptive...}}<br /> *{{tpq|This is another Paradoctor's statement that I find deceptive...}}<br /> *{{tpq|This is the VQuakr 's statement that I find slightly deceptive...}}<br /> ending with:<br /> *{{tpq|As I have said, I still consider those to be honest mistakes, provided in good faith}}<br /> The last three (and {{tpq|honest mistake}} statement) were made directly after both [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] and I asked him to stop making such comments - as Paradoctor said (I had a brain-freeze and couldn't think of the term!) they are at best condescending, and at worst insulting. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 06:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Yeah, I think at this point an admin really needs to take action here. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::[[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]]'s comment is a relatively accurate description of an issue that happened in this very recent discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum#The_leading_paragraph]. Therefore I don't have much to add there. I think that the linked discussion is quite illustrative, and I think that it speaks for itself. So I don't need to say anything additional, except my advice to read the discussion from the start to the end.<br /> ::I would like to correct myself regarding another issue here. In my reply numbered &quot;'''Pt2.'''&quot;, I said {{tq|No, it was not my fault.}} Reading it again, I think that the closure of the case at DRN might have been my fault, since my replies at User:Ritchie333's page do connect the DRN case with the copyright case. I must admit that, by the time I have posted on User:Ritchie333's page, I have probably already lost my faith in the DRN case and that I thought DRN has little chance of settling the issue. I think, as I always did, that [[User:Robert McClenon]]'s decision to close the DRN case at that time was a correct decision. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 17:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I have another correction (clarification) of another sentence of mine. In '''Pt41.''' (semicolon instead of the full-stop):<br /> ::&quot;Even if it wasn't entirely so, that has no implications on the restoration of the 26 KB disputed material''' ; t'''he issue of my conduct is a separate issue.&quot;<br /> ::I.e. the issue of my conduct is an issue separate from the issue of the 26 KB disputed material.<br /> ::Also, previously in this discussion I used the word &quot;ironically&quot; instead of &quot;sarcastically&quot; (I guess). Also, I used the word &quot;consistence&quot; instead of the word &quot;uniformity&quot;. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :The issue is battleground mentality and the inability of this editor to drop any [[WP:STICK]], ever. I think the specific concern about the connotations of the word &quot;deception&quot; are less concerning given that English isn't the user's first language, but that's just my opinion. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm not going to directly respond to VQuakr's accusation. Besides, I'm a newbie here, and I don't really know what are the accepted interpretations of Wikipedia policies. So I'll leave the judgement to others.<br /> ::Related, I would like to point out a policy of WP:HARASS, which contains a section [[WP:HOUND]]. I have no idea whether that policy applies, and what is the accepted interpretation of that policy. I'll be leaving it to others to think about it, and to respond if they think it is appropriate. Similarly, there is a guideline [[WP:CANVASS]], which might, or might not, apply in this dispute at WP:ANI. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 07:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :An editor named [[User:CodeTalker]] has just replied in the mentioned discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216223186]. I don't know whether that editor is an administrator here, and whether his answers are an official opinion from WP:ANI, or his own opinions. To be safe, at this moment I will refrain from any actions. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 20:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|Z80Spectrum}} [[WP:ADMIN|Administrators]] are not authorities that rule by decree. They are editors with extra buttons to allow technical actions. Whether they are an admin or not should have zero bearing on whether you [[WP:LISTEN]] to them. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I just figured out that better words for &quot;deceived&quot; and &quot;deceptive&quot; would have been &quot;mislead&quot; and &quot;misleading&quot;. So, I appologize for that mistake. I can correct myself, by strike-outs, on the &quot;ZX Spectrum&quot; talk page, if the offended editors agree. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 07:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::&quot;Deceive&quot; and &quot;mislead&quot; have the same negative connotations. There is no practical difference between them in this context. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 08:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::OK. I would also like to suggest &quot;misguide&quot;, &quot;misinform&quot; and &quot;misrepresent&quot; as acceptable alternatives. If, at any later time you would like me to change it, just notify me. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===ArbCom? Probably not now===<br /> There is a [[WP:RFAR|Request for Arbitration]] currently open before ArbCom that is similar to this dispute, in that it is about the deletion of questionable material from article talk pages. The filing party was in the habit of restoring talk page posts by IP addresses that were deleted by other editors. The filing party was then blocked for seven days for disruptive editing for restoring the IP posts. Having come off block, they are asking for ArbCom action. Their request is unlikely to be accepted, because several arbitrators have already voted to Decline. However, I have made a statement saying that both cases, this case and the RFAR, illustrate that a poorly written and ambiguous guideline is problematic. I don't think that ArbCom considers poorly written policies to be within their scope, but have said that some sort of statement about the guideline would be useful.<br /> [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == User:Fred Zepelin ==<br /> <br /> I am asking for [[User:Fred Zepelin]] to be indefinitely blocked from posting to my personal talk page, and for an administrator to consider appropriate action in response to his hounding and ongoing personal attacks.<br /> <br /> During a recent content dispute, he accused me of “whitewashing” and being a “white supremacist apologist”.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABlake_Masters&amp;diff=1210112045&amp;oldid=1210099756] The two other editors involved in the discussion suggested he “focus on content, not contributors” and “clear the slate with a strike and or apology”.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Zepelin#Careful]<br /> <br /> Instead, he followed me to another article where his first-ever edit there was to revert my content and source[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrei_Cherny&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210119834] and template-warned me inappropriately.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BBQboffin#February_2024]<br /> <br /> I have asked him repeatedly to stop posting on my talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABBQboffin&amp;diff=1210139356&amp;oldid=1210138700], citing [[WP:USERTALKSTOP]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABBQboffin&amp;diff=1210737930&amp;oldid=1210736842] and telling him that I would view future violations as harassment. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFred_Zepelin&amp;diff=1212439892&amp;oldid=1211599745] But days later he again posted there again, and with another personal attack.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABBQboffin&amp;diff=1214772992&amp;oldid=1212595355] [[User:BBQboffin|BBQboffin]] ([[User talk:BBQboffin|talk]]) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Which they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BBQboffin&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214772992 immediately reverted and apologized for] (and was in regards to what was not a PA at all). What are you asking us to do if the other user already self-resolved it? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 17:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Immediately reverted - yes. Apologized for casting aspersions about alleged &quot;whitewashing&quot; - no.[[User:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue&quot;&gt; ''Isaidnoway'' &lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:black&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/b&gt;]] 18:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::So what is being asked for, then? The editor immediately reverted so there's nothing to revert, though it looks like the two have had a running content dispute for the last month but not to a block-worthy extent. I just can't stand when the reporter leaves out something on purpose (the reversion) to try to have an action done, without the other in the dispute being able to respond. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&quot;I forgot&quot; is neither an excuse for harassment nor is it an apology. Posting &quot;Knock off the whitewashing&quot; and then reverting is like someone throwing a punch and pulling it back at the last minute. It doesn't &quot;self-resolve&quot; a situation; it has an intimidating effect. And this isn't the first time FZ has done this: he had been warned about respecting [[WP:USERTALKSTOP]] with another editor[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1060198549], ignored the warning, and got himself a 48-hour block[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&amp;oldid=1130765395#December_2022]. What I want is for him to just stop posting to my talk page: if he can't be banned from posting there permanently, maybe a 72-hour block would help him remember next time that harassment (of me or anyone else) is not OK. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::The edit summary on their self-revert, &quot;''forgot, this particular user asked that I not post on thier talk page,''&quot; gives me faith they'll stop posting there. Do you agree but still think they need to be blocked, or do you think if they're not blocked they'll continue messaging you there? &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Segoe Script;&quot;&gt;''[[User:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#BC49A6&quot;&gt;City&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:Green&quot;&gt; o&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:Red&quot;&gt;f &lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]]''&lt;/b&gt; 22:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I can’t know if he's going to forget again. A talk page block would make it 100% certain. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Sorry but that wasn't what I asked. And they're not going to be blocked from your talk page because it's possible they'll have messages they're required by policy to leave for you. &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Segoe Script;&quot;&gt;''[[User:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#BC49A6&quot;&gt;City&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:Green&quot;&gt; o&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:Red&quot;&gt;f &lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]]''&lt;/b&gt; 02:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::In lieu of a talk page block I would accept a promise from FZ not to post on my talk page anything beyond required-by-policy messages. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::It's been four days and they haven't posted since you took them to ANI, which is '''not''' a result I want for anyone as &quot;chilling&quot; an editor from posting again is a major reason we discourage ANI reports of this kind if an issue is easily solvable by using a talk page to discuss editing concerns. We're certainly not going to take action on the above because of that, and I truly hope you didn't needlessly scare a productive editor away because of this overreaction to an honest mistake. But in the reverse, Fred had been warned to step back from editing on a particular article on their talk page, so we're not going to warn someone either from taking a break and pausing editing, then coming back a better editor if they do so. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 16:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Fred did return and going by their response, they felt this ANI thread was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&amp;oldid=1215718380 completely frivolous (but put it more profanely)] and resumed editing elsewhere. Next time, use the user talk page first before going to ANI, because nothing is happening here. He's done with you, be done with him, and move on, BBQ. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Ok, next time I'll use the user talk page more than I did, but I don't think this is an &quot;easily solvable&quot; issue. I will move on, although on his first day back I see another editor has already become exasperated with Fred and asked him not to post to their talk page[[User talk:Alansohn#The longest quotes in references ever seen|[1]]]. Fred certainly has value to the project for his tenacity and skill in ferreting out sockpuppets and their ilk, but it would be nice if he would show mutual respect to his fellow editors. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == TonyTheTiger is gaming the WikiCup through GAN spam ==<br /> Over the course of a few days, {{user1|TonyTheTiger}} has increased the number of articles he had pending at GAN from a handful to [[Special:Diff/1214753203|nearly 70]]. When [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations|asked about it]] by {{u|Ganesha811}}, TonyTheTiger basically admitted to [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] to score [[Wikipedia:WikiCup|WikiCup]] points, saying that he'd only be willing to withdraw if another backlog drive was guaranteed to him later in the year (at which point he hoped to have date priority on nominations). Such a huge strain on the process might be understandable if his submissions were all carefully scrutinized, but the only charitable explanation is that they clearly were not. 25 of his submissions have been quickfailed by 13 separate reviewers (myself included) on several grounds, including poor sourcing, unsourced sections, poor prose, unhandled maintenance tags, lack of substantive contribution, and lack of breadth. On multiple occasions, after an article was failed, he lashed out at the reviewer before renominating the article with little substantive change. {{u|Premeditated Chaos}} rightly pointed out that this was a pretty clear abuse of the GAN process, {{u|Epicgenius}} (who is a WikiCup judge this year) warned him that his conduct could be seen as gaming, and {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} noted that he was TBANed from [[Wikipedia:Featured sounds|Featured sounds]] back in 2011 for this exact pattern of conduct.<br /> <br /> His behavior pretty much only gets worse from there. If you look at [[Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)|one of his renomination attempts]], you'll see that TonyTheTiger, who has been editing since 2006 – rather than choosing to respond to any of the admins, backlog drive coordinators, or other senior editors who had raised concerns about his conduct on his talk page in the past day – chose to go after {{u|Generalissima}}, a relatively new editor on the scene, telling her, &quot;{{tq|You are bending over backwards to fail this article... Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know.}}&quot; He then told everyone else to {{tq|Calm down and stop quickfailing stuff for no reason... If you fail a 20-25% {{sic}} of my articles that does not make me a problem editor.}} He told another quickfailing reviewer, {{u|Teratix}}, {{tq|I assume you are lieing {{sic}} to pick a fight.}} He has now claimed in multiple places that a vague group of &quot;vindictive&quot; editors [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Open season on qfing me|are conspiring to fail his articles for WikiCup points]], claiming that articles like his get through GAN in good shape all the time. If he's right, I worry. In the meantime, multiple editors have asked him to find and withdraw his poorer-quality nominations, and he has refused, while continuing to making spurious renominations. This is clearly disruptive behavior that needs to be addressed. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 22:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Proposed sanctions ===<br /> :This is really disappointing, because many of his past FAs and GAs ''are'' high quality. His [[Wikipedia:Featured topics/Four Freedoms|FT on the Four Freedoms by Rockwell]] is great work! Why he has decided to take such a big step down with his quality control in favor of mass-nomination of Start/C-class articles is beyond me; the only way many of these articles would get through GAN is if either a newbie reviewer picks them up without fully understanding the GA criteria, or if a reviewer painstakingly holds his hand the entire way from start class up to meeting the criteria. <br /> :I feel a fair response to this would involve suspension from this year's Wikicup for openly trying to game the system, alongside a tight restriction to how many GANs he can have at once, to prevent this sort of waste of reviewers' time in the future. Maybe just one GAN at a time to start out with? &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::given his past pattern of similar behavior, including disruption at FAC &amp; DYK, i worry that this kind of thing will just continue in another area of the project. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::That is fair enough. I would absolutely support a '''topic ban from Wikicup''', as I feel this is the primary cause for his behavior. However, a '''topic ban from GAN''' should be instituted if this sort of abuse continues outside of the cup. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 02:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Upon all the new evidence being brought forward of his consistent behavior in this respect, mark me down as in favor of a '''TB from GAN/DYK''' too. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 22:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *A look back to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Featured Sounds Process|this very noticeboard in 2011]]: Tony is topic banned from a) participating in the Featured Sounds process and from b) uploading pictures relating to himself (this is as absurd as it sounds, so let's ignore it). Why was he TBANned from FS? Well:<br /> **{{green|TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured...He wants to add stars to his trophy wall, and he wants to feed his ego...TTT has a strong case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and is pursuing his own self-aggrandizing agenda at the cost of significant community patience, and in this case, the quality of Featured Sounds}}<br /> **{{green|Tony previously caused similar issues at FPC, nominating pic after pic after pic relating to Chicago...He has also caused problems with mass nominations at DYK (which reflected very poorly on the WikiCup, in which he was participating)}}<br /> **{{green|TonyTheTiger seems unable to understand the ways in which he disrupts and abuses of featured content processes and other editors' time in his goal of promoting himself...he disrupted DYK in his attempt to win WikiCup, there was an issue at TFA/R, and FAC instituted a special rule to limit repeat noms because of his repeatedly using FAC as Peer review for ill-prepared articles, and bringing back ill-prepared noms the minute the previous one was archived...I don't know if topic bans are a solution, because he just moves on and does the same thing in another area}}<br /> **{{green|I am also very unimpressed with the shouting and calling of specific others &quot;liars&quot;, and would note the lack of support for his position by any other party on this page.}}<br /> *Move on 13 years, and Tony is again nominating anything that he thinks will have a remote chance of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back and immediately renominating unsuccessful nominations, clogging GAN with items that don't deserve to be GAs, disrespecting every other editor involved in the Cup and GAN, and calling other editors &quot;liars&quot; while facing unanimous disagreement, all to feed his ego. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 22:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **For the record, I support a '''TBAN from the Cup and nomination restrictions at GAN'''; hopefully that ends the disruption. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{A note}} Tony *has* withdrawn a few of his nominations since the debacle started ([[Special:Diff/1215223230|Benji (2012 film)]], [[Special:Diff/1215224630|Essex on the Park]], [[Special:Diff/1215224964|NEMA (Chicago)]] and [[Special:Diff/1215225403|The Flick]]). Everything else in your comment is spot on. – &lt;code style=&quot;background:#333;border:1px solid #999&quot;&gt;[[User:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#fff;text-shadow:0 0 5px #fff&quot;&gt;Hilst&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#090&quot;&gt;&amp;lbrack;talk&amp;rbrack;&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/code&gt; 22:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Within my areas of expertise I am still a bit unsure as to why articles are being failed. I think offensive linemen [[Michael Schofield (American football)]] and [[Heath Irwin]] compare well with my current GA for [[Patrick Omameh]]. At [[Talk:1000M/GA1]], I responded completely to the review before renominating. It was not until after a second fail when reviewers explained what the issues were. Had I understood these were the issues, I would have addressed them. Everyone thinks I understand why the articles are deficient in advance of the reviews. I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems. To people who review in any of certain fields the flaws may seem obtuse, but I did not look at the articles and realise the flaws and then nominate them. The reviews are informative to me. I don't understand why &quot;[[Humble and Kind]]&quot; is not regarded as in the general quality range of my 2022 GA &quot;[[Sheesh!]]&quot; except for a tag. I am finding the reviewer responses confusing. I have started removing some of my nominations that I are further afield from my expertises.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 22:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Tony, if you are so flabbergasted by the reviews you're getting, then that is more indicative of you ''not reading them'' than it is an indictment of over a dozen other editors' feedback. Anyways, this is not a place to air your grievances about the quality of the reviews you're receiving, this is a discussion about your ''behavior''. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 23:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Noting I have nominated Omameh for GA reassessment, as it clearly does not meet the GAC in its current state. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I think it is clear that the WikiCup is not good for TonyTheTiger (it is supposed to be a fun competition, but he seems to think it is something he needs to win) and TonyTheTiger is not good for the WikiCup (as a fun game, it really should not take such a heavy toll on the GAN backlog; abusing the general community like this endangers the Cup). A '''topic ban from the WikiCup''' is the minimum that should happen (full disclosure: this would slightly benefit me, as I am also a competitor in the Cup). However, there are wider [[WP:IDHT]] and almost [[WP:CIR]] issues related to [[WP:GAN]]: TTT has nominated (and sometimes renominated directly after a quickfail) several articles that he last edited years ago, and some of them are significantly out of date, have maintenance tags or other obvious issues (I re-quickfailed one of them, [[1000M]]). So a '''topic ban from GAN''' should be at least considered. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 23:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Mark me down in favor of a '''topic ban from GAN''' entirely, given the continued IDHT and inability to take any accountability for his actions, and repeated poor attitude towards other editors. It's clear Tony will not stop this behavior unless he is forced to. The past behavioral issues put me more firmly in support of a restriction. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 23:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *for the record, i also '''support a topic ban from both GAN and the WikiCup'''. the above-mentioned behavior is entirely disruptive, rude, and a waste of our time. the GAN process and the WikiCup do not exist to serve TTT's ego. i concur with Kusma about the IDHT &amp; potential-CIR issues; how ''anyone'' could read [[Humble and Kind]] (for example) and think it's even slightly close to GA quality is beyond me. patience has run dry. &lt;br&gt;'''edit:''' as other people have also mentioned they're competing in the Cup, i'll disclose that i am as well. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 23:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **For the record, without an explanation, I don't understand why (other than one tag) &quot;[[Humble and Kind]]&quot; is worse than &quot;[[Sheesh!]]&quot;. I believe the majority of my recent nominations were in the range of proximity to [[WP:WIAGA]] to be reasonable nominations. After hundreds of GA reviews, you should know that I am not a problem at GA in general. I feel that the intersection of the GA and the CUP is the issue. I do feel I could work productively at GA without the competitive element of the CUP.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 23:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:{{tq|After hundreds of GA reviews, you should know that I am not a problem at GA in general.}} Doug Coldwell also used his number of GAs to justify his poor behavior and shoddy work... and look where that got him. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 23:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:It didn't take long to find a [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/interview-tim-mcgraw-new-album-dueting-daughter-6753874/ half-dozen] [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/lori-mckenna-album-1988-interview-1235375769/ reliable] [https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/humble-and-kind-how-lori-mckenna-wrote-tim-mcgraws-hit-single/ sources] [https://www.tennessean.com/story/entertainment/music/story-behind-the-song/2021/01/25/story-behind-song-tim-mcgraws-humble-and-kind/4228236001/ covering] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/12/22/why-humble-and-kind-was-the-hit-song-we-really-needed-this-year/ the song's] [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/tim-mcgraw-humble-and-kind-video-oprah-6851683/ production], some in great detail, that just aren't being used. Even [https://cmt.com/news/dqi1jz/humble-and-kind-meant-spaghetti-day-for-lori-mckenna the CMT piece] has a lot of untapped material. The fact that I can find this many sources for one section of the article reflects poorly on the rest. To put it bluntly, &quot;[[Sheesh!]]&quot; covers all the major aspects of its topic, &quot;[[Humble and Kind]]&quot; does not. An editor as experienced as you should realize this. [[User:Averageuntitleduser|Averageuntitleduser]] ([[User talk:Averageuntitleduser|talk]]) 00:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **addendum, after reading others' comments: i don't think a time-based restriction will work. his history of disruption goes all the way back to 2011. while i support a full TBAN from GAN (and certainly from the Cup), i would also be supportive of a strict limit on how many GANs he can make at a time, should a full TBAN not gain consensus here. i think his entitled attitude is the single biggest problem here, as PMC pointed out below. i don't see why we have to give him so much more leeway than he has given his fellow editors. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * [[User:TonyTheTiger|Tony]], would you be willing to go through all your pending GA noms and withdraw all except those of ''exceptional'' quality (or just all). Its looking like you could be heading for a GA topic ban, something I'd think would be a shame since you seem to have a great record of producing good content. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 23:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Topic ban from GAN and the WikiCup''', with regret. TonyTheTiger has [[Special:Diff/1215170109|continued (re)nominating]] articles with issues today, well after many editors have expressed both general and specific feedback about the inappropriateness of his mass nominations. His reaction to this feedback has been to deny or underplay issues and shows a lack of regard for other editors' time and the research required for ensuring his nominations are [[WP:GA?|broad in their coverage (#3)]]. Overall, his recent activity has been detrimental to the processes and to the task of building a high-quality encyclopedia. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|&lt;span style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]''') 23:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''No ban on anything''', Wikipedia eating its own? Assume good faith is a thing. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:with all due respect, did you read the thread? every avenue has been tried before ANI - [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations|his talk page]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Open season on qfing me|the WikiCup talk page]], [[User talk:Teratix#Heath Irwin review|Teratix' talk page]], the [[Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2024#Reason for &quot;backward&quot; progress|GAN drive talk page]], and numerous individual reviews. he has been uncivil, [[WP:IDHT|refused to listen]], and continued to engage in the same disruptive behavior after over a dozen editors, including multiple admins, have asked him to stop. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Yes, I read the thread before responding. Have now read Tony's talk page, and there seems a mix of failed and under review Good articles. He now is pulling some back, as mentioned above. My comment was only about jumping from concerns to banning TtT from GAN, where he has excelled for years. Wikipedia eating its own is a thing, as seen many times on this page when that kind of jump is made from discussion to &quot;Get 'em!&quot;. But good faith is one of the best things, so let's use that one instead. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Tony has not assumed good faith of those who have reviewed his articles. he said to Generalissima &quot;{{tq|You are bending over backwards to fail this article... Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know.}}&quot; he claimed &quot;{{tq|There is an overzealous posse of editors quickfailing my articles.}}&quot; at the Cup talk page. he accused Teratix of &quot;{{tq|lieing to pick a fight.}}&quot; i could go on; what else is there to do at this point? &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic bans from GAN and the WikiCup''' (disclosure: I'm technically still a contestant in the Cup but I have no hope of progressing to the next round). There are seven distinct grounds:<br /> #Mass-nominating GANs to an extent that would be absurd and disrespectful of volunteers' time ''even if'' all nominations were impeccable.<br /> #Mass-nominating GANs with especially obvious, gaping flaws, indicating Tony either does not read the articles he is nominating or fails to understand the GAC. [[Talk:1000M/GA1]] is a representative example (where Tony either didn't notice or didn't care about an entirely promotional and unsourced section) but I recommend reading his other quickfailed articles for the full perspective.<br /> #Renominating GANs after quickfails without fixing the article's problems. See [[Talk:1000M/GA2]], [[Talk:Kenny Demens/GA2]], etc.<br /> #Openly admitting this behaviour is motivated by tactical concerns related to his WikiCup performance. See [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations]]<br /> #Displaying an appalling attitude towards how the GAN process runs, believing the project should bend over backwards to schedule backlog drives and grant special exemptions from date priority for his benefit. Read his replies to Ganesha811 on [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations]]. I have never seen more entitled behaviour.<br /> #Behaving uncivilly towards reviewers and critics. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATonyTheTiger&amp;diff=1215214325&amp;oldid=1215211986 Thebiguglyalien's summary], I'm by no means sure this is comprehensive.<br /> #Not recognising and in many cases doubling down on this bad behaviour.<br /> *&lt;li style=&quot;list-style:none;&quot;&gt;To be clear, I see the GAN and WikiCup bans as inseparable – neither sanction on its own would adequately address these problems. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/li&gt;<br /> *:Tony's behaviour has been appalling enough already but I want to add an eighth ground – openly admitting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215238004&amp;oldid=1215237796 &quot;I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems&quot;]. Or, in other words, '''&quot;I nominate articles in areas where I know I cannot competently assess whether they have issues and rely on volunteer reviewers to inform me of obvious inadequacies&quot;'''. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support GAN nomination ban, temporary or indef''' (edit: or a wider ban that includes GAN) GAN reviewers' time is precious. Wasting it is disruptive. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &amp;#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;buidhe&lt;/span&gt;]]''' 02:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from GAN and WikiCup'''. Buidhe and Teratix have both put it very well. Frankly at this point I'm inclined to support a block. This is not the first time Tony has gamed Wikipedia processes for his own arbitrary personal goals, but it is the first time he's been quite so nakedly honest about what he's doing. No one who would make a statement like {{tq|I am willing to stop nominating new articles until April 1 if you can promise that there will be another backlog drive in October}} is operating in good faith. That's right everyone, if we can '''promise''' Tony that we'll organize an entire backlog drive on '''his''' schedule, he'll stop mass-nominating garbage. '''For now'''. Oh, how kind of him! The level of entitlement he feels to other peoples' effort so that he can have points for a '''game''' fucking boils my blood. &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 02:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:For the record, I'm fine with a limited TBAN from GAN (ie X number of noms at once, or for X number of months, or whatever). &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 03:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *There's rightly been a lot of outrage about Tony's abuse of process, both here and elsewhere. Surely a GAN/WC ban is an inadequate response to a very serious conduct issue? Tony's behaviour is a very clear case of [[WP:NOTHERE]] and [[WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT]]. His abuse of process is borderline vandalistic and certainly disruptive edit-warring. His personal attacks on other editors have been unwarranted and severe. He seems to have no intention of changing his behaviour and continues to persevere with a perverse victim mentality. Other editors have been blocked for less. I don't understand why editors in this discussion are not considering a harsher response. '''[[User:–C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 02:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **'''Project block''', minimum one month, preferably indefinite. Per my comment above. Editors in this discussion are ''far'' to eager to excuse serious, sustained, and deliberate misconduct from an editor with an obvious NOTHERE attitude who really ought to know better. If unblocked, permanent ban from WC, GAN, FAC, and DYK. All the red flags have been there for years now. '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 02:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***Tony hasn't got the message – he's written a reply apologising for his abuse of process, but not for his abuse of other editors. I do not believe that his misconduct towards other volunteer members of the project have been properly addressed, either by other editors here or by Tony himself. As such I continue to support a minimum one month block from the enwiki project, just to make sure the message finally gets through that this behaviour will not be tolerated, even from people who have produced good content in the past. '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 13:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Can anyone show that Tony is like this when ''not'' participating in the WikiCup? I don't understand how {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} has turned up quotes from 13 years ago that basically could have been written yesterday. Has everything been fine in the intervening 13 years? Is this a case of someone losing their senses specifically because of the WikiCup competition and otherwise being mostly normal? What is even going on here? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{tq|Has everything been fine in the intervening 13 years?}} No, there was also a debacle last August when he tried to make a special date request for his sister's article (that he wrote) to appear on DYK on her birthday. Discussion is here: [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#COI issue at Carla Vernón]]. &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 02:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::That is just bizarre. He did not see to understand why we don't do any of that, including pictures of himself. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 12:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]]: I can say that I think Tony [[WP:BLUDGEONING|bludgeoning the process]] isn't limited to the Cup or GAN. My first interactions with him were on the [[Wikipedia:Vital articles|vital articles]] project, where my impression of him quickly became that he would relentlessly [[WP:BADGER|badger]] anybody (and sometimes everybody) that disagreed with one of his proposals. I don't have the energy to revisit all of it, as this was a big reason why I left the VA project, but I recall [[Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Archive_2#Add_Anna_Kournikova|one particularly bad thread]] in which he (in the words of [[User:The Blue Rider|The Blue Rider]]) {{tq|&quot;[came] after everyone who hasn't supported his proposals enough times&quot;}}. In this same thread, I also expressed discomfort over what I felt were some ''very'' inappropriate remarks about a woman athlete, which he doubled down on. In [[Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Archive_4#Add_Ed_Asner/Remove_Leslie_Nielsen|an earlier thread]], only a few days before this, Tony opened a comment saying {{tq|&quot;Forgive me if it seems I am badgering the voters, which does not seem to be something that we do here&quot;}} before going on to badger the two users that opposed his proposal. <br /> *:I'm not going to comment one what I believe should be done, as I'm not an admin so I don't think this is my place, I'm just recounting some of my past experiences with him. -- [[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk:Grnrchst|talk]]) 14:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::@[[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] it now looks like it isn't limited to bludgeoning, either. The bottom of this thread is in conspiracy theory territory. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 00:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from both GAN and WikiCup''' – Before continuing, I will disclose that I am also a contestant of the WikiCup like others have listed above, so therefore something like this would effect me. At first glance, I didn't think these mass nominations were ''that'' bad, many editors keep a backlog on a backburner. I didn't think it was much of an issue until realizing the quality of them and noticing TTT's behavior beyond this. I view the comments he made towards Generalissima and other editors, as well as the ones he has used to defend himself or make demands (ex. demanding a backlog drive) as unacceptable. I simply can not understand how any editor with good intentions can blatantly attack other users over a game. Hell, knowing his previous topic bans for similar reasons, this is something where the punishment could go beyond a topic ban, and if this discussion escalated to that I'd support that such action be taken. Absolutely egregious. &lt;span style=&quot;border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px&quot;&gt;'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#264e85&quot;&gt;'''Negative'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#7d43b5&quot;&gt;'''MP1'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 03:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from GAN and Wikicup, at the very least''': I was there for the featured sound debacle and well remember it. This is just history repeating again. I'd also support anything from a ban from all article nomination processes up to a block of any length, including indefinite. Enough is enough. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 03:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Weak oppose an outright GAN TBAN'''. While The Tiger's recent acting is...erm...concerning, to say the least, we should not ignore his previous great work, including a bazillion actually good GAs, and an outright TBAN is too much over a single incident with an otherwise constructive editor. I don't have the energy to workshop it, but I would support a proposal that limits how many GANs he can submit per day/week/month and/or a limit on how fast he can renominate GANs. No opinion on a WC TBAN; for disclosure's sake, I participated in round 1 of the cup, but was eliminated. {{not watching}} [[User:Queen of Hearts|queen of 🖤]] (they/them; [[User talk:Queen of Hearts|chat]]) 04:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I would be willing to drop down to just a tban from the cup if Tony would actually take responsibility and agree to only nominate a few articles at a time, articles which he has actually put serious work into (and I think we all know he is perfectly capable of writing quite good articles when he puts his mind to it). But I have not seen that just far, only demands for us to bend our backs for him because he feels entitled to spam half-baked nominations for the sake of a contest where the prize for winning is nothing more than bragging rights. He has yet to even show he understands ''why'' his nominations are being failed despite the reviewers offering clear reasons and actionable feedback. Bottom line, Tony did this to himself despite being given multiple opportunities to self-correct and avoid any sanctions. I don't take any pleasure in supporting a TBAN from creating quality content, but this has gone well past the line of acceptable behavior. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose TBAN from GAN''', but like queen of 🖤, I would also support an alternate proposal for some limitations on how many he can submit in a given time frame. This thread has only been open for a few hours, and going from zero to sixty seems kind of extreme in my view. No opinion on WikiCup.[[User:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue&quot;&gt; ''Isaidnoway'' &lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:black&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/b&gt;]] 05:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * ''' support CUP tban '''. If [[User:TonyTheTiger]] apologises for lashing out at reviewers, I think a cap of 1 open nomination at GAN may work. TTT has engaged well with the process in the past, and if seems the intersection between the competition and the uneven GAN process is driving his behaviour. Without recognition that his behaviour towards reviewers was unacceptable, I do not have trust in TTT engaging with the process. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm also happy to support Schrocats suggestion below, except for the fact that I would like to put the max 5 nominations as part of the restriction to give clarity to TTT. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 09:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Five nominations sounds too many. I think stick to your suggestion of 1. This isn't just about flooding GAN, it's the personal attacks that have come with it. Editors have a right not to face that kind of chilling behaviour. Tony will be lucky to escape a GAN outright ban here so allowing one at a time seems reasonable to me. &amp;nbsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You're right, I was too hasty: any rope here should be accompanied by TTT showing they understand why their behaviour was unacceptable. A cap of up to 3 would still seem reasonable to me after a 3-month ban, 5 indeed stretches it. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 10:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::What about a limit of 1 to start with, and if those have a decent 75% rate of passing after [some unit of time] it could maybe creep up to 3. That’s just my idea reading this, let me know if this makes no sense. [[User:Geardona|Geardona]] ([[User talk:Geardona|talk to me?]]) 10:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::75% is quite a low pass rate. I expect a near 100% pass rate for experienced nominators. Otherwise, this makes sense. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 11:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::It's one thing to have a pass rate of less than 100% (though I'd be embarrassed if my pass rate dropped below near 100%, personally). It is another ''entirely'' to have nominations so poor they are being routinely quickfailed. We are dealing with the latter here. I would support Femke's proposal if Tony would take feedback seriously, but thus far he has refused to do so, leaving us with only sanctions as an option to change his behavior. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 15:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from the cup; three month ban from GAN'''. The cup seems to be the driver for the disruption, so ban from that. GAN is where the disruption is taking place, so a more limited ban from that (on condition that all nominations are withdrawn). There’s no point in pushing a harder ban that’s harms the encyclopaedia and punishes TTT after the cause of the disruption has been sorted. He has three months to be able to work on whatever he wants, but a similar mass nomination at GAN (more than five articles in the process at any one time), should be a trigger for further time out off the process. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 08:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from the cup; three month ban from GAN''' per SchroCat. Let's keep remedies simple. I want to address the question of good faith. It's an inevitable feature of the discussions around erring senior editors that we must assume the good faith of an editor who has declined to do the same in return. Good faith really has nothing to do with it. Tony's behavior is disruptive regardless of his intentions. The question is whether Tony is prepared to acknowledge that other editors have a problem with his conduct and change his behavior. That's your standard feedback cycle. Editors get shown the door when they can't or won't change. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 10:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from the cup and remove all his current nominations'''. Tony knows perfectly well how to nominate good quality articles at GAN; if he continues to nominate clearly unready articles that's a problem we can address then, perhaps with a short GAN ban, but I see no reason why he would without the cup as motivation. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 11:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *There is a narrative emerging among a couple of editors' comments here along the lines of &quot;Tony is basically competent to submit GANs but in this case he went too far because he was competing in the WikiCup&quot;. I want to push back on that a little and draw these editors' attention specifically to Tony's comment earlier in this thread, where he says {{tq|Within my areas of expertise I am still a bit unsure as to why articles are being failed.}} That is, he looks at a review like [[Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1]], and actually can't understand what the problem with the article is. And that's in an area he claims to be comfortable editing in. {{pb<br /> }}When it comes to areas he describes as outside his expertise, it gets worse: {{tq|Everyone thinks I understand why the articles are deficient in advance of the reviews. I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems.}} That is, he nominates articles to GAN, outside his experience, knowing he lacks the ability to tell whether the articles contain basic deficiencies or not, and uses volunteer reviewers as a crutch to paper over the gaps.{{pb<br /> }}I understand these sort of discussions balloon very rapidly, and there are a lot of comments to read through. But if your position is &quot;support an indefinite Cup ban but more hesitant on an indefinite GAN ban&quot;, Tony's comment here should be ringing alarm bells. It speaks not just to a specific incompetence to edit under competitive pressure, but a more fundamental lack of understanding about GAN. It has definitely pushed me to favour an indefinite ban from GAN over a time-limited ban or restrictions on the number of simultaneous nominations. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 11:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;s&gt;i'm inclined to agree with this, unfortunate as it is. an indefinite ban is not necessarily permanent, and if Tony can demonstrate that he can once again produce quality work, i see no reason why he couldn't be unbanned. i do think that the Cup is the inciting factor here, but Teratix is right that he seems to not understand GAN itself, which is very strange.&lt;/s&gt; yeah upon further thought now that i'm more awake, one really can't have gotten multiple FAs and not understand GAN &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I think I disagree here. If somebody has multiple FAs, they know full well what to do for a GA, but choose not to, and perhaps overplay ignorance as an excuse not to prepare their nominations sufficiently, or an unwillingness to take the time to take in reviewers comments. I think the issue is primarily behavioural, rather than competence. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 16:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Agree that seeing this as a competence issue makes no sense, and it's strange that Tony appears to be trying to spin it as one. Someone who keeps a writing habit doesn't just spontaneously forget how to write, barring literal brain damage. Something else is obviously going on. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::good point. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 20:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Femke, you may be interested in reading Gog the Mild's comments on his behaviour at FAC – he hasn't had an article promoted in ten years and his last ten nominations have been archived without success. I'm speculating here, but it could be a case of the project's standard for quality content advancing over time while Tony's writing standard remains the same, resulting in a misperception of what's required. It is difficult for me to explain Tony's comments here as merely the product of Cup pressure. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 01:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{u|Teratix}}, you're right that Tony has engaged in problematic behaviour at GAN, but I think it's clear that the current issue is related to the WikiCup, and since there is ample evidence that he does know how to write good articles, I think we ought to limit the response here. This thread is already giving him ample warning about future GA nominations. I don't think more is needed. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Tony's longer statements have slightly changed my view. My speculation on a mismatch between Tony's and GAN's writing standards was wrong, he is still capable of submitting GANs of acceptable quality in some cases. However, he still doesn't seem to understand that excessive mass nominations can be problematic independent of article quality. To me it seems a one-GAN limit could be a good solution, allowing Tony to continue submitting his absolute best content but also protecting GAN reviewers' time and energy. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 06:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''TBAN from the cup and GAN''' GAN reviewing can be hard enough even when the article is relatively high-quality; you're reading through an entire bibliography and acting as a copyeditor for a basically thankless job. It is not reasonable to expect GAN reviewers to hand-hold somebody who's been around here for so long through writing a GA-quality article; if you don't understand what makes a GA in a certain topic, ''don't nominate 70 of them to figure it out''. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 12:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:In case it matters: I'm participating in the WikiCup and will probably qualify for the next round. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 12:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I'd support a Wikicup ban without question at this point, as it seems like per the above any reward-based area seems to bring out the worst in him. I'm not opposed to an outright GAN ban, but I'd perhaps prefer an indefinite strict nomination limit, no more than 3 so that the articles can actually be properly written. A three month ban stated above isn't going to work since the mass-nomming of articles that don't meet GA standards will just continue. [[User:Wizardman|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#030&quot;&gt;'''''Wizardman'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Changing my stance to '''Support Cup/GAN/DYK ban''' per the added evidence, it's clear that he's not getting it, and seems to think this is a game that he has to win at all costs rather than just writing article to write them. [[User:Wizardman|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#030&quot;&gt;'''''Wizardman'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' I'll note we've seen similar behavior at DYK, including [[Special:Diff/1194391967|arguing about his apparent interest in gaming of DYK rules]] by saying, {{xt|All rules are made to be broken and gamed.}} {{pb<br /> }}Example of how he intends to game [[Special:Diff/1198340366|here]]: {{xt|As I think of my next potential DYK candidate, Joanne McCarthy (basketball) that I have 5xed over the weekend, the new set of rules allows two alternatives. 1. I could DYK now and GA-DYK in 5 years with minimal change 2. I could GA now and DYK within 7 days after it gets approved with a 2nd DYK only possible with another 5x in 5 years.}} This was in a discussion of whether DYK should allow repeat appearances. Tony literally is planning 5 years out so he can get repeat DYK credits. {{pb<br /> }}I'm actually a little concerned that a tban from GAN/WikiCup might just transfer the issue to DYK full time. Tony seems to be extremely interested in scorekeeping. Which of course can be a motivator for some people, and he's certainly created or improved a lot of articles. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 13:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&quot;All rules are made to be broken and gamed&quot; that is absolutely ridiculous, and i think you're right that this disruption will just move over to DYK. his idea of &quot;GA-DYKing in 5 years with minimal change&quot; says to me that he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about how GAN works. probably both. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::He didn't do that, though: [[Talk:Joanne McCarthy (basketball)/GA1]]. Also, in the [[Joanne McCarthy (basketball)]] review, the CUP points gaming again comes up as an issue in a couple of ways. He requests the reviewer promote in a specified time frame ({{tq|Also, be advised that I am competing in the [[WP:CUP]]. Do not promote on Feb 28 or 29.}}) and in response to a sourcing concern about the subject's Polish heritage, a source is quickly added to the article that likely does not meet [[WP:BLP]]. The McCarthy article is not a problematic page (loads of pages have small sections or a few missing sources), but Tony is clearly capable of better writing ([[Juwan Howard]]) outside of this CUP context. [[User:Rjjiii|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps;&quot;&gt;Rjj&lt;sup&gt;iii&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 15:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::i'm not entirely sure if you're disagreeing with me (or if you were intending to respond directly to Valereee's comment?) but i agree with the substance of what you're saying &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 19:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Not so much disagreeing with either of you, but pointing out the nuance that even though his talk page comment was regarding DYK, the actual disruptive edits (overloading GA and placing a bizarre citation into a BLP) were again done in the context of the CUP. To be clear: I would '''support a WikiCup TBAN''', but I'm not speculating on how he'll react. I empathize with the frustration from editors in this discussion about the need for this discussion to get this far, but don't see the need to impose the various restrictions mentioned in this thread all at once. Apologies if I was opaque before, [[User:Rjjiii|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps;&quot;&gt;Rjj&lt;sup&gt;iii&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 02:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::no worries! i just wasn't entirely clear on your position. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 02:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I am not familiar enough with the WikiCup situation to have any firm opinion on it, but '''when it comes to GAN I support, at minimum, the removal of all outstanding nominations'''. I noticed the nomination of [[Malcolm (Macbeth)]], which is very obviously very far from GA standards even at a quick glance. An editor with both hundreds of successful GA nominations of their own and hundreds of reviews of other people's nominations surely knows better; on the off chance that they genuinely do not, I think it's reasonable to conclude that they likely never will. Nominating articles that are not ready would appear to be a pattern; looking at the user's talk page, I saw that during the course of a 24-hour time period (20:25 UTC on 22 March to 20:25 UTC on 23 March), no fewer than 25 &quot;Failed GA&quot; messages were left by ({{u|ChristieBot}} on behalf of) ten different reviewers. This indicates to me that leaving the remainder of the (rather large number of) nominations up would not be a good use of the community's time. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 14:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I think part of the problem is with the editor but part of it is with the WikiCup... Its not set up for an honest editor to win, its set up for the winner to be the person who games the system the hardest without betting disqualified. The WikiCup clearly encourages gaming the system because a significant number of the recent winners won that way. The difference is that most of those editors were more subtle about it than this one. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:This is a valid criticism, and indeed is why I declined to participate in the cup this year. My suggestions to balance scoring to stop this have yet to be adopted. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 16:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::For the curious, can you link to those suggestions? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::The suggestions are at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2023/1#Points for next year]]. For what it's worth, any Wikipedia contest such as the Cup will by its very nature be competitive and could be considered by some as gaming; however, the vast majority of editors don't also violate Wikipedia guidelines or policies while participating. &amp;ndash; [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 18:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I agree that the WikiCup encourages users to time their nominations for maximum score (instead of nominating when the article is ready). I'm not sure that this is a huge problem; different people have won the Cup using different strategies over the last years, and some of them increased my respect for the winners, others did not. The issue here is that TTT did not just try to score WikiCup points with little effort, but disrupted other processes while doing so. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 16:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I agree its not generally a problem, its kind of a poster child for something that is objectively a net positive... But that doesn't mean it doesn't have downsides. But on the other hand these are issues the community should never be having to deal with, the whole point of the game having referees/managers is to prevent this sort of community disruption and time wasting from happening. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I checked the past four WikiCups and you can't say any of the winners were gaming; they all did a fair number of FACs and otherwise earned their points in a lot of ways, from doing lots of GANRs to making large GTs to ITN. Only one winner mainly relied on points from GAs, and nominating 60 articles you've worked on over the course of the year over two months is hardly gaming. This is poor decision-making on TTT's part and not something that's a trend with the cup. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::More than one way to game the system. Agree to disagree on whether this is a trend, but note that it would be remarkable if a competition like the wikicup didn't come with the negatives normally associated with open entry organized competitions. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *For the sake of completion I note that TTT's last ten nominations at FAC have all been archived. Nine are from 2014–2016 and one from 2023. This included five nominations of [[Emily Ratajkowski]]; in the last of these TTT received a coordinator warning &quot;Tony, I'm not prepared to allow accusations of bad faith leveled at reviewers without substantive evidence. Please strike these immediately and keep your comments focused on the content, not the editor. This isn't the venue. Additionally, there are many occasions when nominators and reviewers come to an impasse about content. I'd prefer you let [the FAC coordinators] weigh the matter rather than posting repeated pings and harangues when the reviewer has disengaged.&quot; TTT [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FEmily_Ratajkowski%2Farchive5&amp;diff=727511236&amp;oldid=727508803 kicked back]. (Disclosure: I have been a FAC coordinator since 2020 and closed TTT's 2023 FAC nomination.) [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 17:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Based on the assembled examples of tendentious behavior in relation not only to GAN/WikiCup, but also DYK, FAC, and COI editing, I think that a GAN/WikiCup ban is the bare minimum sanction, and that a broad WP-space ban may in fact be more appropriate (although this is somewhat complicated by the fact that these various processes exist across multiple Wikipedia namespaces). What I see here is a pattern of behavior for over a decade of consistently engaging with quality-control/content-promotion processes in an entirely self-serving fashion, conveniently ignoring guidelines when it suits them, and accusations of bad faith against editors who don't provide review results to their liking. There's little reason to believe that this behavior will change other than by barring them from engaging with such processes. &lt;sub&gt;signed, &lt;/sub&gt;[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from WikiCup and GAN'''. TTT has an ''extensive'' history of NOTHERE gaming the system for Wikipedia points and self-promotion. I would support further bans as well. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support WikiCup TBAN''' I don't like commenting at ANI, but this seems like a good time to step in as someone who has experience with Tony from the Vital Articles project. Sadly, it would appear that a TBAN from the WikiCup is needed to deal with disruption, but I believe that he can be productive. I also '''weakly support a restriction on open GANs''' as a fair step to prevent disruption without barring him from making good content entirely. I '''oppose an indefinite ban''' because he has shown himself to be a quality contributor who can contribute productively when not doing stuff like this. I believe a WikiCup TBAN and a restriction on GANs will solve the problem while allowing him to continue to contribute productively. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 18:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support WikiCup TBAN''' with the suggestion of leaving our snarky remarks at the door in the future. [[User:Panini!|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#F40&quot;&gt;Panini!&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;span style=&quot;color:#F40&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; [[User talk:Panini!|🥪]] 20:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support permanent WikiCup TBAN and temporary GA and DYK TBAN''', as a minimum. I was prepared to limit my support only to a TBAN from WikiCup, as the current locus of disruption, until I saw Valeree's comment quoting TTT as very recently saying &quot;All rules are made to be broken and gamed&quot;. No. That is not the sort of collegiality and cooperation that we should be bringing to Wikipedia editing. Some rules are obstructions but almost all were created as a response to a specific problem, and TTT's behavior is a problem that is currently producing a push for more obstructive rules at [[WT:GAN]] that could slow down the whole GA system for everyone. If we take away WikiCup, it seems likely that GA badge counts will become the next personal contest to game. The GA process needs time away from TTT's disruption, for one thing to evaluate what is to be done to distinguish TTT's many valid Good Articles from those that may need reconsideration (with at least two currently under formal reassessment). Valeree's comment raises DYK as another very likely locus of disruption and a temporary TBAN could well head that off. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I'm going to stay neutral on the GAN and CUP topic ban proposals, since I don't think I have anything more to add to those discussions, but I '''oppose a topic ban from DYK''' in any form, at least for now. TonyTheTiger's conduct at DYK has only peripherally been discussed in this thread, and while there would be some more to unpack if it were focused on, I'm unconvinced that the DYK-specific evidence could necessitate action at this time. TBANs are preventative, but they're &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; preemptive. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 22:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I agree with tlc. I wasn't intending to suggest a ban from DYK just because if banned from GA/cup, that's the only place left to keep score. It might even be good to allow that one last place for TTT to show us they can learn from this. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support permanent WikiCup TBan'''. TonyTheTiger's participation in the WikiCup has caused problems since at least 2010 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&amp;oldid=386613217 &quot;Michigan basketball overload&quot;, 2 sections at [[WT:DYK]]). I also '''propose topic ban on solo nominations in any article recognition venue''': FA, GA, FP, FL, DYK&amp;nbsp;... anything. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194391967 &quot;All rules are made to be broken and gamed&quot;] on January 8, 2024 (after repeated discussion of his gaming and overwhelming at review venues, including sanctions applying to specific venues); the attempts to bargain by making new demands on backlog drive dates, also recent; and the admissions of insufficient knowledge about topics on which he is submitting articles for GA consideration. The COI promotional submission at DYK is the cherry on top. He's too focused on collecting accolades and evidently will continue clogging any recognition process in which he participates. If he wants to create and improve articles for the benefit of the encyclopedia, let him collaborate with other editors on nominations. Otherwise, do without the potential recognition. (And yes, I recommend a procedural quickfail of all his current GA nominations. Someone else can further improve an article they believe has GA potential and renominate it; at GA level there's always room for further improvement, and the list can be a useful source of improvement candidates.) (I have not participated in the WikiCup for many years, or in DYK for a similar number of years, except for a couple of nominations of articles I'd worked on by someone else.) [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 23:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from GAN and DYK, also remove all his current GANs'''. This diff in particular is just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194391967 shameless], also given past incidents of gaming the system.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 01:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Block''' from any &quot;awards&quot; whether GAN, WikiCup, DYK or what have you. Should have been when he tried to get his sister onto the fromt page with blatant disregard for COI. [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_195#COI_issue_at_Carla_Vernón]] but escaped it then. Clear history of acting in his own interest and not that of the project. [[User:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#be33ff;&quot;&gt;Star&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#ff33da;&quot;&gt;Mississippi&lt;/span&gt;]] 01:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:He tried to get his SISTER on the front page? Jesus Christ. I've collaborated with him on some FAs, but no one with the interests of the encyclopedia in mind would dare to pull that. Chalk me up as well as advocating a '''Block from all &quot;awards&quot;''' as per Star Mississippi. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''&lt;span style=&quot;background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF&quot;&gt; '' Ravenswing '' &lt;/span&gt;''' ]] 06:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::and this wasn't even, &quot;I know this is not the right course, but here's my case for why she deserves it&quot; but rather &quot;I don't see what your issue is.&quot; That was the most problematic especially from someone of his tenure. Besides the WT:DYK, the discussion is also on the article talk. [[User:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#be33ff;&quot;&gt;Star&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#ff33da;&quot;&gt;Mississippi&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Quite. If he was lying about that, that's a [[WP:BADFAITH|massive downcheck]]. If he ''wasn't'', that's a massive [[WP:CIR|competency issue]]. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''&lt;span style=&quot;background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF&quot;&gt; '' Ravenswing '' &lt;/span&gt;''' ]] 00:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *(Disclaimer: I first heard about the situation involving Tony on Discord a few days ago, when it came up in a discussion among GAN reviewers, but I wasn't canvassed or asked to participate in any discussion, and my views here are purely my own.) Having reviewed the different discussions that have taken place at Tony's talk page and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup]], I think a '''permanent topic ban for TonyTheTiger from the [[WP:CUP|WikiCup]] is warranted'''. Tony has repeatedly [[WP:IDHT|refused to get the point]] that their conduct has been disruptive and a drain on other editors who are trying to participate in the WikiCup in good faith. Some of Tony's remarks that were directed towards other editors, especially Generalissima, are also pretty subpar and fall below the expectations I would have of somebody who has been editing Wikipedia for nearly 18 years. As for a topic ban from GAN or other featured content processes, I am more neutral; I think Tony could contribute to these areas constructively provided that he no longer participates in the WikiCup, but I understand why others feel that a broader topic ban or restriction might be necessary to address Tony's conduct. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 02:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Having read Tony's statement below, my opinion hasn't changed too much. I think an indefinite topic ban from the WikiCup is the bare minimum required to prevent further disruption. I am still not really in favor of an indefinite topic ban from featured content creation processes (e.g., GAN, DYK) ''at this time'', but I think the removal of any of Tony's recent GANs which have not yet been reviewed or are not currently being reviewed is acceptable. However, it is evident that there have been issues in the past with Tony and featured content processes (i.e., the issues with Featured Sounds and the DYK conflict of interest incident that have been mentioned by others). If anything comes up again in the future with Tony's conduct in featured content processes on this noticeboard, I will be far less likely to give Tony the benefit of the doubt if a topic ban or more severe sanctions are on the table. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from GAN''' and removal of current GANs. His current behavior is disruptive to the GA process, as many have stated above; a TBAN from GAN is sufficient to prevent that disruption. I very much doubt the disruption will stop until TTT recognizes why his behavior is disruptive and commits to changing it (I have seen evidence of neither). An indefinite TBAN until he's prepared to make such a commitment seems appropriate. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 02:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Given TTT's apology below, a GAN limit of 1 nomination at a time is also fine with me. If he shows he can handle that, I'm sure folks would be willing to increase that nomination limit before too long. Also just a note that I think we should clear his current unreviewed nominations -- which basically everyone seems to agree are problematic -- from the GAN queue. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 12:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''No bans''' {{ec}}I am not sure why every solution to problems must include onerous sanctions. As {{u|Starship.paint}} has said below, we are in the middle of things... and IMO there is not an immediate need to stop a disruption. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 02:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:So, just to be clear, you don't feel there's any problem with Tony's behavior here at all? &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 05:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support limitation on active GA noms, no bans''' - Limiting the amount of active GA noms Tony is allowed to have seems to take care of the immediate problem at hand. Not sure why we are ready to throw prolific content creators off a cliff when they are just going through a bad phase. He does good work overall, and long-term bans here are detrimental to our readers. To be clear, he has acted questionably in some of the diffs mentioned here, but not quite enough to be permanently put away.--''[[User:MaranoFan|&lt;b style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;N&lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:MaranoFan|&lt;b style=&quot;color:teal&quot;&gt;Ø&lt;/b&gt;]]'' 08:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:What makes you think this is just a &quot;bad phase&quot;? TTT has been engaging in this behavior since at least 2010. And by &quot;this behavior&quot; I mean relentlessly pursuing &quot;awards&quot; collection and self-promotion to the detriment of the encyclopedia. He was banned from Featured Sounds for the same reasons outlined in this RfC. Last year he tried to get an article he wrote on his sister onto the front page on her birthday, accompanied by a picture with him in it (despite a previous ban on uploading pictures of himself!). He has been [[User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 86#Blocked|blocked]] [[User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 71#Blocked 48h|multiple]] times for baselessly accusing editors who didn't support his TFA/FS requests of racism. At what point does this become a pattern? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Remember kids, you can get away with anything so long as you're a &quot;prolific content creator&quot;. They live by an entirely different set of standards. We are approaching Coldwellian levels of misconduct (and apologism for said misconduct), along with total refusal to accept any responsibility for one's actions here, and that is ''not'' something I say lightly, given my prominent involvement in that saga. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 20:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from Cup, limitation on active GA noms''' preferably to one active nomination at a time. If the disruptive behavior relocates itself to DYK, we can deal with it there, but I feel a sanction for that would be premature at this stage. [[User:Lepricavark|L&lt;small&gt;EPRICAVARK&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;]]) 15:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from WikiCup''', support '''limitation on active GA noms''' (I'd prefer something between three and five), '''oppose DYK ban'''. '''Oppose ''indefinite'' GA TBAN''', but not opposed to a three-month GA ban (with the carveout that he can continue any GA work that is currently being reviewed or that he is reviewing). The WikiCup seems to be the main driver of the disruption – if the disruption continues outside the Cup then we could revisit. Also not seeing enough for a DYK ban. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' Tony has been removed from the cup by the judges.<br /> *'''Support indefinite TBAN from WikiCup, support limitation on active GA noms (I'd prefer one), support DYK ban.''' &lt;b&gt;[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]&lt;/b&gt; 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support indefinite ban from Cup, limitation on GA noms''' The gaming has been quite breathtaking, and TTT seems unrepentant. I would suggest no more than 1 GA nom at a time. -- [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 19:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support indefinate TBAN from WikiCup, low limitation on GA noms''' (three seems reasonable), '''removal of all current GANs where a review is not yet posted, and a minimum three-month gap between a failed GA review and renominating the article''': TTT has been renominating quickfails after edits that only address a small portion of the issues raised, which is one reason why I think he needs limits on his participation at GAN. If the community insists on a TBAN there, I won't oppose that, though it's a second choice. If he persists in nominating articles that don't meet the GA criteria per the GAN instructions, then a TBAN there seems inevitable (and may be so already). [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support indefinite TBAN from Cup and GAN limits''' Most of the problems seem to stem out of WikiCup gaming, but I think TTT could still be a useful contributor at GA. (I wouldn't mind a 3 month GA TBAN though, but I have no strong thoughts one way or the other.) If abuse continues, I would be open to a harder GAN limit or Star Mississippi's proposal. [[user:HistoryTheorist|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;color:#2F7E98&quot;&gt;❤History&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:HistoryTheorist|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;color:lightpurple&quot;&gt;Theorist❤&lt;/span&gt;]] 00:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''&lt;s&gt;Support indefinite ban from GAN&lt;/s&gt;''' (EDIT: See below), second choice a nomination limit of ''one'' (but would honestly be healthier just to leave it at zero IMO). Did not want to pile on until Tony made a statement, but... that was the wrong statement. Notably there doesn't appear to be an &quot;In deference to GA norms, I'll withdraw some/most of my nominations on my own&quot; in it, and I still see the spam sitting in WP:GAN. That is table stakes in any statement given that he's been told to do this, repeatedly, bluntly, and now en masse at ANI, and the fact that he hasn't done it himself speaks poorly of him getting the point. If Tony didn't &quot;consider [it] would be a problem&quot; at first, how come he didn't trust his fellow editors when they told him that yes, it was a problem? To state what's been said many times before... GAN is not some sort of content assessment service to drop off articles you've worked on. It's more like trading peer reviews, and it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what GA nomination &amp; reviewing is to spam it so blatantly just to &quot;use the further polish of GAN attention&quot;. And ''everyone'' has waited a long time for GA reviews before, it's not unique to Tony, and shouldn't it be obvious that this kind of spam makes that problem ''worse''? Tony can be a great content creator; it's time to rekindle the love of doing it just to do it, no stars and no icons attached. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 07:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** As a side note: &quot;I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light&quot; is wishful thinking. Many of the cited GA quickfails should not have passed GA even with 2010 standards. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 07:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:I'm not sure it ''is'' wishful thinking, but unlike Tony I think that's a problem. I think if he hadn't drawn the attention of several experienced reviewers by submitting such a high volume at once, many of the articles that were QF'd would have instead been reviewed by reviewers more prone to looking at the list of GA icons he has on his user page and deciding that ''they'' (ie, the reviewers) were in the wrong, not him. &quot;He must know what he's doing... I guess I don't really understand the standards,&quot; etc. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 14:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Upgrade to full ban from all content review processes''' with narrow exception of GANs currently under review and GAR / FAR of TTT's content. I was unimpressed with Tony's original reply and not withdrawing his noms (I'm not demanding mind control, it'd have been fine to say &quot;I strenuously disagree but if the community considers such mass nominations a problem, fine, I won't do that&quot;), and his later comments appear to be from a different planet, seemingly still defending miles-off nominations like Heath Irwin and viewing himself as the victim, rather than the aggressor. GAN is to take a mostly-there article and make it better. Maybe there's some other process for articles wildly far off from GA status, like a Tony-specific &quot;this month's article to help me improve&quot;, but it ain't GAN, and this isn't hard to understand. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 20:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose sanction''' The entire point of the WikiCup is to encourage editors to do more in order to score points as a form of [[gamification]]. The participants will, of course, game this and competitive pressure will then generate this sort of excess. If this seems problematic then the rules of the competition should be adjusted. For example, if a GAN is quickfailed, the nominator might lose points as a penalty. So, fix the game, don't punish the players. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 08:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** &quot;Gamification made me do it&quot; is not an excuse, and the WikiCup rules are already very blunt that editors who worsen Wikipedia in an attempt to win will be kicked out. As indeed happened in this case. There's no need to create [[Wikipedia:Asshole John rule]]s which will be a feel-bad for good faith editors who get a nom'd quickfailed for standard and legitimate reasons. I would suggest striking your rather bold claim that Wikicup &quot;participants&quot; in general behave this badly, which is obviously false - nobody else in the WikiCup harassed valid reviewers like TTT did. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 13:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:See similar comments above such as &quot;''The WikiCup clearly encourages gaming the system because a significant number of the recent winners won that way. ... This is a valid criticism, and indeed is why I declined to participate in the cup this year. ... any Wikipedia contest such as the Cup will by its very nature be competitive and could be considered by some as gaming.''&quot;<br /> **:As TTT has been disqualified now by a WikiCup judge, that seems adequate to correct the immediate issue. My point is that the contest's checks and balances should be left to work themselves out without ANI piling in too.<br /> **:[[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 08:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''SUPPORT BAN from all content review processes''': (saw this while I was here for another thread above). TTT's abuse of content review processes for personal reward-seeking reasons is a problem more than a decade old, where the FAC page and FA process was seriously misused, mostly fed by TTT's desire to win WikiCup, with most of TTT's articles having be extensively re-worked by other editors. TTT has continuously and constantly abused content review processes (FAC, GAN) to gain rewards at WikiCup and DYk, while content produced has been initially marginal and sapped reviewer time to bring pages to standard, and Wikipedia will not lose if this problem can be removed from the pages it is draining. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support ban from all content review processes''': I've experienced Tony's combative behaviors around not-ready content at FAC, and it's clear that it's an issue at DYK and GAN too. With such an egregious track record going back years across all areas, this seems to be the minimum to save everyone else time and frustration. &quot;The Wikicup made me do it&quot; is not a valid reason to defend this. [[User:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support ban from all content-related Wikipedia contests''', but not from GAN. Tony does good work, they just need to focus on improving Wikipedia instead of getting high scores. I had to go looking a long way back to find the dispute that caused me to remember TonyTheTiger's name. Way back in 2014, TTT created a content fork on the high school career of a professional basketball player, and it was deleted at AFD. Tony challenged at DRV where it was endorsed, and then it was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination)|nominated for deletion a second time]] after Tony recreated it anyway. Tony's bludgeoning and assumptions of bad faith in that discussion included a bizarre conspiracy of Canadian editors being secret members of [[WP:HOCKEY|WikiProject Hockey]] working against coverage of basketball topics, and spawned an [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:TonyTheTiger gaming AfD, bludgeoning and personal attacks against multiple editors|ANI thread]] in which Tony was warned to back off. The article was then salted, which led Tony to start [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262|''another'' AN thread]] requesting its restoration, which was a rather transparent attempt to set up for recreating the deleted article a third time. The player's high school career was later expanded in the main article, which is what should have happened in the first place without all the drama, but Tony was after points for the WikiCup or the [[WP:FOUR|Four award]] or some other contest so we got to play this game for a few months instead. What's happening with GAN spamming isn't the same issue but it's the same root cause, and it's disappointing that the same problem persists a decade after our spat: Tony is editing to score points, and improving content only because it scores points. [[WP:CIR|As the essay says]], &quot;a mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up.&quot; Tony is a prolific and valuable editor who just needs to refocus on content and stop making messes, and a ban from participating in these contests and awards will help. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]&lt;/sub&gt;) 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{u|Ivanvector}}, just to clarify, are you also wanting Tony to be banned from claiming [[WP:Four Awards]]? &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Would you say that's not covered by &quot;all content-related Wikipedia contests&quot;? [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]&lt;/sub&gt;) 21:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Yes, that's why I wanted to clarify. I don't view 4A as a contest, as you're not competing against other people for a prize in a limited timeframe. (I know there have historically been issues with Tony and 4A, and I'm not trying to say he ''shouldn't'' necessarily be banned from 4A, just clarifying your stance). &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Fair question, then. Yes, I think he should be banned from seeking those awards, but that does raise an issue of enforcement since we can't stop other editors handing them out. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]&lt;/sub&gt;) 21:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from both GAN and WikiCup''' per Ivanvecor, PMC and Buidhe. Bling is one thing, but active disruption (and the complete wasting of people's time that has with it!) brings behavior into the community's purview. &lt;small&gt;...and PMC, particularly, oozes a degree of sarcasm that I can only dream of.&lt;/small&gt; [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from WikiCup and content review processes''' per PMC, Sandy, DWF, my previous comments on the WikiCup talk page, and Tony's recent comments below (starting with {{tq|In the back of my mind...}}) which amount to a conspiracy theory about other editors. (Disclosure: I am currently competing in the WikiCup.) [[User:Dylan620|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;Dylan&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;620&lt;/span&gt;]] (he/him • [[User talk:Dylan620|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|edits]]) 23:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Appeal for GAN TBAN exception for already actively reviewed GANs===<br /> <br /> I see that there are GANs already actively being reviewed '''before''' the start of this ANI. One is &lt;s&gt;[[Talk:3:16 game/GA1]]&lt;/s&gt; (closed now) where Tony is the reviewer. Another is [[Talk:In a World.../GA1]] where Tony's article is being reviewed. Others include [[Talk:2018–19 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1]], [[Talk:Wait a Minute (The Pussycat Dolls song)/GA3]] and [[Talk:Joanne McCarthy (basketball)/GA1]]. Perhaps there are more such GANs that I missed. In the interests of being reasonable, having courtesy and respect for Tony and the other reviewer/reviewed editors of these GANs, I suggest a carve-out to allow Tony to participate in these if he receives a GAN TBAN. This does '''not''' apply to GANs Tony nominated but no one has reviewed yet. This would also not apply to any GAN review Tony started after the ANI began. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :In the case of GANs where Tony is the reviewer, that seems fair enough. In the case of GANs where Tony is the nominator, the reviewer should be made aware of the situation here (if they aren't already) and given the option to discontinue the review. But if they're happy to continue, giving Tony a carve-out seems fair enough. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 06:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Yes, if the other reviewers wish to stop for any reason, then that is the end for that nomination. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 09:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I missed &lt;S&gt;[[Talk:Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention/GA1]]&lt;/S&gt; (closed now), [[Talk:A Christmas Story: The Musical/GA1]], [[Talk:Chris Hill (basketball)/GA1]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 12:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Junk the Wikicup===<br /> {{hat|1=Proposal SNOW closed and wrong venue. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])'''}}<br /> {{atop|Closing this per [[WP:SNOW]] and (more importantly) the wrong venue to request a project be closed. {{nac}} — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 21:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> ...because it regularly leads to this kind of trouble. It's long outlived its usefulness. [[User:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:red;&quot;&gt;E&lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:blue;&quot;&gt;Eng&lt;/b&gt;]] 16:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Really? When was the last time? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' due to being obviously incorrect. The purpose/&quot;usefulness&quot; of the cup is to encourage users to improve content, which it does. One person possibly trying to game the system isn't a valid rationale to junk the entire competition. It's silly to suggest we do so just because of one person. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose'''. Clearly not the correct outcome. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 17:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I really don't think this is the right conclusion to draw from the discussions above. The vast majority of WikiCup participants don't violate any Wikipedia guidelines or policies, and when they do, they get disqualified from the competition (as Tony was just recently). As for {{tq|It's long outlived its usefulness}}, it's inspired people to expand or create hundreds of articles over the years, the vast majority of which, again, have no issues. I'm going to say that ''any'' type of competition is liable to have issues like this come up; it's just a matter of how well the problem is handled by the judges of such contests. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Junk and never replace... Or junk until we can come up with something better? Not super open to the first but could see the second being valuable. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' I feel the fact that the community is so eager to sanction someone gaming the cup in this way is a good sign that Wikicup participants not want this sort of incident to occur again. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::People want to sanction them for gaming wikipedia, not for gaming the cup... As far as I know that would be up to the Cup's organizers and I don't think they've chosen to take any action here. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Tony's already been kicked out of the cup. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 17:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ec}} {{tq|I don't think they've chosen to take any action here.}} - I disqualified him from the cup earlier today, once I got to my computer. I had limited internet access over the weekend, so I couldn't do it earlier. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you, I didn't know that you were the only organizer who could do that. Is there a reason they're recorded as withdrawn rather than eliminated on the project page? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{u|Horse Eye's Back}}, if this is an underhanded comment directed at {{u|Cwmhiraeth}} and {{u|Frostly}}, you're still required to notify them as you're now discussing their conduct at ANI. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::It isn't, I wasn't aware who the organizers were or how many there were when I made the original comment. If that is not the case I apologize, but then I don't really understand why Epicgenius having limited internet access is relevant. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::While Cwmhiraeth and Frostly are also judges, I'm currently acting as the ''de facto'' main organizer of this competition. Hence, I made the decision to withdraw them as soon as I was able. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Noting here that I support the decision to withdraw.&lt;span id=&quot;Frostly:1711397869258:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&amp;apos;_noticeboard/Incidents&quot; class=&quot;FTTCmt&quot;&gt; —&amp;nbsp;[[User:Frostly|Frostly]] ([[User talk:Frostly|talk]]) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/span&gt;<br /> :::::::{{ec}}Cwmhiraeth is now largely retired from WP, and is there to help Epicgenius and Frostly, who are both new to the role. So far (in the 30% of a cup we've had), Epicgenius has done the work of setting up/eliminating contestants. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::It's largely a technical distinction. Contestants are marked in red if, at the end of the round, they don't have enough points to qualify for the next round. Contestants are marked in purple if they are removed or if they withdraw from the competition in the middle of the round. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose''' because despite the extra drama it really is needed to help reduce backlogs (at GA, for instance) and would have done so this time if not for TTT's gaming. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 17:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::It still does, even with TTT considered. [https://wikicup.toolforge.org/index.php?year=2024 So far this year], Cup competitors have contributed 316 GA reviews and 108 featured article/list reviews, against 141 GAs and 26 FAs/FLs promoted. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I stand corrected, thanks. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''', unsourced claim. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' – I'm really really mad I got knocked out in the first round. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{smiley}} [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' drastic proposal without even an attempt to provide evidence. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''oppose''' per Epicgenius &amp; Gog &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 20:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' - It’s been a long time since I had available time to participate in the WikiCup, but the year that I did, it encouraged me to keep putting in effort and working on the encyclopedia. I kind of like that. It’s a shame some people have to game, like robbing the bank in Monopoly, but proper enforcement by the coordinators and responding to gaming complaints seems like a small price to pay for a positive force for editing. I may want to see some reforms personally that continue to encourage contributions from those eliminated early on, but nothing wrong with the concept as a whole. [[User:Red Phoenix|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#FF0000&quot;&gt;Red Phoenix&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Red Phoenix|&lt;sup style=&quot;color: #FFA500&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 20:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose'''. It's not really my cup of tea but it prompts people to improve the encyclopaedia and they have fun while doing it so it's harmless at worst. It has been known to cause some problems with backlogs at review processes but I believe steps have been taken in recent years to mitigate that. It's unfortunate that one editor took things too far and didn't participate on the principle that it was fun, but I see no reason to think that's typical of editors participating in the cup. [[User:HJ Mitchell|&lt;b style=&quot;color: teal; font-family: Tahoma&quot;&gt;HJ&amp;nbsp;Mitchell&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman&quot; title=&quot;(Talk page)&quot;&gt;Penny for your thoughts?&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *This is daft, even by your standards, EEng. '''Oppose''', obviously. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 20:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' - no real evidence has been provided that the WikiCup {{tq|regularly leads to this kind of trouble}} or has {{tq|long outlived its usefulness}}. I don't think we need to get rid of something that most people seem to be able to constructively participate in just because a few don't. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> {{hab}}<br /> <br /> ===TonyTheTiger's statement===<br /> Today, I stumbled upon a User talk page of a user who had been blocked, with instructions on how to appeal a block [[User_talk:Ptb1997#September_2023]]. It gives the directive that <br /> <br /> To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that<br /> <br /> *the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or<br /> *the block is no longer necessary because you<br /> *#understand what you have been blocked for,<br /> *#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and<br /> *#will make useful contributions instead.<br /> <br /> I know bans are different than blocks, but the spirit of the directive is relevant here. I have tried to not say anything that I would regret for the last few days. I will be making a statement in the next 6 hours.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 00:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I joined the [[WP:CUP]] this year. I remember finishing 2nd in the 2010 CUP and had honestly forgotten about [[WP:FS]] topic ban surrounding the 2011 CUP. Knowing myself, I probably figured out a strategy that if allowed to run its course would have given me a good chance to finish at least 2nd again without recognition of the broader implications of the strategy to WP in general and to the CUP. I apologize for whatever happened then (again, if I have already done so &amp;mdash; finally, if I have not).<br /> <br /> This year, I entered the CUP on a whim. As it progressed, I regained some editorial vigor that I had had before and during the 2010 CUP. I started feeling competitive. First, I started thinking about making the finals again and before you know it I was trying to strategize a podium finish. In the CUP great [[WP:FA|Featured Articles]] producers have an advantage. I am not such an editor. I have a pretty low success rate at [[WP:FAC]] for the number of FAs that I have. I large percentage of my FAs are the results of co-nominators or co-editors who are far better copyeditors than I. However, I have a long history of success at GA and DYK. So I decided to focus my efforts on those two methods of scoring CUP points. <br /> <br /> There were two main impediments to my prospects for success in the 2024 CUP. First, the way I have been keeping the bills paid is highly seasonal. Last year, I earned over 82% of my income between May and October. The busy season is usually May through September and it can roll into October depending on certain factors. I needed a strategy that would enable me to compete even when I get busy with work. Second, I don’t tend to get reviewed very quickly on GA. Recent history will show you that I don’t get the fastest GA reviews (probably because I don’t do a lot of reviews anymore). See the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations&amp;oldid=1168120698 GAN queue before last year’s August backlog drive]. I took a look at the rules and figured a way that I could have a good chance at continuing to score a lot of GA points while I am very busy and while my review lag tends to be high. I figured, that if I could put a lot of articles in the queue in a way that they would have date priority at GAN I would be able to score enough cup points in rounds 3 and 4 to have a good chance to make the finals. Since I have had hundreds of DYK promotions since my last run at the CUP, I felt that many of them were a good way up the hill toward GA. Cramming them into GAN all at once without significant recent editorial activity was not something I considered would be a problem.<br /> <br /> GA evaluation is a very subjective process. Artilcles that might meet with good favor under the right sunlight may suffer a bad fate under a cloud of darkness. Although I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light, they were reviewed at a time when I had upset a lot of active GA reviewers with my GA strategy. Ex post, it looks like I submit a lot of crappy articles to GAN. My long history at GAN probably says otherwise. However, I am not here to debate the quality of recently reviewed articles. <br /> <br /> I do understand that a common theme among the reviews for the old DYK nominations at GAN is that they have not aged well. Some have become out of date. Others have evolved into states where maintenance tags should have been or were added to the articles. I think in the neighborhood of 2 dozen (if not more) of my GAN articles have been quickfailed at in recent days. All but one of these have been DYKs from past years. There has been little issue with my recent editorial activity. I’ll try to give you a list here for comparison with those that have been rejected. You will probably agree that my most recent work upholds the standards of GA that all interested parties are concerned about. The following are current nominations (all sports articles except for one and mostly basketball) from recent work: [[Gary Bossert]], [[Andrew Dakich]], [[Jennifer Martz]], [[Sean Jackson (basketball)]], [[Dave Jamerson]], [[Billy Garrett Jr.]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;The most recent lead hook at [[WP:DYK]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;, [[Todd Leslie]], [[Peter Patton (basketball)]] and [[Eustace Tilley]]. Additionally, the following recent works were going to be heading into the GAN queue soon: [[Kobe Bufkin]], [[Will Tschetter]], [[Drew Golz]], [[Draft:Kasey Morlock]], and [[Draft:Alia Fischer]].<br /> <br /> I realize that it would be easier on reviewers and better for the GAN system if I refrained from nominating stale, atrophied and otherwise less exemplary articles. However, I do believe that things that I have recently researched continue to be of benefit to the WP readership and could use the further polish of GAN attention. Although I continue to have faults as an editor in need of correction, none of my recent works (mostly created from scratch) should have much in common with the recent batch of quickfails.<br /> <br /> I probably should not be involved in the CUP since I have twice gotten too competitive in ways that are adverse to the general mission of WP. I don’t really think the GA ban is entirely necessary. My current work at GAN is probably not as problematic as the topics that have been distant from my attention for years. The real problems that I am having with GAN are not so much as my general lack of understanding of what is deserving of review attention, but my competitive CUP juices compelling me to nominate articles with very slight consideration and minimal recent editorial involvement.<br /> <br /> I consider it highly unlikely that you will ever see a slew of articles with prominent blemishes if my GAN privileges were allowed to continue in general. It would be fair to all to remove all nominations stemming from my historical DYK activity, but nominations related to recent editorial efforts would probably benefit WP without burdening the GAN reviewers any more than normal.<br /> <br /> My apologies to all of the hardworking GA reviewers and all participants that keep the GAN system going. I apologize to all CUP contestants and judges. In addition, I apologize for all the time that I took away from other activities by necessitating discussant activity here and elsewhere on WP. Furthermore, my competitive juices also warrant an apology to several DYK parties as well for actions not at issue here, but not so remote from them either. However, I don’t really think that a person who gets too competitive with the CUP needs much more than to be removed from the CUP to continue to be an asset to WP.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Thank you Tony. I have a few follow-up questions.<br /> :#{{tq|Since I have had hundreds of DYK promotions since my last run at the CUP, I felt that many of them were a good way up the hill toward GA}} What inspired this feeling? Did you read back over the DYK promotions and feel each one was worth a shot at GAN? Or was it a more general feeling that if you'd managed to get an article through DYK, it was probably worth giving it a shot at GAN?<br /> :#:Read back over would definitely be a wrong description. Basically, I took a quick glance at every [[User:TonyTheTiger/DYK|DYK I have had since mid 2010]] and some related articles. E.g. Some Big Ten or Ivy League seasons as well as Michigan and Princeton seasons may have been before that cutoff, but I looked at all of those similar article types with a quick glance. I eliminated all short DYKs. I think anything that was not at least 2800-3000 characters was cut. I glanced for citation needed templates, but surely missed some. If it had a top maintenance tag, it probably got cut. No real scientific process. I probably cut a list of 550 down to about 100. Then I looked at the ones I had to work on before nominating and the ones that I thought were close enough to be shaped up. I think I looked to see if I was the top 3 or 4 editors on each page as well, but confess I did not pay much attention to my percentage contribution. --[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#{{tq|Cramming them into GAN all at once without significant recent editorial activity was not something I considered would be a problem.}} That's a comment on your past mental state. Do you, as of now, consider the number of GANs you submitted at once to have been a problem?<br /> :#:The GAN process is set up to have hundreds of simultaneous nominations at once. I would not be surprised if the GAN could present 1000 at once. I have in the past had upwards of 30 simultaneous nominations at once I believe. GAN is an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor. The 70ish number is not a problem on its face. The problem is that I have never dug up articles from the past and nominated them. I have always nominated articles that I have recently honed and crafted. As I mentioned above, I stand behind all of the DYK creations from the past few months as viable GAN candidates. I should have given more serious consideration to which types of topics tend to atrophy over time. Many of the subjects that I submitted were BLPS of subjects I last paid close attention to on the order of a decade ago. They either had or should have had significant changes that I was not involved in editorially. I think I placed too much faith in added contributions with [[WP:IC]]s. I think I sort of felt if all the added stuff had ICs, it was an article that was probably up to snuff, which is not really a valid check. My process was flawed and that was a sort of a problem.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#{{tq|Although I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light, they were reviewed at a time when I had upset a lot of active GA reviewers}} To be more specific, do you believe e.g. [[Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1]] would have passed or had a significantly improved chance of passing had you not &quot;upset a lot of active GA reviewers&quot; at the time? Are there specific failed GANs you believe would not have been failed had you not &quot;upset a lot of active GA reviewers&quot;?<br /> :#:There was definitely a time when the current version of [[Heath Irwin]] would have passed as is. For an offensive lineman who has not met with [[Pro Bowl]]-level or [[Super Bowl]]-level success, his article has some heft. I have had hundreds of successful GAs and don't remember a quickfail. I may have had some though, but I doubt I have had even 1 per 100 nominations if I have had any. A huge percentage of my GAs are American football and basketball related. So, I feel that I do have an understanding of what is a GA-caliber article for these sports. If there is a new 2024 standard for GA articles, I am not familiar with it. To my recollection, [[WP:WIAGA]] seems relatively unchanged. I use to be a lot more active with football nominations. 10 or 15 years ago when I was more active with football nominations, my rep might have kept me from having a nom quickfailed in the past and helped with some promotions. I concede that the percentage of football reviewers who even know me from Adam nowadays is much smaller. Nonetheless, I can see the patience that I have had as a reviewer at [[Talk:3:16 game/GA1]] for an article that was not well formed and immediately nomed at [[WP:AFD]] when I began my review. I am also aware of the skill and patience of many reviewers. I believe that there are many reviewers who would have had the patience and skill to coax me into recrafting [[Heath Irwin]] as a GA.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:Skill in this sense is meant to be a combination of wikipedia institutional expertise and subject matter expertise.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 12:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:I mentioned above that only one of my recent DYK creations met with the quickfail hatchet. In the past, I have presented several precollegiate athletes for GAN. I believe myself to have been one of, if not, the groundbreaker on producing pre-collegiate basketball GAs. When I started producing a lot of pre-collegiate basketball (and football) GAs over a decade ago many of them may have been a bit longer than [[Olivia Olson (basketball)]]. In some regards, I still was quite surprised that Olson was quickfailed. I find it hard to believe that you could expect so much more than was presented for this subject that what was presented was so remote from that expectation that it deserved a quickfail.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 06:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::You've been informed many times that high school athletes have to meet much higher standards for notability, otherwise we would have articles on literally every DI and DII football recruit. We sometimes don't even consider NFL draftees notable despite their garnering national coverage. This article is sourced almost exclusively to local and non-independent or primary media hype, which per NSPORT do not contribute to notability at least partly because they inherently fail to demonstrate breadth and depth of coverage and are routine for the topic. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 08:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::[[User:JoelleJay]], to be more specific to this article. [[WP:LOCAL]]'s nutshell summary states: &quot;This page in a nutshell: An article about a local place or person may be created if there is enough referenced information to make it encyclopedic.&quot; Furthermore, although like all pre-collegiate athletes Olson does not meet [[WP:NHOOPS]], further up that page [[WP:SPORTBASIC]] says &quot;A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.&quot; Furthermore, in regard to the numerous discussions regarding pre-collegiate athletes and this issue of local vs. national coverage, the general agreement was that only a very few and possibly a singular national level source would suffice to meet this standard. In this case we have [chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://playeroftheyear.gatorade.com/poy/assets/writable/84707/2024_GK_OOlson.pdf Gatorade.com], [https://michigan.rivals.com/news/five-star-point-guard-olivia-olson-commits-to-michigan Rivals.com], [https://www.aol.com/news/state-top-senior-girls-basketball-145400425.html AOL.com] and [https://www.si.com/fannation/bringmethesports/mn-high-school-sports/2-minnesota-girls-basketball-stars-named-mcdonalds-all-americans Sports Illustrated albeit a locally targeted offshoot]. With that support a QF was quite surprising. I don't think I have had a pre-collegiate athlete nomination with two or more national articles fail (let alone quickfail) in the past. It would not have been unreasonable for a patient reviewer to ask me if I could beef up the international section and personal life.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 12:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::I and others have pointed you to [[Wikipedia:YOUNGATH]] several times. &lt;br&gt;Gatorade is obviously not an independent source, the AOL piece is from the Star Tribune, the Rivals source is the offshoot specific to Michigan sports, and the SI piece is as you say a local offshoot. None of these are sufficient. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 16:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::: &lt;small&gt;FWIW, not all local sources should be discounted, especially major papers like the ''Star Tribune''. The only requirement is that it needs to be &quot;[[WP:YOUNGATH|clearly beyond routine coverage]]&quot; – though I admit I haven't analyzed the sources. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :#::::::Just dropping into this subthread to add that GA reviews don't take a position on notability. If there isn't sigcov in reliable sources it may be quite hard to write a GA-review-passing article, but at no point is the reviewer asked to make a notability call. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::What? The [[WP:GAN/I#R1|instructions]] for reviewers: {{tq|Ensure all articles meet [[Wikipedia:PG|Wikipedia policies and guidelines]] as expected of any article, including [[Wikipedia:NPOV|neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:V|verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:NOR|no original research]], and [[Wikipedia:N|notability]].}} [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 21:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::It isn't one of the criteria, and you'll find it explicitly listed at [[WP:GACN#Beyond the scope]]. AfD, not GAN, is the place to decide notability. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::::It's not one of the criteria, but it is explicitly in the instructions for GAN reviewers so there should be an expectation of notability. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 22:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::::{{reply to|JoelleJay}} It was added without consensus when the same wording was added the nomination instructions. Discussions on the GA talk page have generally held that notability is not part of a GA review and should be handled at [[WP:AFD]]. [[User:Rjjiii|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps;&quot;&gt;Rjj&lt;sup&gt;iii&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 05:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::Indeed. On occasion FACs are queried re notability. In principle, there is no reason why an FA couldn't be AfDed. I don't know if this has ever happened. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::It has! I recall at least one. A baseball player, I think? Nominated by its main author, actually. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::::{{ping|Gog the Mild|Asilvering}} I believe you are thinking of [[Lewis (baseball)]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination)|AfD]], [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lewis (baseball)/archive1|FAR]]). [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::::Yes, that's it for sure. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination)]]. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 01:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#{{tq|It would be fair to all to remove all nominations stemming from my historical DYK activity, but nominations related to recent editorial efforts would probably benefit WP}} Which specific GANs do you stand by? Which specific GANs should be withdrawn?<br /> :– [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 14:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Just a quick comment based on Teratix's #4, I've removed that set of nominations from the GAN queue (i.e. nominations that you haven't edited substantively in over a year, and that hadn't been reviewed yet). If you, or anyone else, thinks I hit a false positive, you are of course welcome to revert. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 18:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Aside from those articles that I have created or 5xed in the last 6 months or so, there are not too many that I can really stand solidly behind with confidence. Given the time between my past DYKs and now, I have to develop an understanding of how GAN evaluates formerly prominent athletes who have been less interesting for quite some time. Basically, anything that I have not worked on in the last 6 months is a candidate for removal.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 06:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :If I may add one question. You seem to apologize for nominating a large slate of underprepared GA noms. Can you also talk to your behaviour towards editors, where you failed to assume good faith, and what you would do differently in the future? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::WP is a community of people with different backgrounds, interests, expertises, skills, and roles. We are all here to help present knowledge to the world. It certainly works best if we always assume good faith. As I have stated above, I get a bit competitive about the cup. If I could turn back the clock (now that I am reassessing my overlycompetitive nature), I would have taken the CUP less seriously, which in turn would have caused me to be less in your face. I think I am having something akin to a WP midlife crisis in which my worth as a WPian is tied up in making the finals of the CUP. I am no longer one of the great editors and need to stop competing with ghosts of my past. Trying to figure out how to play the game to make the finals the way that I did was not fair to other editors who were working hard to reduce the GAN backlog, to achieve their own success in the CUP, to maintain the integrity of GA, and to keep things going. What I should have done is just participated in the CUP with things I had worked on recently. In the future, all of my GANs will have at least a recent flourish of activity or a solid reaffirmation based on close inspection.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::These aren't recent, but it may be relevant that Tony has had issues at ANI about bad faith accusations [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive811#Continued policy violations from User:TonyTheTiger at WT:FOUR (close requested)|in 2013 where he was indeffed]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:TonyTheTiger gaming AfD, bludgeoning and personal attacks against multiple editors|in 2014 where he was warned]]. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 19:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{re|TonyTheTiger}} Do you have any intention of apologising directly to the editors who you cast aspersions on? Further, if a new editor behaved as you did, do you believe they would have been offered the leniency this discussion has afforded you? '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 12:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Above when I stated &quot;My apologies to all of the hardworking GA reviewers and all participants that keep the GAN system going. I apologize to all CUP contestants and judges. In addition, I apologize for all the time that I took away from other activities by necessitating discussant activity here and elsewhere on WP. Furthermore, my competitive juices also warrant an apology to several DYK parties as well for actions not at issue here, but not so remote from them either.&quot; it was certainly intended to include them. If any of them do not feel covered by that statement, I do apologize for casting aspersions on anyone who felt thusly treated and anyone in any way offended by my CUP related behavior. In regards to leniency, I believe anyone brought up at [[WP:ANI]] is allowed to make a statement. I did not mean to abuse the system or seek special treatement by making mine, if that is the perception. I believe a new editor would be allowed to make any statement that they want.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 12:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::That's a blanket apology Tony, not a direct apology which is what is owed to Generalissima, Teratix, the editors at WT:CUP and on your talk page, and probably elsewhere. This is not a matter of them &quot;feeling thusly treated&quot;, it's a matter of you having made direct and explicit allegations of bad faith on their part. Perhaps you can present your mass nomination as a misjudgement or misunderstanding, but the statements you made towards other editors cannot be so excused. Regarding my second question, let me rephrase it: had you been a new editor who flooded GAN with obviously un-passably bad articles and then proceeded to make numerous allegations of bad faith against other editors, do you believe you would have been afforded the opportunity to continue editing with an ANI discussion being the most serious consequence for your actions? '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 13:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I took a long time to make an extensive statement because I am trying to remain level headed. I meant to make an apology that was sincere to all individuals whom I behaved inappropriately with. I feel the heat getting turned up a bit here and I am not trying to do [[Twelve-step_program#Twelve_Steps|steps 8 and 9 of the 12 steps]]. This is especially so as I see the line forming below for #MeToo apologies. In my time on WP, I have offended many (surely dozens). In the past week, I have offended several. Wrongly, I took offense to extremely negative reviews. I do not have any right to positive reviews regardless of my process, role, contribution, or performance. All reviewers have a right to give any review that they feel they can justify. All reviews are largely subjective, and I can not disprove any review. So, I must accept all reviews assuming good faith by their reviewers. Thus, all derisive responses to individual reviewers and even secondary discussants beg for apologies. Derisive and possibly hurtful statements to Teratix are at the top of my list of things I mean to apologize for and I do so here directly. Generalissima is likely the leading scorer in CUP points for quickfailing my reviews, but only one of these was particularly contentious to me. I actually think many of these points were well-deserved. Regardless of my contentions (is that a word) regarding any single review, I need to remain professional. I went beyond any acceptable manner of decorum with Generalissima. In fact, my interactions with Generalissima are correctly a huge part of an intervention like this. I apologize for the lack of respect conveyed in my interactions with Generalissima.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I too had hoped for a direct apology. Tony, you may want to read the lead of [[non-apology apology]] and the section {{section link|non-apology apology#Ifpology}}. The way you apologized is quite common, but not that convincing. I'm still hoping we can end this discussion with you continuing to contribute to GAN, but me at least need to be convinced you are willing to mend trust. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I don't recall interacting with you at any other page in relation to this $#!T storm. I went back about 10 days in your contributions to double check. By my investigation our first interactaion in what is at issue was 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC). So are you asking for a direct apology to you? Or are you seconding 5225C above? -[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::: I was seconding 5225C above. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Since following the thread is already a tad confusing, moving this below, but re Tony's in-line replies to the list above:<br /> *: {{green|GAN is an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor. The 70ish number is not a problem on its face.}}<br /> * You've been told this repeatedly already, but just to say so again: Yes, it is a problem, on its face. Past a certain point, it's not on everyone else to explain why it's a problem to your personal satisfaction, you just need to accept that it is. It would have been a problem even if all your mass noms were perfect, no notes, ship it productions. It is a far worse problem when - as you yourself admitted you knew - you were seeking some &quot;polish&quot; from nomination review. Just as AFD isn't a way to demand other editors do cleanup, GAN isn't a way to demand other editors fix up an article for you. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **[[User:SnowFire]], my point was that I felt it was the quality of the submissions more than the quantity. That was of course only my opinion. It may be that the quantity was more of a problem than the quality and I was wrong. It is likely that each individual here assigns a different weight to how much of this issue is related to quantity and how much is related to quality. As I have stated, in the past I have had dozens of simultaneous nominations without issue. But as we are here there is some element of the problem related to quantity and some related to quality. Clearly you assign a higher proportion of the problem to quantity.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *** ''Both'' quantity ''and'' quality were problematic. It's just that you seem to grudgingly accept that the quality was an issue, but still don't seem to get that the quantity was an issue, too. And frankly I'm skeptical that your previous activities were truly &quot;without issue&quot; given that you've proven not particularly perceptive to the time of other editors.<br /> *** Hypothetical situation: an eccentric millionaire reveals that he's paid a team of independent researchers to create 1,000 new articles on notable topics, that are mostly about GA quality or close. This person is ''awesome''. They deserve a barnstar, a Signpost article, a shout-out, whatever. However, the contracts are up so the researchers can't really do any good peer reviews themselves. Should our millionaire - who has done a fantastic service to Wikipedia (just as you have) - submit all 1,000 of these articles to GAN, because it's &quot;an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor&quot;? The answer is ''emphatically not''. The awesome part was the GA-level articles themselves, not the green icon which readers neither recognize nor care about. GAN is useful as a mechanism of trading around peer reviews and second opinions, not about classifying the very best articles, and our millionaire can't possibly do their side of the equation for 1,000 articles. Which is fine. It just means that GA status is not in the cards. Basically, even in the scenario where the articles you nominated were in significantly better shape, this sort of mass nom is not a thing. The &quot;reward&quot; of your work is the articles having better content. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:Personally as both a GA contributor and a millionaire, I consider your hypothetical to be ridiculous.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 11:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::I'm just taking what you wrote seriously and where that would go in an extreme situation. You've completely dodged responding to the merits of the question - you ''still'' think that nominating 70 or 1,000 or whatever articles at once is no problem? I guess I should have listened to my own advice and not bothered to attempt to even convince you. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::You dig yourself a deeper hole with every reply here, Tony. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 22:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:There's an [[Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposals_to_address_the_backlog|ongoing discussion about ways of improving the GA process]] to better cope with the growing backlog of reviews. One idea is to formalise a limit of 20 nominations per person and it's surprising that this hasn't been done before. A QPQ system is obviously needed too. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 09:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::I already linked Asshole John rule above to you. If someone is abusing the process, just ban them from the process, which you opposed above. Don't create bespoke, hacky rules just for them that also impact others. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:::These are not bespoke, hacky rules; they seem quite natural and sensible. And they are used successfully elsewhere. The FA process limits nominators to one at a time. And DYK has a QPQ process which seems quite productive. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 17:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::::DYK has a QPQ system that requires them to argue over like a fourth of hooks 3 hours before they go on the main page because everyone pumps out QPQs to get it over with. It'd be even worse at GAN, where there's a significant time investment for a good review. Every person who doesn't actually want to do a review will just tick their way through a template and the end result will be even more strain on reviewers because now they have to check every else's work too. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:::::DYK has a system of triple-checking so naturally there's a further round of issues when set-builders and promoters make their additional checks. The GA process doesn't make such double-checks immediately because there's no big impact immediately. But there's a [[WP:GAR|reassessment]] process which currently has a queue of articles awaiting further review. All such processes are naturally imperfect per the [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer|disclaimers]]. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 10:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::::::Reassessment of poor reviews is not the solution. After a poor review, an opportunity has been wasted. The GA process is good when an article gets an in-depth review that makes it even better. Encouraging checkbox QPQs takes away the best thing about the process. Getting a shiny green badge is and should be secondary to the improvement to the encyclopedia that results. More shiny green badges is not itself an improvement to the encyclopedia. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *In the back of my mind, I am wondering if this all has anything to do with my decision to do a GAN review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3:16_game&amp;oldid=1214023874 this malformed article with no infobox and a prominent maintenance tag] to turn it into a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3:16_game&amp;oldid=1216053622 Good article]. Were the subsequent quickfails of my works and the nomination of the article at [[WP:AFD]] a vocalization of disapproval of my decision to commit to doing such a review. I.e., is there an effort to make it known that we don't want people to commit to that type of improvement.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:You know Tony, I really thought with your statements above that you might kind of be getting it, but this accusation of a bad faith conspiracy shows you obviously aren't. &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 18:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:??????????????????? – &lt;code style=&quot;background:#333;border:1px solid #999&quot;&gt;[[User:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#fff;text-shadow:0 0 5px #fff&quot;&gt;Hilst&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#090&quot;&gt;&amp;lbrack;talk&amp;rbrack;&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/code&gt; 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::took the words right out of my mouth. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::ditto &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't even understand what the purpose of the conspiracy would be here... to discourage high-quality GA reviewing? Why would anyone want to do that? My motivation in raising an issue with your nominations, for the record, was solely to keep morale high at the March GAN backlog drive, per my role as coordinator. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Should I assume that this discussion means that we expect people to quickfail such articles regardless of whether they have the skill and patience to guide the article toward GA?-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 18:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:We ''should'' presume that they are different skillsets, and that it is entirely possible to gauge whether or not an article is fit for GA status without necessarily being inclined to take an article to GA status. You've been around far too long to fall into the delusion that only some Consecrated Elite has what it takes to make such determinations. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''&lt;span style=&quot;background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF&quot;&gt; '' Ravenswing '' &lt;/span&gt;''' ]] 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{u|TonyTheTiger}} - by my reading of the situation, the sanctions have nothing to do with 3:16 game. It’s really other parts of your behaviour you have to improve. It’s not about other editors. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 01:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Frankly, I would be ''more'' likely to quickfail an article from an experienced nominator who possesses &quot;skill and patience&quot;. For a newbie, I'm usually happy to give them some latitude, work closely with them to improve the article, and help them go through the process to understand the GA criteria. But once someone has 100+ GAs under their belt, I expect that they will have the criteria down pat and ensure that the article basically meets them ''before'' they nominate it for GA. That applies doubly when the experienced nominator is mass-nominating old articles without re-checking them in order to score points in a competition. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 01:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == User:SheriffIsInTown chronic reverting problem ==<br /> <br /> Continously reverting and redirecting ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan_general_election_forms&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210942217], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan_general_election_forms&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211734720], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan_general_election_forms&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215365066]) on [[Election Commission of Pakistan general election forms]] and trying to impose a redirect without a consensus. Generally, this should be handled through [[WP:AFD]] and considered as a failed [[WP:PROD]], but this guy will mindlessly revert, revert, and revert. [[Special:Contributions/141.195.113.18|141.195.113.18]] ([[User talk:141.195.113.18|talk]]) 18:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#SheriffIsInTown Similar problem] was highlighted by {{ping|Saqib}} as well a few days ago, but it was archived prematurely by a bot. [[Special:Contributions/141.195.113.18|141.195.113.18]] ([[User talk:141.195.113.18|talk]]) 18:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Ping to {{ping|Wiki.0hlic}} who was also involved. [[Special:Contributions/141.195.113.18|141.195.113.18]] ([[User talk:141.195.113.18|talk]]) 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *The author of that article was blocked following the investigation detailed in [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toomanyyearskodakblack#19 February 2024]]. According to policy, contributions by blocked editors can be reverted without justification. In this instance, the forms were appropriately relocated to [[Election Commission of Pakistan#General election forms]], resulting in a redirect. There seems to be a concerted effort by these individuals to impede my editing. They file frivolous ANIs daily in hopes that if they persist, an admin will block me, thereby eliminating opposition. It appears this IP is connected to the blocked editor. This ANI warrants immediate closure, and the IP should be blocked. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;Sh&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: red;&quot;&gt;eri&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;ff&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: black;&quot;&gt;☎ 911&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; 18:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Sheriff, while an editor ''may'' revert edits of a banned editor, per [[WP:BRV]], the same also notes that 1) they are not ''required'' to be reverted, and 2) once non-banned editors (such as Wiki.h0lic) revert, [[WP:BRV]]'s 3RR exception no longer applies, as you're no longer reverting a banned editor, but an editor in good standing. If the articles should be BLAR'd, I expect consensus will bear that out. <br /> *:That said, IP, I note that you have no other edits except to the disputed page and this noticeboard. I can understand Sheriff's [[WP:ABF|assumption]] that you are connected with the blocked user. Have you done any other editing on Wikipedia? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 19:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::In the two days since this report was opened, the page in question was BLARed by consensus and protected, and the reporting IP has not edited. No further disruption seems forthcoming, so this section can be closed without prejudice. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Sorry, I was away for a professional engagement so could not reply to the ping. I don't know how chronic this problem is, but in the past couple of months I have had 2 run-ins with Sheriff. It happened on the page in question and secondly, it occurred on [[Qazi Faez Isa]], where my effort to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qazi_Faez_Isa&amp;oldid=1211007521 build consensus] was ignored and, true to their moniker, they have adopted a &quot;my way or the highway&quot; approach after persistent reversion. Apart from the disregard for consensus, what troubles me in the case of both the articles, is that I have significantly contributed to the them, and Sheriff just comes in and copy-pastes ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan&amp;oldid=1210941932] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PTI_intra-party_elections_case&amp;oldid=1195845734]) the content elsewhere in a manner ignorant of [[WP:CWW]], effecting my attribution. [[User:Wiki.0hlic|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#01A0CA;&quot;&gt;Wiki.0hlic&lt;/b&gt;]] [[User talk:Wiki.0hlic|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #01A0CA;&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(talk)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Regarding their [[WP:CWW]] concern, I am just replying for the record. Their attribution was not affected in that particular case. Firstly, there were significant contributions by me to the content at [[Qazi Faez Isa]], secondly, the article [[PTI intra-party elections case]] was completely rewritten by me, they can run it through a copyvio tool. If they had contributed to Qazi Faez Isa to a specific case section, that does not mean no one else can write a separate article about the case. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;Sh&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: red;&quot;&gt;eri&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;ff&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: black;&quot;&gt;☎ 911&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Logosx127]] must be [[WP:NOTHERE]] ==<br /> <br /> <br /> For several days, this Wikipedian has made some contributions which necessitated reaching a consensus for [[Eastern Catholic Churches]]-related articles, especially the [[Syro-Malabar Church]] article and talk page. That conversation was then brought to [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Is_the_Catholic_Church_a_single_denomination_or_a_communion_of_24?]], and it has lasted for days on end again. After the involvement of multiple parties disagreeing with their contributions and seeming rejection of notice given [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Logosx127&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214852164 User_talk:Logosx127&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214852164 here], and then the lack of consensus, they opted to continue their contributions claiming a consensus had been reached. Now, discussion is at a stalemate with Logos themselves seemingly verbatimly disregarding the arguments against their desired overhaul of edits. With their latest responses, it also appears that they might just be [[WP:NOTHERE]] to build an encyclopedia, but [[WP:ADVOCATE]]. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 13:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :When there are arbitrary corrections to articles, how is it wrong to question them in the discussion? How is questioning and taking a strong position in a talkpage pointing out a very clear and obvious contradiction be considered wrong? That too, especially when other editors are agreeing with me and clearly recognising the issues as in [[Talk:Oriental Orthodox Churches#SCOOCH source|here]]. About the issue with the claim of consensus, it was actually another editor who initiated the claim of consensus as seen here [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Antony%27s_Syro-Malabar_Church,_Ollur&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215440856][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mar_Thoma_Sleeha_Syro-Malabar_Church,_Thulappally&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215441146][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Mary%27s_Syro-Malabar_Cathedral_Basilica,_Ernakulam&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215442132][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marth_Mariam_Cathedral&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215442430] and many more. Since they were the original user involved in the dispute with me, I agreed with them. I too tried to implement it, even though it was against my position, believing that the consensus was created against my position. How'd that be considered advocacy? When you make such accusations like nothere about me despite all my recent edits being there at various talkpages, please also explain the rationale. Because the only rationale I find behind is an urge for harassment. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 14:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Well, forgive my ignorance on that part of their consensus claim. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 14:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::For more details, you may please have a look at [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism&amp;diff=1215502400&amp;oldid=1215488573&amp;title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Catholicism&amp;diffonly=1 this response] that I gave to Lion there. I have answered more of their allegations there. I think copying all of it here will be boring for the adminstrators as well as me. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 15:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :To offer my two cents: With {{noping|TheLionHasSeen}}, I participated in the discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism]], trying to offer several possible solutions to the ambiguities/confusions that {{noping|Logosx127}} (and seemingly only Logosx127) believes are present in Wikipedia's coverage of particular pages. The solutions I presented didn't seem to satisfy the concerned editor. I'm not sure about [[WP:NOTHERE]], but I am concerned that the whole thing ballooned into a very long, timesinking discussion when this is, in my view, all possibly resolved by any editor taking the time and making the effort to add one or two sourced sentences. As the only editor who seems to believe that the pages affected currently present ambiguity/confusion, the rather obvious question is why Logosx127 didn't do this themselves. I was also concerned that Logosx127's discussion seemed to have two prongs which are impossible to reconcile: on one prong, we need to clarify ambiguities/confusions; on the other prong, the only correct interpretation of the ambiguity is their own with no possibility of nuance. My instinct is it might just be a good-faith but counterproductive zeal against any possible ambiguities/confusions that does not square nicely with nuances and reasonable interpretations, rather than [[WP:NOTHERE]]. But this is only based off our discussion. [[User:IgnatiusofLondon|IgnatiusofLondon]] (&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:85%;&quot;&gt;he/him&lt;/span&gt; • [[User talk:IgnatiusofLondon#top|☎️]]) 16:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I also participated in the aforementioned discussion, and I concur entirely with {{noping|IgnatiusofLondon}}'s interpretation. I think {{noping|Logosx127}} sees a problem and is trying to fix it; whether there actually is a problem to fix is being debated. There are issues here, but NOTHERE and ADVOCATE are not the ones. [[User:Smdjcl|Smdjcl]] ([[User talk:Smdjcl|talk]]) 18:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I agree. Logosx127 is a stubborn editor who occasionally intentionally pushes the edit warring limit and sometimes is unwilling to concede to consensus, but they seem to be genuinely here to build an encyclopedia and lobbied hard to have their editing privileges restored. Especially considering that I rose the matter with admins who looked into Logosx127's editing history and found no serious misconduct, I'm inclined against any sanctions at this time. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 18:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Well, after reading these observations, I have to admit that I would like to not be inclined against any sanctions either at this time. From seeing others' input here, I see that it is merely zeal, even though it seems to be coming off also as hardcore zealotry. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::@[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] what might be an alternative if they continue to push the edit warring limit however and is unwilling to concede to consensus? - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 23:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Your comments are contradictory. Initially you said there is no consensus, now you are claiming that there is. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 00:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::If there is a consensus, it's that no one here agrees with you, and I will '''not''' engage in another edit war with you on [[Oriental Orthodox Churches]]. This is becoming enough, and I am beginning to wonder again if you are here to contribute in peace or war with others? - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::If there is also a consensus, it is that on the lists of Christian denominations by category and membership, no one desires to remove the Eastern Catholic Churches completely by your measured understanding. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::@[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]], @[[User:IgnatiusofLondon|IgnatiusofLondon]], and @[[User:Smdjcl|Smdjcl]], I am growing tired of this continually being dragged. It came to the point of me putting a warning notice on their talk page, but I reverted and recanted publishing it because it would have done no good. Now, they have come on my talk page copying what I did. I reverse my request of no sanctions, and request a hammer. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::You have been continuously disregarding the article talk page and the reliable sources at [[Oriental Orthodox churches]]. Now you are disregarding your own words and is edit warring by removing sourced content. At this point I must certainly respond to this mocking {{tq|wonder again if you are here to contribute in peace or war with others?}}: Well I am not here to war, my policy is [[WP:NPOV]]. Some editors tend to attack me when they believe I am a threat to their POV. In the specific case of Eastern Catholic Churches, it is their catholic pov. I find it very ridiculous considering the fact I am myself a Catholic too. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 16:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::Given the edit warring going on right now, I'd say you both need blocked from editing the article for a while, and need to hash it out on the Talk page. [[WP:DRR|Follow the Dispute Resolution]] process.<br /> :::::::::::That said, Logosx, templating in retaliation is not a good idea per [[WP:POINT]]. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::I am withholding myself from any contribution regarding this, because while they might not care, I do care that I am not blocked and would like to exemplify the character of one who doesn't desire a blocking, @[[User:HandThatFeeds|HandThatFeeds]]. I do however choose to ignore their retaliatory report, when they could have easily been reported for edit warring before, but again, I digress as I refuse to have that permanent record on my account. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::Also, in my own defense, I withheld responding on the talk page because it seemed that you, @[[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]], did not understand that the source was not removed whatsoever, as you have disregarded it seems before with other discussions which became prolonged. The information was restored back to its form before any of these issues ensued. The information in the versions has been sourced prior to your contribution, and then properly sourced thereafter. I am now more confused than ever. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::Well, must be inevitable anyway since they opted to report me at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] after all of this. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::Wait a minute? Isn't there a discrepancy with that edit warring report? I reverted them 3 times on that article today, once on yesterday (the 27th), and then twice on the 24th? I did not go beyond the 3RR warning. Oh well, as I said, I'm not trying to take any bait and be blocked by responding to retaliation and as others stated, zealotry (not me, though later affirming). - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::::Edit warring does not specifically require violating [[WP:3RR]]. And frankly, Logosx reporting that while there's an ongoing discussion here smacks of [[WP:FORUMSHOP]]. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 20:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::::Fair enough. Thanks for enlightening me lol. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 20:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::::There is no forum shopping here. It is related to a different issue altogether. Here we are discussing about the dispute at the Eastern Catholic Churches and related articles and there is no edit warring in this case. I have purposefully distanced myself from editting articles in this case. I have been mostly editting only in the talk pages for a while. But there, at Oriental Orthodox churches, it is a totally different scenario. Lion is disregarding the talk page and opinion of other users and is actively edit warring. In my report, there is a reference to this report too. Meanwhile I have temporarily stopped editting in that particular article too as I am fed up of this. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 23:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::::::It's the same issue, you and LionHasSeen in an editing dispute. Hence forum shopping. It should've been handled here, rather than splitting up the admin actions. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}Logosx127, your behavior across multiple articles and discussions has been an issue. Not to a degree that merits a block or any formal sanction, but just that you should probably avoid pushing the edit warring limit, avoid forum shopping (this is the second time recently), and be ''far'' more willing to concede to consensuses you don't like. You're making good contributions in other contexts, though, and your new article on the Indian Christian schism deserves high praise. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 03:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :If I were to edit war, I wouldn't have any time left to do anything constructive. But I've been distancing myself from disputed articles. It's not because of any change of mind but I really don't have much time to waste in reverting back and forth and I find it ridiculous to do so. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 07:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Possible content ownership at [[List of X-Men members]] page ==<br /> I joined Wikipedia in mid-March 2024 and started editing [[X-Men]] related pages yesterday and participating in recent discussion some of those pages and noticed so many ongoing discussions (also not archived) in [[Talk:List of X-Men members|List of X-Men members talk page]]. I read last two talk pages of it, which made me suspicious of [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content|ownership of content]] of the [[List of X-Men members]] page by @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]]. Then I read last 500 edits of said page and made this report. I took me 1 day to make this report. I am new here and it is not my intention to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|Personal attack]] by mentioning so many users including @Hotwiki, just so you all don't feel that way. So below are 7 points of my report.<br /> * '''1:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:RS]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] sometimes asks for references but sometimes he himself don't provide a reference. Also one time he called a reliable secondary source moot while doing this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213677279] on the basis of ''&quot;This was already discussed before in the talk page, so that reference is moot. As for Fall of X, there's not a reference given to that issue.&quot;'' but you can search that that not any reference is declared moot in any discussion in [[Talk:List of X-Men members]]. He reverted the edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1167384151] done by @[[User:Tomahawk1221|Tomahawk1221]] on the basis of ''&quot;Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source''&quot;. He reverted the edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1168505738][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1168631372] having the same information (some more addition) done by @[[User:Ringardiumleviossa|Ringardiumleviossa]] and @[[User:Lipshiz|Lipshiz]] on the basis of ''&quot;Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source&quot;''. But when some of the information were removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210006942] by @[[User:Sewnbegun|Sewnbegun]] on the basis of ''&quot;Removing unreferenced content&quot;'', he reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210009006] them on the basis of ''&quot;Restored, I've read those issues before, and they do infact became trainees in those issues since they were working aside the X-Men in a field mission.&quot;'' I don't get why many editors need reference as per [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] for adding same information but one editor don't. That resulted to @Hotwiki making disruptive edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210042724] on the basis of ''&quot;these are unreferenced as well, we aren't going to cherry pick which unreferenced material to stay here here right?&quot;'' '''Also''', when several secondary sources were added on the basis [[WP:RS]] - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211422889&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1] on the basis of ''No there's NO need to add Multiple references in a single info, if there's already a VALID/reliable reference posted''.<br /> ** '''1.2:''' Reliable sources were finally provided regarding the above mentioned information in these edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169349294] by @[[User:Sookenon|Sookenon]].<br /> * '''2:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[MOS:GRAMMAR]]) Another of the authoritative attitude is seen during simple changes like fixing basic grammar/grammatical errors or expanding sentences. He reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1192149858] an edit done by @[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] to the previous version. Another similar edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211375774] (on the basis of ''&quot;Full stop is unnecessary because they are just words and not full sentence.&quot;'') was reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211376225] by @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] on the basis of ''&quot;its fine to add a period in table descriptions, especially the other descriptions have a period in them. We aren't to edit war with these simple changes, are we?&quot;''. Lastly, he kept reverting[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212819056][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212819769][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212819910][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212820201] changes regarding some sentences in [[List of X-Men members#Substitute X-Men teams|Subtitute X-Men teams section]] and only stopped until these edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212822711][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212823378] were made on the basis of ''&quot;Fixing basic grammatical errors, double check before making any edits to it&quot;'' and ''&quot;Adding extra and suitable information won't hurt (Like the big ones added in the X-Force and X-Club)&quot;'' respectively.<br /> * '''3:''' ([[WP:OWN]]) One of the most interesting edit was done here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1205235066] by @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] on the basis of ''&quot;No need to state the obvious&quot;''. He later himself made an edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212753131] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of ''&quot;fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as &quot;Muir Island X-Men&quot; thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute&quot;''.<br /> * '''4:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:CON]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] made this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208905355] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of ''&quot;Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well&quot;'' but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding [[Talk:List of X-Men members#Current members of the X-Men|current members of X-Men]] at that time.<br /> * '''5:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:OVERCITE]]) An IP user added[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211171452] months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] reverted the edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211174817] on the basis of ''&quot;Not all of those months are referenced.&quot;'' I thought [[List of X-Men members]] is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211369903] of numerous primary sources in [[List of X-Men members|that page]], which verge of [[Wikipedia:Citation overkill|citation overkill]].<br /> * '''6:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:RS]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] agreed to one thing from above point that List of X-Men members page is not the list of names of members of X-Men when @[[User:Sewnbegun|Sewnbegun]] added[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212720670][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212720997][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212721825] references to full names. You can clearly see that many of the names just had references added but some had changes made to them on the basis of those sources. Eventually those changes were also reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212752207] whole by him on the basis of ''&quot;Again, you don't really need to add a reference to every single name, especially those who have a Wikipedia article. This is a list of X-Men members. Not list of names of X-Men characters&quot;''. The question also arises why reverting those name which are clearly well sourced? because in fact these &quot;sourced reverted names&quot; were the only names not picked by from [[Talk:List of X-Men members#Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members.|Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members.]] which was in consensus - You can confirm it by checking these edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216709][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216790][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216976][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217413][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217684][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217918][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206218163][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219033][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219249][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220100][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220556][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220778][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220968][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221082][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221187] if you have time.<br /> * '''7:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:CON]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] also reverted the same edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215149738][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215230551] regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of ''&quot;Revert unnecessary changing of order&quot;'' and ''&quot;Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes.&quot;'' This edit war between him and @[[User:Sewnbegun|Sewnbegun]] resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, [[Talk:List of X-Men members#Drastically changing the order of the members|Drastically changing the order of the members]]. In the same discussion I had my opinion of ''This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic.'' While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#List formats|Manual of Style/Comics]] and [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Regarding some orders|answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun]]. The change was made[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215514179] but it was again reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215515294] on the basis of ''&quot;Still no talkpage consensus&quot;'' but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against).<br /> ** '''7.2:''' I wasn't going to mention above point since I think editors should wait for few days before making changes &quot;as per talk page&quot;, but I did it to show you the more of the authoritative attitudes of [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] as the same situation as above happened in this discussion [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer]]. 2 were in favour (@[[User:Storm1221|Storm1221]] and @Hotwiki) and 1 against ([[User:ToshiroIto7|ToshiroIto7]]). &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Teedbunny|contribs]]) 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;<br /> <br /> :You ''must'' notify users you are reporting on. Says so at the top of the page. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I already did. Thank you! [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Gone in 60 seconds, eh? ;) &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::See it again please. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Uh, I already did. Therefore [[Gone in 60 Seconds (2000 film)|the reference]]. ;) &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I still don't understand the reference but should I notify all the users mentioned or the only user reported on? [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Editors whose conduct is being discussed here should be notified of such. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 15:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Let me mention that There were TWO editors who were making drastic changes in the article. [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]] and [[User:Sewnbegun]]. Both are now blocked due to sockpuppetry and apparently they are connected. There's recently unusual activity from IP users who are making a ton of changes. These are already discussed in the talkpage of the article. I'm surprised that Teedbunny is bringing this up now? I'm not the one who reverted your most recent edit in the article. And Sewnbegun who I reported for sockpuppetry yesterday, is finally blocked today. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 15:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Also please read [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ringardiumleviossa]] and this is how [[User:Sewnbegun]] was blocked. How am I taking ownership of the article, when clearly [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]], [[User:Sewnbegun]] and a bunch of IP users making their 1st edit on Wikipedia, in the same article - was/were trying to manipulate the outcome of the article by jumping through different Ips/accounts. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::Also can Teedbunny simplify what am I being accused here. Yes I reverted edits that were unreferenced. But what unreferenced material in the article did I include in the article?From February to March 2024, there were a lot of drastic changes coming from two editors (who are both apparently involved in a sockpuppetry). There were making so many drastic changes and I've tried my best to discuss everything in the talk page. When I added &quot;names&quot; in the article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216709][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216790][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216976][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217413][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217684][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217918][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206218163][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219033][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219249][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220100][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220556][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220778][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220968][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221082][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221187]) it was from the article proposal of [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]] in the talk page or it was already in the article, I simply repeated names for consistency as several characters are mentioned more than twice. I don't recall anyone from the article, calling me out for unreferenced edits? [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::As for #5 (''An IP user added months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @Hotwiki reverted the edit on the basis of &quot;Not all of those months are referenced.&quot; I thought List of X-Men members is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition of numerous primary sources in that page, which verge of citation overkill''). I asked for references for the months, simply because there were too many months being added, and I was unsure, if those months were accurate anyway. At that time, the article was tagged at the top of the article, for needing more sources. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::As for #7. ''( @Hotwiki also reverted the same edits regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of &quot;Revert unnecessary changing of order&quot; and &quot;Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes.&quot; This edit war between him and @Sewnbegun resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, Drastically changing the order of the members. In the same discussion I had my opinion of This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic. While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in Manual of Style/Comics and answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun. The change was made[290] but it was again reverted[291] on the basis of &quot;Still no talkpage consensus&quot; but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against)''. How is there already a consensus? beside me and Sewnbegun. The only editor that made another comment in the talkpage was Teedbunny. The IP user who originally made the changed - is a suspected sockpuppetry that is connected to Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun. I was waiting for more editors to make a comment, (not just one editor). Sewnbegun reverted it again right after Teedbunny posted a comment, like as if Teedbunny made a consensus for the article. And I just didn't see it as a consensus yet.[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::As for #4 (''4: @Hotwiki made this edit[264] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of &quot;Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well&quot; but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding current members of X-Men at that time.''). What is the problem with that? Plenty of different editors in the past, have been bolding name of characters indicating that they are current members of the X-Men- without leaving a reference/citation for verification. I even addressed about this in the talkpage in its own section.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=1207714300&amp;oldid=1207710556] [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::As for 3 (''One of the most interesting edit was done here[263] by @Hotwiki on the basis of &quot;No need to state the obvious&quot;. He later himself made an edit[264] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of &quot;fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as &quot;Muir Island X-Men&quot; thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute&quot;.'') I don't see the issue of me adding the X-Men in section titles, and it was a non-issue if I remember correctly. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::Also, one more thing. [[List of X-Men members]] is now protected from persistent sockpuppetry until April 26, 2024. For those who are just seeing this, I hope you are aware of the sockpuppetry going on in that article in the last two months. I've done my best to cooperate with [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]] and [[User:Sewnbegun]] via talkpage of that article, even if both of them turned out to be the same person, that was also jumping through several IPs, in order to manipulate the outcome of that article. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 17:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::::{{Ping|Teedbunny}} how am I being called out here in ANI, yet you didn't mention the sockpuppetry suspicions towards {{ping|Sewnbegun}} especially if you read the talkpage of that article. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::As for 7, I stated it I think editors should wait for some more to get more editors to respond. You said &quot;'' I just didn't see it as a consensus yet&quot;'' because only two voted for it and one, who were you didn't. I must also point out why you didn't any see any consensus over [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer]] here when clearly there were two in favour (including you) and 1 against? Reverts[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;diffonly=1&amp;oldid=1173010598][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1173148124&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1201825159&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1] were kept being done as per [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|this discussion]]. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::Not all your reverts were unreferenced. There were many names which were perfectly sourced that were removed. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::I hope you don't ignore the fact that in the last two months I was dealing with 2 registered editors (Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun) and several IP users involved with sockpuppetry, in that 1 article. If you have read the entire talk page, you would know I have tried my best to keep my cool and worked with those editors as much as I could, especially with Sewnbegun despite my suspicions of them being the same person which turned out to be right. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 18:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::Also may I add, Sewnbegun was adding &quot;references&quot; to content that wasn't being challenged/questioned in the first place. No one was asking in that article for the name of Professor X, to be added by reference as his name was already in the article for more than ten years. As I explained in that article, a reference for the date/issue of membership was already enough. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::I am talking about the changes based on sources like for example see Magneto's name. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::Yes, I also noticed that and prepared another report on him, but beat me ahead by doing sockpuppet investigation yesterday. I also noticed the above points I mentioned in this report regarding you too. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::Also, you could have easily adressed this in the talkpage of that article or in my talkpage first, rather directly going to ANI. I haven't encountered you directly in the past, so this ANI report is comingoff as a surprise. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Is it just me, or is [[List of X-Men members|that article]] a prime example of why [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]] are rules? Looking through the talk page, I see a great deal of debating what constitutes a [[No true Scotsman|real]] X-men member. If reliable secondary sources verify, then the debate could be settled by citing them. If no such sources exist, I question how such a list fits in with the rest of Wikipedia. <br /> ::In any case, while I agree that Hotwiki can come off as having slight [[WP:OWN]] leanings, it doesn't seem to rise to the level of sanction, and I also note that I cannot find a discussion from Teedbunny attempting to address this on Hotwiki's talk page. Also, this [[WP:WALLOFTEXT|very long]] report doesn't make it easy to see at-a-glance what policies or guidelines Hotwiki is alleged to have broken, other than [[WP:OWN]], which seems to me to be a weak claim. Rather, everyone seems to be operating in [[WP:AGF|good faith]], and so this situation seems like a good candidate for [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], not administrative intervention. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]], please just read the last point (7 and 7.2) carefully. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Having reread both 7 and 7.2, I continue to see no wrongdoing. There doesn't seem to be a consensus; there's Hotwiki who discussed at length their opinion, a sockpuppeteer whose opinion is rightly discounted, and you with a single comment. Attempting to make the change once with ''per talk page'' is well within [[WP:BRD]]. Hotwiki reverting is likewise part of BRD. Frankly, even if there was a 2-on-1 split of opinions, [[WP:NOTVOTE|consensus is not a vote count]]. If there's still disagreement, perhaps posting a neutrally worded request to a related wikiproject would get a broader base of opinions. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 18:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I know this report is long which was the Main reason why I reported this to administrators.<br /> :::::* Along with [[WP:OWN]] @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] has also possibly broken these:<br /> :::::** [[WP:RS]] for point '''1'''.<br /> :::::*** Also, when several secondary sources were added on the basis [[WP:RS]] - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211422889&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1].<br /> :::::** [[MOS:GRAMMAR]] for point '''2'''.<br /> :::::** [[WP:CON]] for points '''4''' (no consensus at that time at all but still edits were made) and '''7'''.<br /> :::::*** While for point 7 why reverts[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;diffonly=1&amp;oldid=1173010598][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1173148124&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1201825159&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1] were made on the basis of [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|this discussion]] even if there was a 2-on-1 split of opinions?<br /> :::::** [[WP:OWN]] leading indirect [[WP:OVERCITE]] for point '''5''' which too only primary sources (detailed reason is given above).<br /> :::::[[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 19:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I'm wondering why you're expending so much effort on digging up months-old edits when you could try talking it out with Hotwiki. In any case, responding to your points... <br /> ::::::* Point 1: While I agree this shows Hotwiki leaning towards OWN behavior, I disagree that this represents a serious breach of [[WP:RS]]. Sometimes people fail to include a source. It happens. I've done it. Tag it and move on. The example you gave directly above likewise seems to be ''avoiding'' the [[WP:OVERCITE]] you mention later on. Maybe it'd be better with two references, maybe not, but that's a content dispute, not a behavioral one. <br /> ::::::* Point 2: MOS:GRAMMAR: Hotwiki's edits there seem to me to ''support'' the MOS, and were therefore justified. <br /> ::::::* Point 4: That's not violating consensus. I read that as Hotwiki pointing to the talk page for their reasoning. Again, part of [[WP:BRD]].<br /> ::::::* Point 5: I see no consensus on the talk page for the inclusion of all those sources. And again, I'm curious what you're looking for: In Point 1, you criticize Hotwiki for removing unnecessary material, but here you object to them leading to more references. I'd be okay with either, but you can't have it both ways. <br /> ::::::* Point 7: Not being Hotiwki, I won't speculate as to ''why'' the reverts were made. I will say that, glancing over that discussion, there were indeed 3 editors in good standing, with 2 opposed, 1 in favor of inclusion. Furthermore, Hotwiki alluded to [[WP:NODEADLINE]], which is a policy-based argument of &quot;Let's wait and see before we add it.&quot; I may be misunderstanding (this isn't my field) but even if that ''was'' against consensus, one violation ''seven months'' ago does not demonstrate ongoing disruption. <br /> ::::::Teedbunny, I'll be frank. In my view, there is no demonstration of any ongoing disruption. I strongly recommend you try ''talking'' to Hotwiki if their behavior is suboptimal, or otherwise following [[WP:DR]]. I also submit that it will be far easier than continuing this thread. Your reliance on tenuous or dated evidence makes this seem more like a grudge, which could lead to a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] if it continues. You seem passionate about this topic, so I hope you'll direct your energies to improving the encyclopedia; spending them at ANI would not seem to be be a productive use of your time. I've said enough in this thread, and will bow out and await other editors' input. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thanks, I will take in consideration in the future. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : I'd have to second {{np|EducatedRedneck}} that this doesn't seem to be an urgent issue immediately requiring administrator intervention. [[User:OverlordQ|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#171788;font-weight:bold&quot;&gt;Q&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:OverlordQ|T]] [[Special:Contributions/OverlordQ|C]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Issues should be discussed on the talk page before they're brought to ANI. This page isn't for disagreements on sourcing or reverts you don't like. The exception is that it ''is'' disruptive to revert if your only reason is that the previous version is &quot;[[WP:STABLE|stable]]&quot; or that someone [[WP:DRNC|didn't ask for consensus in advance]]. Removing unreferenced content is allowed, and best practice is not to add anything unless it's accompanied by a secondary source. Sock edits can always be reverted without question after the editor is conclusively determined to be a sock, although they're no longer subject to indiscriminate reverting if another editor restores the edit. Finally, the entries should ''not'' be based on comic book references per [[WP:PRIMARY]] policy #5: {{tq|Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.}} Editing to preserve a policy violation can be disruptive, but it should be discussed before we call it disruptive. I second everything that EducatedRedneck said in their initial response above. This should probably be closed so the issue can be discussed on the talk page, and this doesn't need to be an ANI complaint unless discussion fails and disruptive behaviors continue afterward. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]], do the [[List of X-Men members|list of X-Men members]] need more reliable secondary sources? [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Sca]]'s jokes on [[WP:FPC]] ==<br /> {{atop<br /> | status = <br /> | result = 36 hours in, and no consensus for anything, really, has emerged. Except, perhaps, that {{u|FatCat96}} could be a mite less hasty with the ANI button and that {{u|Cremastra}}'s dark day has not yet dawned. {{nac}} [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I suggest that [[User:Sca|Sca]] be topic banned from [[WP:Featured picture candidates]]. Sca has been making jokes on FPC instead of using it as a place to usefully collaborate with others. This is not a new practice, he has been doing it for several years, and despite being banned from [[WP:ITN/C]] twice for the same reason, he persists. Some examples include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/African_buffalo_with_oxpecker_(2)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215670769 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/African_buffalo_with_oxpecker&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=942747418 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/John_Cage&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214531087 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Happy_Chandler&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1184458215 here]. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :OK, I've deleted '''two''' &lt;small&gt;small&lt;/small&gt; humorous comments on nominations (''not'' those of ''FatCat69'') currently listed at [[WP:FPC]], leaving '''11''' serious and constructive comments of mine. I suppose user ''FatCat69'' might feel ill-disposed toward me because of (serious) critical comments I've posted about a few of his nominations, and I suggest that he and I agree not to engage in any continuing disputation, but seek to cooperate from now on. (Further, I would agree to a &quot;no contact&quot; direction covering the two of us.) -- [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 20:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I agree. I really don’t mind the criticism. After all, ''instructive'' criticism is how things get done. That said, it’s the jokes that bother me, I don’t think that FPC (and other areas) is the right place for joking, as it can sometimes come off as a bit disrespectful. I usually don’t mind humor, as long as it’s kept respectful and in the right place and time. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Personally I think the jokes are funny. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 21:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support''' no contact as this report seems unnecessary and is likely indicative of larger beef. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 20:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : '''Comment''' A German with a sense of humor, and an American without. The world has gone mad, I tell you, MAD! &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 20:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :OP, did you make any attempt to discuss your concerns with Sca? It appears that you skipped that step and jumped directly to proposing a tban. [[User:Lepricavark|L&lt;small&gt;EPRICAVARK&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;]]) 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I don't know if a FPC topic ban is needed yet, but it is disappointing that Sca appears to be repeating at another Main Page venue the same kind of behavior that got them partially blocked from [[WP:ITN/C]]. It certainly would not help any future appeal of that sanction. They previously promised to regard ITN as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive349#Appeal_of_partial_block_on_Sca &quot;serious business, not a venue for jokes or personal comments&quot;]; perhaps they should take the same attitude towards FPC as well. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 00:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I’ve got to be honest, but it’s because of Sca’s persistent nasty behavior that I have pondered on the concept of no longer contributing to FPC. It’s not just my nominations that he posts snarky comments on, it’s everyone. Very seldomly does he post actually useful comments. Unless he can get his act together, I feel that FPC would be a much better and more welcoming place without him. I also feel that the other users in this conversation are wholly ignoring the fact that Sca was blocked from ITN ''twice'' for this type of behavior. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 10:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I get that they are not treating the nominations with the seriousness you'd like to see, but it seems extreme to describe that as {{tq|persistent nasty behavior}}, as it seems pretty mild. Like others, I'm wondering why you didn't raise this with them at their talkpage instead of going straight to ANI. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 15:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::FatCat96 did raise the issue with them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASca&amp;diff=1196671107&amp;oldid=1195156259 here on January 18] but was immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sca&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1196671107 reverted by Sca]. A less confrontational tone from FatCat may have had more success, perhaps. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 15:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Yeah, that wasn't an attempt to discuss so much as it was a belligerent ultimatum. OP should have tried a more collegial approach. [[User:Lepricavark|L&lt;small&gt;EPRICAVARK&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;]]) 17:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Thanks, I chuckled at a few of these. If users get blocked ''for making harmless jokes'', it's dark day for Wikipedia. [[User:Cremastra|🌺 Cremastra ]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 20:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I think you should read [[WP:Humor]]. It states:<br /> ::* {{tq|Humor is sometimes misinterpreted}}<br /> ::* {{tq|Irresponsible humor damages Wikipedia's credibility}}<br /> ::* {{tq|Not everyone is looking for humor}}<br /> ::* {{tq|What one may find hilarious, another may find offensive}}<br /> ::I believe that Sca's jokes fall into several of these categories. These may not be true for everyone, but one should certainly remain mindful of these (which I think it's pretty obvious Sca does not) when commenting these &quot;humorous&quot; comments. One could easily misinterpret Sca's &quot;humorous&quot; comments as hateful, rude, or offensive. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 05:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[[WP:HUMOUR]] is an essay, and an absurdly stringent one at that. [[User:Cremastra|🌺 Cremastra ]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 12:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I don’t know… I think it makes some pretty valid points. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 12:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == [[User:Mann Mann]]'s vandalism on [[Central Asia]] ==<br /> <br /> I gave Mann Mann his first warning in edit history, second warning in my own user chat history, third warning on his own page. I noticed an entry that said Central Asia were predominantly Iranian before the 10th century. In the reference, this was a claim made by Ferdowsi in Shahnameh and only valid south of Amu Darya(disputed if it is even in Central Asia.) So I fixed that. That's the reference keeps trying to revert back to, it is from Ferdowsi in the reference and only refers to south of Amu Darya, not ALL of Central Asia. I added my own contributions towards Botai Culture and Tiele people. Mann Mann just keeps vandalizing ALL of my well-referenced edits by reverting. He should be at least banned from [[Central Asia]] and other related pages.<br /> [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This appears to be a content dispute, see the discussion on the Help Desk. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Mann_Mann_keeps_vandalizing_my_edits_in_Central_Asia._What_to_do?] TheLastUbykh has already been asked to read [[WP:VANDAL]], and to '''discuss the matter on the article talk page''', apparently to no effect. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I already started a talk in regarding that source by Ferdowsi. That should resolve that part. <br /> ::This is also about Mann Mann's vandalism of my other edits in that page. He down righted deleted my contributions in regarding Botai Culture and Tiele. <br /> ::&quot;The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. &quot; [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], you started a discussion (not a good faith discussion, but at least you started one) at [[Talk:Central Asia]], then immediately restored the disputed content, posted at Help Desk, posted a warning at [[User talk:Mann Mann]], then opened this thread, as well as repeating it at [[WP:AIV]] and [[User talk: Michael D. Turnbull]]. Mann Mann hasn't even edited since you started the discussion on the article talk page; you need to wait and give other editors time to respond before escalating matters so rapidly. (By the way, &quot;warnings&quot; in edit summaries are meaningless.) [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Look, I just did what he did. He didn't start a talk in regarding my edits either.<br /> ::And unlike him, I am new to this and went to help desk to proceed. I don't see how that's not in good faith. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], wait for Mann Mann to respond at the article talk page and work out the content dispute there. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], you also failed to notify Mann Mann of this discussion. Please go to the top of this page, read the large banner, and follow its instructions. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I did leave a message to his username talk page. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], '''read the red banner at the top of the page. Follow those instructions.''' [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::And I did that after reading your first post. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::When you said you'd left a message on Mann Mann's talk page, you had, but not the proper ANI notification. You posted that to their talk page at the same time that I repeated the statement about the instructions at the top of the page. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{nacc}} The OP had discussed this topic earlier at [[Wikipedia:Help desk#Mann Mann keeps vandalizing my edits in Central Asia. What to do?|the help desk]], and I haven't been impressed with how they've been navigating the problem. What started off as a content dispute over the reliability of some sources soon devolved into an accusation of [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] against Mann Mann, but looking at some of the target's relevant edits, such as [[Special:Diff/1215606808|this one]] as well as [[Special:Diff/1215695930|this one]], they were concerned about possible [[WP:OR|original research]] and other policy contraventions, something that is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia. —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::there is no original research, shahnameh by ferdowsi is the original historical document for the claim. keep going back to references between arabic and western researchers after 10th century, it keeps going back to this 'historical' document. the references they use, goes back to those same arabic and western researchers with this claim of Central Asia being Iranian majority. What we discuss is that Iranian languages eventually replaced Chinese as the franca lingua due to trade. And that they were Iranian-speaking, not Iranian majority besides lands south of Amu Darya, which I included in my edit that would include Sogdians.<br /> ::this was an easy discussion on a classroom setting but I don't have my phd(or a phd) to easily recognize to all these sources. so the time strain keeps getting bigger than the scope I initially thought it would be so I am questioning my commitment level at this point. I might add those to the talk page and wash my own hands off until someone nerdier comes along. <br /> ::anyways, there is no reason still for the removal of my Botai and Tiele contributions. that I considered a vandalism. he didn't just dispute those parts but removed my contributions unrelated to Ferdowsi. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 10:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Wikipedia is based on [[WP:RS]], not our own conclusions. You added info under citations that did not support it. This is still [[WP:OR]] / [[WP:SYNTH]]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 12:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::there is no personal conclusions, only a question of use of primary or secondary sources. secondary resources in academia, especially when those secondary resources use references that were secondary resources themselves from a time with less academic integrity. <br /> ::::again, this claim goes back to shahnameh, through following the references and going back to other articles and books published in 19th and 20th century that use shahnameh as a reference to try to push this claim. <br /> ::::[[shahnameh]] is the primary source. the main historical document of this long-standing and wrong claim, that has no prior basis before 10th century and contradicts earlier Chinese historical records that are also primary sources. period. this is what we study in our eastern asian studies departments. it is &quot;paris is the capital of France&quot; in the current mainstream Academic consensus. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 12:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You're proving my point. Please read [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 13:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> '''Comment''' Besides personal attacks, TheLastUbykh is also misusing sources per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Central_Asia#Mann_Mann_is_vandalizing_my_edits_in_regarding_Botai_Culture_and_Tiele_in_this_page.]. You don't need to know the Wiki rules to know that misusing sources is bad. [[WP:OUCH]]? --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> My reverts on [[Central Asia]] were justified. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215606808 the first revert], I restored the most clean/acceptable revision before the mess (including your edits). I did not restore my revision and I even restored the correct contribution that I reverted.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215263441][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215607017] In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215695930 the second revert], my mistake was not writing a better edit summary to convince you taking your concerns to [[Talk:Central Asia]], but the revert itself was the right decision. On the other hand, you started edit warring[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215714757] and launched a crusade/quest by calling me vandal.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215707854][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215714192][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215723939] You even used log-in/log-out method (editing as IP) to push your edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215492100] and targeting me.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215706954] Was I harsh? Maybe. But your [[Special:Contributions/TheLastUbykh|contributions]] show some kind of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. Also, your report and your comments are just [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. Yeah, I was a vandal since August 2012[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&amp;page=User%3AMann+Mann] that you discovered me. --[[User:Mann Mann|Mann Mann]] ([[User talk:Mann Mann|talk]]) 16:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Anyway, I don't edit/patrol Central Asia for a while because I'm not interested in working with [[Talk:Central Asia#Mann Mann is vandalizing my edits in regarding Botai Culture and Tiele in this page.|someone who doesn't even know how to open a discussion without harassment and personal attack]]. I let other editors reach a consensus. --[[User:Mann Mann|Mann Mann]] ([[User talk:Mann Mann|talk]]) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm very concerned that TheLastUbykh is trying to justify their edits, which means they will likely do it again, and thus get reported to ANI again. In these type of topics, we commonly have new users who make some sort of disruption and get blocked. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 15:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == NewImpartial - BLP discussion touching GENSEX ==<br /> <br /> I wanted to ask whether [[User:Newimpartial]] exceeded their [[WP:RESTRICT|editing restriction]] by participating in a BLPN discussion about Tim Hunt's alleged sexism or sexist comments about women in science and making more than two comments per day.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215544653][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215660109][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215672946][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215683633] This particular controversy would seem to fall under GENSEX as raised earlier at ANI by another user.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215377951] [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Addendum: I'm missing a diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215740145] [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 03:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Your last diff comes more than 24 hours after your first diff, though. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 03:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yes, but within 24 hours of the others. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 03:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{tq|they may however reply to questions provided the answer is reasonably short and they may add very brief clarifications of their own comments}}<br /> :Your links appear to be specifically two comments left in that discussion. And then two short replies to responses from others to those original comments. That appears to be perfectly within the wording of their editing restriction. [[User:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: dimgrey;&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;seren&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::What about the GENSEX topic ban, a separate restriction in itself? [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 02:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Wasn't that GENSEX ban regarding LGBT topics, particularly transgender topics and gender? Was it really meant to cover anything involving women and sexism in addition? Would that also include literally anything involving women's or men's rights? Feminism? Ect? I don't believe it was meant to be that broad, unless I'm misreading the prior discussion. [[User:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: dimgrey;&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;seren&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::That's why I asked. [[WP:GENSEX]] expressly references [[Gamergate (harassment campaign)]], which was about sexism in gaming. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 02:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::So it's...complicated. After doing some digging through the [[WP:ARCA]] archives, I came across a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 82#Clarification_request: GamerGate (March 2015)|GamerGate clarification request from March 2015]] about whether the topic of [[campus rape]] would fall under the then GamerGate discretionary sanctions. After reading the arbiter views from that request, and the two article revisions linked [[Special:PermaLink/1215781924#Tim Hunt|BLPN discussion]] I could see this content dispute plausibly being considered within the GENSEX content area, as it is dealing with remarks that were described as sexist, which would be considered a gender-related dispute.<br /> :::::However, despite the text of GENSEX stating that {{tq|Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people}} are the scope of the sanction, it's not immediately obvious from the four listed clarifications in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case (February_2021)|motion to transfer GamerGate to the GENSEX shell case]], nor my own personal experience editing within the content area that this would be in scope. Two of the clarifications (1 and 3) deal with transgender related disputes, and the other two (2 and 4) deal with disputes relating systemic bias and the [[WT:GGTF|Gender Gap Task Force]], and it's not immediately obvious from skimming the text just how broadly we interpret the term {{tq|gender-related dispute or controversy}}. By and large most of the disruption we see in GENSEX is restricted to content relating to trans and non-binary people and topics, with some spill-over to GamerGate and related articles. The last non-trans, non-GamerGate GENSEX sanction I can quickly spot in [[WP:AELOG]] was the semi-protection of [[Manosphere]] and [[Men Going Their Own Way]] in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#GamerGate_(superseded_by_Gender_and_sexuality)|June and July 2020]] respectively. If other editors agree with my reading of the 2015 clarification request, I'd say that this TBAN violation is a plausibly an accidental one. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 03:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I don't have an opinion on whether this violates any specific editing restriction, but I think it would be odd to say that content related to debates about systemic sexism '''don't''' fall under {{tq|gender-related disputes or controversies}}. Restricting the scope to the four clarifications would seem to open up a pretty big loophole in the topic, even if it's in a subsection that doesn't see a lot of admin action. [[User:CarringtonMist|CarringtonMist]] ([[User talk:CarringtonMist|talk]]) 12:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::&lt;p&gt;I have to agree with CarringtonMist, I didn't participate in any arbcom case and as a non-admin I don't have to be that familiar with the details. But I've always understood that it was decided in the GamerGate arbcom case that because it was primarily about harassment arising due to commentary sexism and portrayal of cis-women in games with criticism over feminism etc; with a less focus on other issues like LGB, race etc and other so called social justice issues, arbcom wanted to ensure that if similar issues cropped up in other areas they would be covered. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I mention cis-women and LGB, because AFAIK at the time there was only very little focus on transgender and non binary characters. So I'm fairly sure the concern was about issues like misogyny, sexism and the portrayal of women etc with the gender related wording and little to do with transgender issues. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Eventually the GamerGate decision was merged with the Sexology one which had dealt with transgender issues since it was decided it would be simpler to deal with them with one DS area. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It does seem to be true there has been little dispute outside of transgender related issues recently, but that applies even when we consider GamerGate until the recent blowup with Sweet Baby. Note there was a recent case which dealt with the restriction on MGTOW [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&amp;diff=1195025878&amp;oldid=1195025792#GalantFan] but outside of that from what I saw in 2023 until this year, the only non transgender related example was 3-5 stuff all to do with Brianna Wu. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also I had a quick look at the comments here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision&amp;oldid=645127421] seem to agree with my view about fears this sort of stuff would spread to other areas. I think the current extreme focus on transgender issues is sort of reflective of the modern world especially US-UK but Sweet Baby shows it's not the only possible area where stuff can happen. While Sweet Baby might be fairly tied to GamerGate, I don't think it's actually that easy to separate these sort of sexism issues even if the particular case of Tim Hunt is maybe somewhat disconnected. However it's the sort of thing where I suspect there could easily be a similar blow up especially if things had been different e.g. more recent, in the US and the person who made the comments had doubled down on them. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 17:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/p&gt;<br /> :::For the record, I looked again at the text of [[WP:GENSEX]] before posting, and didn't see anything relevant to the [[Tim Hunt]] discussion at [[WP:BLPN]]. <br /> :::(Also, I don't know whether {{u|GoodDay}} intended an oblique reference to me by raising his question at ANI, but if he did, that seems to me to be worth discussing.) [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::The question was for myself. As I was debating on whether or not to get involved in the content being discussed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :If this is considered covered by GENSEX, I propose that rather than sanction NewImpartial we narrow their topic ban to &quot;transgender issues, broadly defined&quot;. To the best of my knowledge, the issues that resulted in the topic ban did not extend beyond that, and I see no reason why they can’t participate in this debate and others like it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support'''. &quot;Transgender issues, broadly defined&quot; is broad enough. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 09:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support''' as well. The edits are plausibly in violation of the &quot;GamerGate part&quot; of GENSEX, but that's also clearly not what NewImpartial's topic ban was actually about. [[User:Endwise|Endwise]] ([[User talk:Endwise|talk]]) 09:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support''' an explicit narrowing of the topic ban as described above. The conduct that warranted the ban was in a specific area, and it doesn't make sense to impose a rule more broad than that. Edit-warring and bludgeoning behavior on articles about trans or anti-trans activists should not disqualify an editor from, e.g., wiki-gnoming edits to biographies of long-dead cis women mathematicians. [[User:XOR&amp;#39;easter|XOR&amp;#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&amp;#39;easter|talk]]) 16:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support''' narrowing the topic-ban. None of the discussion when the topic-ban was placed touched on any part of the topic area except transgender issues, so a ban that goes beyond that seems punitive. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 05:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose any action''' - I'm not certain if the page-in-question falls under the GenSex area. PS - My question was based on whether or not I wanted to get involved with the topic being discussed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose''', because the whole Tim Hunt discussion on Wikipedia has been a shambles dominated by forum-hopping, unpleasantness, bludgeoning, inability to listen, and attempts to get the other side banned. And to be clear I'm talking about behaviour on both sides of the argument. It has been so unpleasant that I dropped out, for fear of landing up here myself. Regardless of the good or bad motivation of the current ANI, it is vital that ANI is not permitted to become a weapon in a content dispute. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 13:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose''' per Elemimele, I shouldn't have peeked, I am on a break mainly because of this toxic environment. Though I did wonder myself whether perhaps a warning was warranted that this was a violation of the topic ban, albeit inadvertent. As I note above, ANI is being abused as a weapon to remove opposition. Intervention is badly needed to fix this toxic editing before it results in an arbcom case. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 13:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|ANI is being abused as a weapon to remove opposition}} [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_removal_of_NPOV_tag_by_JayBeeEll|Astonishing]]. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : '''Oppose''' action except for '''Support narrowing of topic ban'''. I voted against imposing this topic ban in the first place but if it's going to exist it should at least be targeted a little more narrowly than ''this''. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose action''' except for '''Support narrowing of topic ban'''. There's enough ambiguity here that if there is a TBAN violation, it's an entirely unintentional one. I also would support narrowing Newimpartial's topic ban to just &quot;transgender issues, broadly construed&quot; as that is more representative of the specific issues raised in the discussion that lead to it being placed. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :It seems pretty clear that participating in a discussion about Tim Hunt's sexism allegations fall squarely within {{tq|Gender-related disputes or controversies}}. That's been the scope of the topic area as far back as the Gamergate arbcom case, which included {{tq|any gender-related dispute or controversy}} as a separate item from Gamergate itself, along with people associated with either of them. There's also a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 122#Clarification request: Gender and sexuality|2022 ARCA]] initiated by {{u|Sideswipe9th}} that confirms the scope includes non-trans/nonbinary people, and those four numbered points are only there to preserve previous clarifications rather than being the whole scope. That said, I agree it seems plausible that this was a misunderstanding by Newimpartial. Absent any evidence of further violations, or that the edits themselves were disruptive, I don't think any sanction stronger than a reminder/warning is needed. As a side note, if {{u|Newimpartial}} would like to appeal part or all of their sanction, they should make a specific request in it's own discussion thread. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 21:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : I agree with others that this discussion is inside the locus of the CTOP, but also I think Newimpartial's behavior in the discussion has been exemplary and I think that the natural response to this pair of facts is the narrowing of the topic-ban. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support reminder/warning''' at most. '''Oppose narrowing of the topic ban'''. Broadly per the rationale provided by {{noping|The Wordsmith}}, above. Clearly within scope of the topic ban; and reasonably expected to be understood to be so. Unconvinced that skirting the fringes (from the inside) should result in reducing the scope. Behaviour in the linked diffs is verging towards that which resulted in the ban. Not particularly enamoured of the tone nor personal focus of this [[Special:Diff/1215740145|diff]]. But do not believe that the evidence presented warrants sanctions beyond a reminder/warning. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 01:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Hello, Rotary Engine. I have pasted the entirety of the diff you cite into the collapsed section here:<br /> {{Cot|content of diff Rotary Engine linked juat above}}<br /> Thomas B., you haven't produced any support for your opinion that &quot;Hunt is not sexist&quot; beyond your own interpretation of primary source opinions quoted by Fox. That simply isn't a reason to insert any such statment in the article, which appears to be your goal here.<br /> I know you believe that Hunt is not sexist, but that opinion simply is not relevant to article content which must be based on independent, secondary sources to the greatest extent possible. What is more, you insert into your latest comment the [[Gävle goat|straw goat]] question whether Hunt has &quot;hindered any female scientist in her career&quot; - which isn't really relevant to this article or even the controversy, as far as I can tell.<br /> Inserting editors' opinions into article text is a violation of [[WP:NPOV]] and also [[WP:BLP]]. Contrary to the impression some editors seem to hold, BLP policies do not encourage a treatment of living people that says the nicest thing possible about them, but rather they must be treated according to the [[WP:BALANCE]] of [[WP:HQRS]], and the current article appears to so so.<br /> {{cob}}<br /> ::I would appreciate, as a neurodivergent editor, if someone could explain to me what about the {{tq|tone}} or {{tq|personal focus}} of the diff seems problematic. Is it the use of the second person in the first two paragraph, for example? Or my word choice at {{tq|There simply isn't a reason}}? I am here to learn and to do better. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Your tone was proportionate, I think I would tone it similarly if I were you. People should be confronted over disruptive editing if softer means fail to carry the point across, which certainly has been the case here. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 12:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This seems like a stretch to put Tin Hunt's topic under a topic ban on GENSEX that was born from trans related topics. It seems that most here feel that the edits in question were not a violation of the tban and I suspect it's because most editors, like I do, see a big gap between the topics that resulted in the tban and the Tim Hunt topic. My proposed solution would be to say the GENSEX topic doesn't cover the Tim Hunt discussion. Alternatively perhaps the GENSEX topic should be split up a bit. Denying an accusation of sexism is quite a bit different than arguing if someone/thing is transphobic. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I agree that GENSEX should be split up just in general. Disruption about feminism, feminist issues, and sexism is not the same thing as disruption about LGBT issues. Editors with a history of disruption in one area can certainly contribute productively to the other. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:Springee|Springee]] I don't think the whole of [[:Tim Hunt]] falls under GENSEX; just the bits that relate to a {{tq|gender-related dispute or controversy}}. And, for mine, arguing if someone is sexist is ''very'' similar to arguing if someone is transphobic.<br /> ::@[[User:LokiTheLiar|LokiTheLiar]] A well phrased request at ARCA might result in such a split; though I would consider that on more than a few occasions, editors disruptive w.r.t. the feminism aspects are also disruptive w.r.t. the sexuality aspects. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Warning''' I've always considered based on the wording that contentious topic restriction is intended to apply to stuff like this, and so would think any topic ban from the whole area is the same. I have no comment on whether it's need, and if someone wants to ask arbcom to clarify/limit it to only the Gamergate style stuff I have no problem with that. Likewise I agree it might have made sense to limit NewImpartial's topic ban to only gender-identity and sexuality related issues, but that wasn't what we did. So until any of this happens, NewImpartial needs to stay away from the dispute. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Inappropriate comments ==<br /> <br /> Could an admin review these two comments here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn#March_2024] -[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 03:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> As well as this comment here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADreameditsbrooklyn&amp;diff=1206421399&amp;oldid=1201187430] (Context: [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/deez-nuts]) -[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 04:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brigham_Young&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215782221 this one]. The only reason I'm not blocking immediately is the tenure of the user. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''&lt;span style=&quot;color:#8b00ff;&quot;&gt;Eve&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#6528c2;&quot;&gt;rgr&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3f5184;&quot;&gt;een&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#197947;&quot;&gt;Fir&lt;/span&gt;''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 04:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Note this is one of the two comments I referred to above. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 04:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Perhaps [[Special:Diff/1215175271|&lt;this&gt;]] might have something to do with it, admittedly not the same days. &amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8093:5F01:AD1F:D79E:FFC5:945B|2804:F1...C5:945B]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:8093:5F01:AD1F:D79E:FFC5:945B|talk]]) 04:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I recommend ignoring this unless there is evidence of an ongoing problem. {{user|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} wrote &quot;this guy liked to fuck, huh?&quot; on an article talk page. That very inappropriate comment was quickly reverted. It relates to [[Brigham Young]] (1847–1877) who had at least 56 wives and 57 children. I would not write the comments seen at [[User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn#Stubs]] but they are ok. If there is some problem regarding edits at stubs, that problem should be spelled out. The glowing signature comment is again ok: it's an understandable reaction to an inappropriate signature. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The comment on the user talk page is concerning to me as I interpret it as disrespectful and it pertains to personal religious beliefs. Also the fact that the user the comment was directed towards is going through a difficult time right now — in a situation involving their religious affiliations — is a compounding factor for me, although it's unclear if Dreameditsbrooklyn was aware of this. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 05:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Maybe I'm being too dramatic; the user seems simply immature and not malicious after all. But still, comments like these have to stop. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 05:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The &quot;deez&quot; remark is an obvious reference to &quot;deez nuts&quot; memes which derive from the lyrics of a 30 year old [[Dr. Dre]] gangsta rap song that discusses a woman's facial contact with testicles while performing fellatio. It is an inappropriate allusion to use while interacting with another editor. The question to a self-identified LDS church member about what it feels like to be Mormon is creepy, intrusive and inappropriate. The comment about Brigham Young's enthusiasm for intercourse is unnecessarily profane, unproductive and provocative. None of these remarks was intended to help improve the encyclopedia, and instead serve to unnecessarily irritate people. I was inclined to block Dreameditsbrooklyn, but decided to ask for input from other editors, and a statement from Dreameditsbrooklyn. I would expect a commitment to refrain from such provocative comments in the future, since they do not help to improve the encyclopedia in any discernable way. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I sincerely apologize for these remarks. It will not happen again. I am sorry for causing other editors to waste their time addressing the matter. [[User:Dreameditsbrooklyn|Dreameditsbrooklyn]] ([[User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn|talk]]) 11:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Don't sweat it, I don't think you had bad intentions. But don't let it happen again though and hopefully we can all walk away from this having learned something; Dreameditsbrooklyn learning to be more professional, especially when it comes to sensitive personal matters like a user's religious beliefs, and myself having learned the history — in great detail — of the deez nuts meme. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 12:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Selo007 are using talk pages to attack BLPs ==<br /> {{user|Selo007}}<br /> <br /> * {{pagelinks|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability}}<br /> * [[Special:Diff/1215793401|Comment]]<br /> This does not contribute to the project--[[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 05:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Indef''' This person seems a key example of [[WP:NOTHERE]] - Wikipedia is not a place to obsess over microscopic details of photographs of BLPs. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I used Verifiability (V) and Neutral point of view (NPOV)<br /> *:unlike the editors<br /> *:Im currently requestion a second opinion based on bias [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 00:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::We used verifiability and NPOV. You used [[WP:BLP|BLP]] violations. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:default;color:#246BCE;&quot;&gt;Liliana&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;&quot;&gt;UwU&lt;/span&gt;]]''''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])&lt;/sup&gt; 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Still not blocked--[[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 22:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Clearly and unambiguously [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Seems to have mistaken Wikipedia for Reddit. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 00:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Indeffed for competency, IDHT, RGW, using WIkipedia as a forum, and imagining that Wikipedia evaluates sources based on close examination of someone's tattoos. This is a regular admin action, not an arbitration enforcement action. '''&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Arial;&quot;&gt;[[User:Acroterion|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black;&quot;&gt;Acroterion&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;[[User talk:Acroterion|&lt;span style=&quot;color: gray;&quot;&gt;(talk)&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 12:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Editor Rhain, Aquillion and Dumuzid missuing power to shut down peoples opinions. ===<br /> <br /> <br /> Missuse of [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view|NPOV]] and [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability|V]]<br /> On [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Baby_Inc.]] &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Selo007|contribs]]) 01:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;<br /> <br /> Ignoring fact given by other non elevated editors.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Using non verifiable information. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Using hearsay. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Taking one side. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Refuse to listen to other side. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Dont add factual information. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Locks talkpage so people cant dispute editors (not just me) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Would like a third opinion to check without relying on opinions from a newsarticle that is written by a arguably biased person.<br /> &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Selo007|contribs]]) 00:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;<br /> <br /> :{{ec}} @[[User:Selo007|Selo007]], you are '''required''' to notify editors when you take them to ANI. I have done so for you. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;'''—asparagusus'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#682&quot;&gt;(interaction)&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Asparagusus/Sprouts|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;''sprouts!''&lt;/sup&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Also, do you have any [[WP:DIFF|diffs]] that prove these editors have violated policies? Making a new section will not help with you potentially being blocked. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;'''—asparagusus'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#682&quot;&gt;(interaction)&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Asparagusus/Sprouts|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;''sprouts!''&lt;/sup&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Its all covered by people in talkpage<br /> :::Its very long to list all of them<br /> :::Some things include adding that harrassment started with attacks from SBI against an individual called Kabrutus, with evidence.<br /> :::And that the harrassmentclaims againt Kotaku can not be verified and instead added as facts. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 01:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Instead they insist on using quotes from a journalist that has a questionable racist agenda (evidence) and that tries to harass and doxx people for writing hitpieces. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 01:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::thank you [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 01:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I guess I have so much power that I can't keep track of it all, because I don't recall being able to lock talk pages! I am pretty powerful when it comes to hearsay, though, if I do say so myself. The gravamen of the complaint here seems to be that I like to stick to Wikipedia's policies of preferring reliable secondary sources, and to that accusation, I admit my guilt. Cheers, all. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I take the blame. I forgot to mention that to him [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 02:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::&lt;small&gt;[[User:Trade|Trade]], that's okay! They should've read the guidelines and huge banner anyways. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;'''—asparagusus'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#682&quot;&gt;(interaction)&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Asparagusus/Sprouts|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;''sprouts!''&lt;/sup&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (reposting because I accidentally made half of ANI smalltext haha)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :For the record, I am not an administrator and (obviously) was not the one who ECPed the talk page; although I queryed ArbCom to make sure it could happen, it occurred independently of that. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> There's nothing actionable here, and this report by Selo007 appears to be an abuse of process that frankly merits [[WP:BOOMERANG]] sanctioning. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :At it's core there is an fundamental misunderstanding on how Wikipedia articles are supposed to work and how RS works on Wikipedia [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 02:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * As far as I can tell, I've never interacted with Selo007 before directly, but I'd agree a boomerang of some sort (at least a topic-ban from this topic area) is called for based on their repeated BLP violations, eg. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215797429&amp;oldid=1215793401&amp;title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Reliability][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215781814&amp;oldid=1213261466&amp;title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Reliability][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215413986&amp;oldid=1215409250&amp;title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.]; they seem to be basing this on YouTube videos (the second-to-last diff) and Twitter posts (the last diff). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215799757&amp;oldid=1215732825&amp;title=User_talk:Blaze_Wolf This] isn't great either. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Feel free to block me, im not that active anyways. &lt;br&gt;<br /> :All i want is for third opinion to take a second look at that wikipedia page since its riddled with reliable sources (Kotaku is case to case and the one writing the article should be taken under consideration when the person its doxxing, harrassing, asking people for fights and is using questionable racist slurs)<br /> :* Using hearsay such as &quot;Sweet Baby's employees faced harassment and attempted doxing in response to the backlash,&quot; when there is no evidence of such its a breach of NPOV and V.<br /> :* &quot;Others who faced harassment included Kotaku's reporter who first highlighted the backlash&quot; also hearsay and breach of NPOV and V.<br /> :* &quot;Ash Parrish felt the Discord members were not attempting to &quot;create meaningful change for their cause&quot; but were &quot;simply there for the vibes, rancid though they are&quot; again, should be questioned if its a reliable source when Parrish ha admitted she writes articles based on the own agenda even if its not true, even going against her editors But i guess you will just use BPL to shut that down.<br /> :* &quot;Bryant Francis urged Steam and Discord to clarify their policies to avoid similar incidents and further harassment.&quot; again, no evidence of harrassment.<br /> :* There’s no mention it started with Sweet Baby inc employee Chris Kindred starting an actual online harassment campaign to cancel the Steam Sweet Baby Inc. Detected group to get them shut down and attacking an individual to harm them.<br /> :* There is no mention of Chris Kindreds twitter account getting blocked by Twitter for said harrassment.<br /> :[[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 06:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I can assure you, this noticeboard [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Eyes needed at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.|is]] [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive479#User:TE(æ)A,ea. reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Page protected)|well]] [[WP:ANI#Discriminatory behavior from Mechabot5 at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.|aware]] of the article. The examples you're referring to are not &quot;hearsay&quot;, and they ''do'' have &quot;evidence&quot;: the references. Wikipedia is not a courtroom. We don't need to see [[WP:PRIMARY|examples of harassment]] to determine if someone was actually harassed (that would be [[WP:OR|original research]]); if [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] say they were, then we say they were. The same goes for Kindred's activities: if they are detailed in reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]] sources, then they will likely be detailed on Wikipedia as well; until then, there is no place for that information here.{{pb}}If you feel the article is unbalanced or incorrect, that's fine, but unless you can point to actionable changes based on policy and guidelines—and especially supported by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]—then there's nothing to be done. Wikipedia is not the place to [[WP:RGW|right great wrongs]]; it is just here to report information as the sources do. If those sources are wrong, it's not our job to correct them. Nor is it our place to [[Special:Diff/1215799757|make]] [[Special:Diff/1215967983|claims]] about [[WP:BLPREMOVE|other people]], no many how strongly [[WT:FACT#Alyssa Mercante|you disagree]] with their tattoos or personal tweets. &lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;– [[User:Rhain|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #008;&quot;&gt;'''''Rhain'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Rhain|☔]] &lt;small&gt;([[he/him]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 07:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Your own page [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] states &quot;editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, '''and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering'''<br /> :::The writer of the Kotaku article is very biased.<br /> :::Questionable sources also says &quot;Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for '''checking the facts''' or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and '''publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist''', that are promotional in nature, or '''that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions'''. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.<br /> :::Any reliable sources that people try to add are shut down by the same editors of the page that is beeing critisized.<br /> :::When one is added, they want another, moving the goalposts. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 09:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::And where exactly, beyond some forum for drool-covered semi-literate conspiracy theorists, would we find evidence that Kotaku content is &quot;widely acknowledged as extremist&quot;? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Isnt Kotaku supposed be &quot;case by case&quot; and not Kotaku as a whole.<br /> :::::The writer of the article is known for having extremist views.<br /> :::::WOuld like to be clear im not for extremism be it right or left. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 09:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Please either provide actual verifiable evidence, '''citing published reliable sources''', that either Kotaku, or one of its contributors, is &quot;widely acknowledged as extremist&quot; or withdraw the allegation immediately. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::I would say saying &quot;you cant be racist against white people&quot; is quite an extreme opinion. [[Special:Contributions/2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F|2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F]] ([[User talk:2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F|talk]]) 00:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Your opinion is not a &quot;published reliable source&quot;. &lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;– [[User:Rhain|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #008;&quot;&gt;'''''Rhain'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Rhain|☔]] &lt;small&gt;([[he/him]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::As Rhain, says, of course, but substantively, this is actually a known opinion, and often provokes outrage without full understanding. The basic concept is that while people can be racially prejudiced against white people, the lack of a systemic power structure means it is not 'racism.' No one has to agree with that, but I would not describe it as an extreme opinion. A fuller discussion can be found here:[https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism]. Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *What power? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 07:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:With apologies to David Bowie, the power of voodoo! [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 14:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm a necromancer myself. And you? '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:default;color:#246BCE;&quot;&gt;Liliana&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;&quot;&gt;UwU&lt;/span&gt;]]''''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])&lt;/sup&gt; 21:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Blocked user spamming their own talk page ==<br /> <br /> <br /> *{{userlinks|YuseraRCL}}<br /> Recently blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —[[User:Bruce1ee|Bruce1ee]][[User talk:Bruce1ee|&lt;sup&gt;''talk''&lt;/sup&gt;]] 09:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :YuseraRCL added advertising spam to their talk page three times after their advertising block. I've removed their Talk page access. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: tahoma;&quot;&gt; — [[User:CactusWriter|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#008000&quot;&gt;Cactus&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CC5500&quot;&gt;Writer &lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:CactusWriter|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 16:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == MateuszCOMPANY - edit warring, copyvios ==<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|MateuszCOMPANY}}<br /> <br /> This user has taken ownership of [[FSO Polonez]]. While their English is limited that is easily fixed. However, they also insist on uploading a loooong list of how many cars were exported to each country, which I consider [[WP:CRUFT]]. More problematic, they've also uploaded dozens of copyvio images to the Commons and insist on placing them in the article. I started a [[:Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_MateuszCOMPANY|deletion request at Commons]], but it moves slowly and the user also has problems with [[WP:CIVIL]] in my estimation.<br /> <br /> Requests to heed [[WP:BRD]] are ignored, their only response so far was {{tq|Please find something else to do. I spend my time and knowledge to do something good for Wikipedia and people which want draw knowledge. If you have problem with that, report it to administration}} and continuing to restore their edits. So here we are. &lt;span style=&quot;background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;&quot;&gt;[[User:Mr.choppers|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#FDEE00;&quot;&gt;'''&amp;nbsp;Mr.choppers&amp;nbsp;&amp;#124;&amp;nbsp;'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Mr.choppers|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#FDEE00;&quot;&gt;✎&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 12:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::User continues to edit-war and is immune to reason. [[User:Ybsone|YBSOne]] ([[User talk:Ybsone|talk]]) 21:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::And still edit warring past final warning. Warned by 4 users. [[User:Ybsone|YBSOne]] ([[User talk:Ybsone|talk]]) 21:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 194.66.191.22 vandalising over 20 years, requesting perma-block ==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[User:194.66.191.22|194.66.191.22]] (HOPEFULLY I DON'T MESS UP AND POST ALL OF HIS USER TALK PAGE MESSAGES AGAIN) has been vandalising [[User talk:194.66.191.22|over a 20 year period]], and it even shows the old block notices! I'd like this IP to be perma-blocked. [[User:Waylon111|Waylon]] ([[User talk:Waylon111|was]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Waylon111|here]]) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :We don't permanently block IPs. That IP is registered to a college in the UK, as noted on their talk page. We tend to get intermittent disruptive edits from schools (as well as public libraries, Dunkin Donuts wifi, etc.) and it's not uncommon for elementary and high school IPs to be blocked for long periods of time because of this, but I would be hesitant about placing a lengthy block on a post-secondary institution over occasional vandal edits, as there's a chance that the students might be able to contribute something of value someday. [[User:Spicy|Spicy]] ([[User talk:Spicy|talk]]) 16:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Last edits were from February 1, so there's nothing actionable here at all, and they had already been warned for those edits, so your re-warning was pointless. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:SergeWoodzing]] repeated incivility at [[Talk:Where is Kate?]] ==<br /> <br /> I've stopped editing this topic area, but I can't help notice {{u|SergeWoodzing}}'s comments at [[Talk:Where is Kate?]] are breaching [[WP:CIVIL|civility policy]] and have been downright rude and unconstructive. SergeWoodzing has not edited the article once, but has posted several talkpage comments including:<br /> # {{tq|'''Shame on all of you''' who have tried to exert your own prissy importance over the Princess of Wales...'''The article must be deleted''' if you all have a single bone of decency and propriety in your bodies. With this article, English Wikedia descended to the level of the tackiest, sleaziest, most deplorable and digusting tabloid press. '''Shame on you who did that!'''}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhere_is_Kate%3F&amp;diff=1215105957&amp;oldid=1215103490 source], a comment later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2024_March_21&amp;diff=1215170208&amp;oldid=1215161835 repeated] in the DRV discussion)<br /> # {{tq|'''Oppose''' all of this. '''Delete this article!''' One brief paragraph in the article on the princess will suffice, rather than all this shameful disrespectful gossip fanaticism.}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhere_is_Kate%3F&amp;diff=1215354727&amp;oldid=1215346312 source], in reply to a requested move)<br /> # {{tq|<br /> '''The existence of this article is a horrifying embarrassment to Wikipedia!''' The question has been answered. The article title is obsolete and reads like some sort of nasty BLP harrassment, a persecution of the ill woman covered. '''WAKE UP PEOPLE''' and change this '''NOW!'''}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhere_is_Kate%3F&amp;diff=1215849769&amp;oldid=1215838763 source])<br /> The emphases are in the original. Were it not for the third comment having been posted today, suggesting continued disruption, I would not have felt compelled to file this ANI.<br /> <br /> I respect that SergeWoodzing is a highly experienced editor. Their concerns with the article are not only valid, but have been expressed several times in different venues by a broad cross-section of editors. The article is currently pending deletion review, after which it will most likely return to AfD. Nonetheless, these repeated comments feel unnecessarily uncivil and disruptive to editors working on the article in good faith.<br /> <br /> Insofar as this topic area is concerned, SergeWoodzing is [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Consider, for example, the second comment above: saying 'delete' in an RM discussion is just unhelpful, and also doesn't square with their third comment on the article's title. SergeWoodzing is experienced enough to know that these comments are best expressed at AfD, and general shaming isn't constructive, let alone when it is repeated multiple times. To that effect, I'd like to suggest a topic ban on [[Where is Kate?]] and the article talk page, while encouraging the editor to contribute, in a civil manner, to any future AfD or related process concerning the article. [[User:IgnatiusofLondon|IgnatiusofLondon]] (&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:85%;&quot;&gt;he/him&lt;/span&gt; • [[User talk:IgnatiusofLondon#top|☎️]]) 16:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Kind of hesitant to get on someone for being too vocal about raising valid BLP concerns, but SergeWoodzing's outbursts are becoming unhelpful [[WP:OWN]]ership. That said, I'm not sure a topic ban is super necessary while the deletion discussions are ongoing. Others may disagree with my take here, but I don't get the feeling that the impact of his actions is actually disrupting the process in any significant way other than perhaps being annoying to read. {{yo|SergeWoodzing}} -- you've made your position sufficiently clear. Please tone it down and maintain civility. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 19:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you! I never could have dreamed of experiencing anything so embarrassing and disagreeable and shameful, after all these years of being a proud contributor, as the way English Wikipedia has adopted the same methods and tone as the sleaziest tabloids in dealing - with the utmost disrespect - with the Princess of Wales and continuing intentionally to do so after she disclosed that she is seriously ill. To my knowledge I have never attacked any user by name, having given my opinion about shame to be taken at will by whomever chooses to to feel targeted and ignored by anyone who feels faultless. I believe that any article like [[Where is Kate?]] about a living person, no matter whom, is clearly denigrating and must be deleted without further delay. Aware of stretching text guidelines with capital letters and bold type, in my desparation to get all the many good users to react and act, I am willing to apologize sincerely for that part of it. I feel no need to comment again on those articles beyond these words. Whatever more I might have to say can never have a more constructive effect that what I already have tried to do. If it can be considered disruptive to object as vehemently as possible (i.e. without personal attacks or foul language) to very serious BLP problems, that is beyond my comprehension of one of the Wikimedia Foundation's most important rules. Sincerely, --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 20:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::PS the fact that I have not otherwise participated on these articles or talk pages, not even read most it all, has only been due to my abject fear, if seeing more than I already had, that I would be driven even more crazy than this. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 20:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Just so that I don't come across as sneaky or underhanded, I wish to put on the record that I thanked [[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] for edit number 3 above. I am no royalist (my genuine first reaction on seeing this article was to ask, &quot;Kate who?&quot;), but I too am embarrassed to be associated with an encyclopedia that has such an article. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Question''' Is this a pattern or an isolated incident? &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 04:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *[[Talk:Where is Kate?]] has a total of six comments by SergeWoodzing. None of them violate [[WP:CIVIL]] or anything else. I understand that it might be upsetting to know that someone on the internet disagrees with you, but six comments is pretty reasonable by comparison with many cases reported here. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Given that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the 'Where is Kate?' article is both a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy and an unmitigated crock of shite, it would be grossly improper to sanction anyone who points this out. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 10:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;small&gt;Perhaps they should get a Royal barnstar? [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 10:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *And I really don't get this obsession with British royalty by Americans, which is the only thing I can think of that both led to this article being created and to it being kept at AfD. Surely you/they got rid of kings about 250 years ago, and we Brits should be the only ones bothered about them? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC) {{small|P. S. I remember visiting America when the dispute between Charles and Diana came to light and those few people who believed me when I said that I didn't know either of them personally thought that I must have an opinion about the issue.}}<br /> *:Yes it's certainly the Americans' fault when your favorite family acts suspiciously and your tabloid culture subsequently makes a spectacle of it. They should really know better than to pay attention to you. The untold death wreaked in the name of that family really was all so long ago, it's just terrible they're now being gossiped about on the internet. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865|2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865]] ([[User talk:2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865|talk]]) 01:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Gossip about them all you like on the Internet, but that doesn't make what you are gossiping about a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. And, as I said above, they are far from my favourite family. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *SergeWoodzing is being vocal but is not being disruptive and no action is needed.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *The remarks complained about all seem to be fair comment to me. The proper place for an article such as this is in a tabloid newspaper, not an encyclopaedia. All that is displayed by SergeWoodzing is a bit of passion for maintaining some sort of quality standards in Wikipedia{{snd}}which is surely a desirable quality in any editor. [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] ([[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|talk]]) 22:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Sock/meat-puppetry and COI concerns regarding [[User:Guswen]] ==<br /> <br /> [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guswen|This SPI]] has been open for a couple weeks, and while I'd normally be inclined to let the specialists in such investigations get to it when they get to it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FGuswen&amp;diff=1215887284&amp;oldid=1215690899 there is a new COI concern] that, I believe, makes the situation more pressing and also suitable for having attention called to it here. [[User:XOR&amp;#39;easter|XOR&amp;#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&amp;#39;easter|talk]]) 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :In addition to sock-puppetry and COI issues, there's also recent edit-warring going on at [[Assembly theory]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assembly_theory&amp;action=history history]). I second the request for administrator attention! --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:LeeWeathers1986AV]] reported by [[User:Mvcg66b3r]] ==<br /> <br /> Disruptive editing; edit warring; uploading logos with no source or licensing info. Initially reported at [[WP:AIV]] but rebuffed.<br /> <br /> Logo examples:<br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Univision_Washington_DC_2019.png]<br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMDO-CD_(2021).png]<br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMDO-CD_(2021)29.png]<br /> <br /> Reversions of my removal of said logos: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WFDC-DT&amp;diff=1215888242&amp;oldid=1215887604] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WFDC-DT&amp;diff=1215890345&amp;oldid=1215889095] [[User:Mvcg66b3r|Mvcg66b3r]] ([[User talk:Mvcg66b3r|talk]]) 19:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :More sourceless logos: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyla_in_the_loop_logo.webp] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KFRE_2024.webp] And they're refusing to respond to my warnings on their talk page. I think this user's [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:Mvcg66b3r|Mvcg66b3r]] ([[User talk:Mvcg66b3r|talk]]) 03:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :: Most of those logos can be tagged {{tl|PD-textlogo}}. He is overusing the thank function, which is causing friction, so I left him a note about this. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 19:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Thomas B forum-shopping, circumventing page ban, refusing to drop the stick ==<br /> <br /> About a month ago, as an outcome of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207014593 ANI thread], [[User:Thomas B]] was page-blocked with strong consensus from pages [[Tim Hunt]], [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], [[Online shaming]], [[Talk:Online shaming]] for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]], [[WP:STONEWALL|stonewalling]], [[WP:BLUDGEONING|bludgeoning]], [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]], and [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING|forum shopping]] over the topic of Tim Hunt's 2015 controversy.<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, after the blocking and a monthly hiatus, the first edit Thomas B made to Wikipedia was the creation of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt yet another thread] about Tim Hunt, for the second time on [[WP:BLPN]] already. The thread resulted in another editor getting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#NewImpartial_-_BLP_discussion_touching_GENSEX reported to ANI].<br /> <br /> Comments made by Thomas B indicate an intention to continue participation and failure to understand why own behavior is disruptive. Here's two examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomas_B&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214802498] &quot;{{tq|I won't be participating '''too actively''' in any further discussion.}}&quot; and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214880952] &quot;{{tq|I looked it up before doing it. Because I'm blocked (not topic banned), this is actually '''perfectly fine'''.}}&quot; (boldings mine). &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NicolausPrime|contribs]]) 20:04 27 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :He wasn't ''banned'', he was [[WP:PB|blocked]] from 4 pages. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :[[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Article_ban_or_page_ban]] uses the term &quot;page ban&quot;, but I may be missing something so I changed this as you suggested. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You may have missed [[WP:BP|the blocking policy]]. Note that the [[User Talk:Thomas B#February 2024|notice]] on his talk page says &quot;blocked&quot;, not &quot;banned&quot;. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to get around his block. As such, both the quotes supplied seem reasonable to me. How is his participating in the discussion at BLPN disruptive? Has he reverted anyone (or was accusing him of {{tq|edit warring}} a mistake)? Could you elaborate on the forum shopping accusation? <br /> ::I can see an argument for bludgeoning, however; Thomas B had 20 replies out of 60 comments at the time of this post. More to the point, in his opening statement to the BLPN thread, he writes, {{tq|For (somewhat doggedly) insisting on this [change], I have been indefinitely blocked from editing the page myself. I bring it here in the hope that others will take a look.}}. That sounds to me like it's very close to [[WP:PROXYING]]. Combined with their [[WP:IDHT|refusal to listen]] to other editors telling them that what they're doing is bad, I think an argument could be made for their editing being disruptive. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 21:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'm not sure it's quite that simple. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207014593#Proposal_for_page_ban The original proposal] was for a &lt;s&gt;topic&lt;/s&gt; ''page'' ban, explicitly, with at my count 9 !votes in support and 3 in opposition. When the discussion was closed, however, it was closed as a &quot;block&quot;, despite the proposal having been for a ban and seemingly gained limited consensus for doing so. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Maybe I'm missing something. The section you linked was for a page ban. {{tq|To avoid spending even more time on this, I propose for Thomas Basboll to be '''page-banned''' from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages per above evidence.}} (Bolding mine.) Which, granted, means confusing a block and a ban is more understandable, but 1) the only talk of topic bans I see in that discussion is ''opposing'', and 2) even if the close was improper, I hardly think we can sanction an editor for violating a restriction that was never formally imposed, could we? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::That's my mistake -- I said topic, but meant page (edited to fix). Regardless, I agree with your point.[[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thomas B is forum-shopping because: first, after an edit war, there was an [[WP:NPOVN]] discussion started by [[User:LokiTheLiar]]. After this discussion and [[Talk:Tim Hunt]] reached a consensus Thomas B didn't agree with, Thomas B started a new thread on [[WP:BLPN]]. In the meanwhile Thomas B was reported to [[WP:ANI]], which prompted an RfC about the contentious section's content and later also the page ban (or however this should be called, I'm lost). The RfC later concluded. However Thomas B, instead of accepting the now-RfC-backed consensus, created a second [[WP:BLPN]] thread. As far as my knowledge goes, this should constitute forum shopping. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you for elaborating; I appreciate you making things clearer for me. I can see where you're coming from re: Forum Shopping. I still feel like, unless it's been done many times, the better first step is to tell the editor, &quot;Hey, this is Forum Shopping, don't do it.&quot; The solution that allows productive editing with the minimum of administrative intervention is often the best one, after all. If he continues to forum shop, then there's a solid case (with a warning!) to point to. That said, in the context of the other issues in that BLPN thread, it does make a compelling reason for a topic ban. Thanks again for elaborating! [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Thomas B was warned about own behavior multiple times, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214873854 after the page ban], and the previous ANI thread should have sent a strong signal that raising the same issue over and over again in multiple threads across multiple pages is sanctionable. The page ban vote was without consensus at first, until it changed because the disruption continued. It was all gradual, there definitely were many occassions for Thomas B to change course. I can try to be more eager to post warnings to user talk pages next time something like this happens, but this comes with its own set of problems. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Statement by Thomas B ===<br /> <br /> I thought that S Marshall's close of the RfC was sensible. I interpreted it as '''requiring''' (&quot;In practice '''the only way''' that I can see to do this...&quot;) a proportionate expansion of the rest of the article. Since I had by then already been blocked, I could not myself contribute to this work, but watched on the sidelines.<br /> <br /> After about a week, it seemed clear that the editors working on the article were ignoring Marshall's advice and had settled on a version in which the event would occupy over 20% of the article. I then checked whether a page block implies a topic ban, found it did not, and therefore raised the issue on BLPN. Since then, I have posted only in response to other editors, in many cases because they asked questions or wanted sources.<br /> <br /> While I'm happy to grant that this could have happened in any case, the immediate effect of my intervention appears to be to have brought the controversy section down to under 15% of the total word count, at least for the time being, with some editors adding material outside the section and others trimming it a little. It has certainly not led to any disruption of the article or its talk page (i.e., it has not attracted disruptive editors nor stoked up controversy there). While I still think the content decisions are unwise and contrary to BLP policy, work there seems to be proceeding in a calm and orderly manner.<br /> <br /> Editors who simply want to improve the article are entirely free to ignore me. I do not contact them on their talk pages and I have not appealed my block. The only nuisance I'm causing seems to be mediated by actions like this proposal for a topic-ban and (remarkably) a site-ban. Obviously, I would appeal any such action, leading to more time wasted by administrators, perhaps even arbitration. As in the case of the original block, this all seems very over-the-top to me.<br /> <br /> Finally, I want to say that part of the problem is that I've been away from protracted controversies here for a long time, and there appears to have been a change in the way content disputes are resolved now. In particular, I was suprised to be blocked not by '''policy''' but by '''consensus'''.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScottishFinnishRadish&amp;diff=1207382381&amp;oldid=1207380789] Most of the people who contributed to that consensus were also involved in the content dispute. It does really seem like a group of editors showed up on an article to which I have made substantial contributions[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Tim_Hunt] over many years[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Thomas+B&amp;page=Tim_Hunt&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max=], took it over and forced me out, because there was '''one thing''' they wanted to make sure the article said. I don't remember it working that way in the past.<br /> <br /> Anyway, thanks for hearing my side. I hope it is clear that my aim here is, not to be annoying, but to ensure the intergrity of Wikipedia's BLP article on Tim Hunt and, of course, in line with our policy, to prevent its subject any unnecessary pain. Best,--[[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 06:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Proposal: topic ban ===<br /> <br /> I propose for Thomas B to be topic-banned from the subjects of Tim Hunt and Online shaming, broadly construed, replacing the previously mentioned page bans. The purpose of this ban is to prevent any further skirting around the page ban.<br /> <br /> * '''Support''' as proposer. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' per my above comment. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' as my interpretation of the original block was that there was consensus for a &lt;s&gt;topic&lt;/s&gt;page ban before, and there's no indication that anything's changed. Extending that to a topic ban across a narrow set of topics isn't an unreasonable next step [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Support: the interaction [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&amp;diff=1215873249&amp;oldid=1215863476 here] is illustrative of the fact that Thomas B simply does not exhibit the capacity to comprehend that anyone could hold views different from his own on this matter; this is incompatible with constructive discussion and consensus-forming. Moreover, it is clear that Thomas B lacks the self-control necessary to stop bludgeoning discussions on this issue. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' I think Thomas B's concerns regarding the Tim Hunt page are legitimate. That doesn't mean they are the consensus view but I can see how they can make their case in good faith. I would suggest they back away and let others reply and if others don't then they need to accept that they don't have consensus. I think this sanction is counter productive as it tells someone who is concerned about a BLP issue that they should just shut up and not have brought things up. I get that sometimes editors feel like someone is objecting too much. However, editors are also free to not reply. No one is going to think a 3:1 (or what ever it actually is) consensus against Thomas B's proposed changes will magically be closed as &quot;consensus for&quot; if Thomas B is allowed to have the last word. So long as the discussion doesn't leave BLPN (a legitimate place for the concern) and the discussion is civil I don't see why this needs admin action. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:We had extensive discussions on [[WP:NPOVN]], [[WP:BLPN]], [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], [[WP:ANI]], the RfC, and now yet another one on [[WP:BLPN]]. The previous BLPN thread was started by Thomas B after NPOVN reached a consesus against Thomas B's position. The current BLPN thread was created by Thomas B after the RfC concluded also against this user's position. Which is [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. In every case the discussion concerned the same thing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hunt#2015_controversy a single subsubsection] in Tim Hunt's biography, and each time consensus emerged against Thomas B. Which is [[WP:STICK]]. In every discussion Thomas B's made an excessively large amount of posts as compared to others, often reiterating the same arguments. Which is [[WP:BLUDGEONING]].<br /> *:This has been going on for over a month and has been draining a considerable amount of attention from me and other editors. Isn't this disruptive and draining our community resources? Are you sure that this doesn't need admin action, and this typical topic-ban sanction would be as far as ''counter productive''? [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Speaking of Bludgeoning [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&amp;target=NicolausPrime&amp;namespace=all&amp;tagfilter=&amp;start=2024-03-23&amp;end=2024-03-28&amp;limit=50] Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked. Its almost a single-minded obsession. As regards [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]], this is repeatedly raising the same topic at multiple forums. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&amp;end=&amp;namespace=4&amp;start=&amp;tagfilter=&amp;target=Thomas+B&amp;offset=20240206075305] Reviewing Thomas B's contribution history demonstrates that he raised the issue at [[WP:BLPN]] ''once'' before the ANI thread started that led to his block and that was the sole time he had raised it in any forum outside of trying to discuss the topic on the article talk page. He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at [[WP:BLPN]]. There was in fact no discussion at [[WP:BLPN]] See [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt]]. Your allegation of [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] is demonstrably false. Rather we constantly have the same [[WP:TAG]] team of editors lobbying loudly to have editors blocked but offering no real evidence and what little evidence is offered, when you look closer doesn't support the allegation of misconduct. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 15:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&quot;{{tq|Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked.}}&quot;<br /> ::::This is false, as directly contradicted by the following edits, unrelated to Thomas B, that I made between March 23 and today: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215654047] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NicolausPrime/sandbox&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215762490] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compact_Disc_subcode&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215768058] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215654745] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etymological_fallacy&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215747100].<br /> ::::&quot;{{tq|He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at WP:BLPN. There was in fact no discussion at WP:BLPN See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt. Your allegation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is demonstrably false.}}&quot;<br /> ::::The very discussion that you link, [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim_Hunt]], immediately reaches the conclusion that the filing constituted forum-shopping. We can disagree, maybe, whether the second BLPN thread created one month later constituted forum-shopping or was just beating a dead horse, but it evidently was at least one of that as it had been shortly preceded by extensive discussions that I noted above. And no, the issue is not distinct, it's a yet another, ad nauseam reiteration the same arguments about the article being unfair to Tim Hunt, to address which the RfC was created and have thus resolved.<br /> ::::&quot;{{tq|we constantly have the same WP:TAG team of editors lobbying loudly}}&quot;<br /> ::::This is the third or fourth time I see you making this accusation. I can't say for others, but I'm definitely not a member of any tag team. Except for commenting once in an earlier RfC started by LokiTheLiar, I don't think I've ever interacted with any of the editors involved in the Tim Hunt discussion and its offshoots before the NPOVN thread, where my involvement began. I started the original page-ban vote because I wanted the disruption to end, and I've started this thread because I felt responsible for failing to prevent further disruption due to my choice of a page ban instead of a topic ban. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> *'''Support''' This is clearly what the original consensus intended and Thomas B's behavior since then is a clear example of [[WP:GAMING]]. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 01:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. Seems the only way to prevent this (part of the) disruption continuing. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 09:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose''' Thomas B has raised legitimate concerns about [[WP:BLP]] policy, in the close of the RFC it was noted his concerns were legitimate and could not be ignored. Per Springee he is entitled to raise those concerns at [[WP:BLPN]]. I see someone has suggested he is bludgeoning the discussion and I acknowledge he has made a number of contributions. However, most are replies in a discussion with {{U|Newimpartial}} e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&amp;diff=1215687478&amp;oldid=1215683633]. There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it. It is Kafkaesque to suggest an editor is sanctioned as the result of an [[WP:ANI]] thread raised against another editor who has an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor's excessive posts. {{ping|EducatedRedneck}} I presume your support vote reflects your satisfaction that [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] is an issue, may I draw your attention that the NicolausPrime considers that I have raised an issue in a forum once as forumshopping. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Tq|There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often}} - in the ANI section above, the only evidence presented in support of this assertion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215783375] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215788924] includes (succinct) responses to direct questions as though they could be violations, although such are explicitly excluded by the terms of my restrictions (as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215784194 was noted by SilverSeren] above). <br /> *:No other editor in &quot;my&quot; section, aside from the OP, has suggested any possible violation of my anti-bludgeon restriction, and many editors have participated above. I would therefore appreciate if you would strike your assertion here that I am {{tq|breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it}} - there is no suggestion that I have broken my anti-bludgeon restriction nor is there a suggestion that I be sanctioned, so I'd rather not see that inaccurate statement left in this other section (where I randomly happened to see it).<br /> *:You also imply (when you refer to {{tq|an WP:ANI thread raised by an editor already under an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor}} (1) that I raised a thread at ANI (since no other editor here is under a restriction for number of posts per topic) and (2) that Thomas B. is facing sanctions here for responding to my comments. So far as I can tell, neither of these assertions is accurate, since I didn't bring anything to ANI and sanctions proposed here are about forum shopping and have nothing to do with any interaction between Thomas B. and myself. Perhaps you were confusing me with NicolausPrime, an editor I had never been aware of until the last day or so on this page.<br /> *: Anyway, I'd appreciate you striking the second reference to my editing as well; I'd rather not see spurious statements be made about my conduct even incidentally (and possibly based on mistaken identity). Thanks. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I didn't mistake your identity, I mistakenly pasted the wrong name but that's fixed now. I do believe you have broken your anti-bludgeon restriction but you've obviously missed that I opposed any sanction. I am not the only editor to think that way, so I will respectfully decline that request. I had also noticed it myself but chose not to report it - I usually try to avoid the drama boards until after I try and discuss with editors first. I will revise my wording to make my meaning clearer; Nicholas started this thread as a result of the thread raised about you and that is what I meant. I was also responding to the bludgeoning accusation against Thomas, which is largely responding to posts you made requesting a reply from him. Which is not to accuse anyone of misconduct and I have not sought any action against anyone including you. I trust that clarifies the matter? &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::Your !vote above doesn't refer in any way to my anti-bludgeon restriction, nor do those of any other editors apart from the OP and Silver seren, who corrected the OP's misinterpretation of the restriction (Silver seren quoted the actual text of the restriction, above).<br /> ::::If you still {{tq|do believe [I] have broken [my] anti-bludgeon restriction}}, I'd appreciate you documenting that in the relevant section above, preferably with the evidence you consider relevant, so the question can be addressed by other editors - at the moment, that view seems to have been rejected by all editors contributing to the discussion besides the OP. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I have already declined to report your violation of your anti-bludgeon restriction, I do so again. If I had felt it needed action I would have already discussed it with you. Now having had to give the same reply effectively twice, may I draw attention to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1141126946&amp;oldid=1141118949&amp;title=User_talk:Newimpartial this]. Please take the hint. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::If you're not going to report it, then ''stop bringing it up''. This is staring to look like [[WP:HOUND]]ing. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::WCM, I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I don't think you're suggesting that someone making a spurious accusation against you therefore determines the legitimacy (one way or the other) of an accusation against Thomas B. Are you saying NicolausPrime fabricated the claims of the five involved fora (talk page consensus, NPOVN, BLPN, RfC, 2nd BLPN)? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose'''; {{u|Springee}} put it perfectly. I appreciate the ban is supposed to reflect bludgeoning and failing to drop the stick, but it also looks uncomfortably close to a ban for having the &quot;wrong&quot; opinion, an attempt by one side to undermine the other. The harm done by such a ban - the chilling effect on future debate - greatly exceeds the mild inconvenience of an editor writing a bit too much about their viewpoint, in too many fora. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 11:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' - Per Springee, Thomas B should back away, but I would suggest the same for the editors interacting with Thomas B. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 13:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' Run-of-the-mill response to an example of the kind of forum-shopping and stick-grabbing that the project has seen time and time again as the years have rolled by. Any &quot;chilling effect&quot; on editors expressing opinions vaguely aligned with Thomas B's is purely speculative. If we stopped doing topic bans because of such speculation, we'd have to find a whole new way of dealing with a very real problem. [[User:XOR&amp;#39;easter|XOR&amp;#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&amp;#39;easter|talk]]) 14:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' Though i agree with {{U|Springee}} and others about the concerns, i believe that Thomas B has shown/is showing a startling lack of ability to read the room and work within a community. If the several editors above who also agree with his point (though not his methods) are representative of a portion of the community then that point will be discussed and taken into consideration ''without'' Thomas B's disruptive behaviour. Happy days, ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''&lt;sup&gt;'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' Whilst I understand what the opposers are saying, this isn't a proposed ban for having the &quot;wrong&quot; opinion, it's a ban for being ''utterly and completely unable'' to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] even after a previous block. It would have been simple to walk away and edit one of the other 7 million Wikipedia articles, but ... no. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' formal topic ban. This user apparently cannot comprehend the idea that [[First law of holes|he should stop digging]] after the initial page block, and is carrying on the arguments in other locations. A topic ban is the only way we can move forward without Thomas dragging this out across the wiki. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Is the problem my inability to drop the stick or a number of editors inability to ignore a quite tame posting to BLPN? Other than this very strange ANI, what disruption has my post caused? What effect has my post had on the editing of the Tim Hunt article? [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|a quite tame posting}} You have made approximately 20 comments in the discussion at BLPN; all other editors combined have made about 40. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 21:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You understand that I have mainly answered their questions, right? I should have &quot;dropped the stick&quot; and ignored their direct questions? [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::You're still digging... — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::You understand that your response is evasive, that your original comment is dishonest, and that you are demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to exhibit the self-control necessary to participate in an acceptable way, right? --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 23:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::I think the accusation of dishonesty is unfair and uncivil, so I'm not responding to this comment. [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 08:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' This is a transparent refusal to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] combined with [[WP:IDHT]]. I am sure that the concerns are genuine, but they have already been discussed and addressed. At this point Thomas needs to leave this to other editors and [[WP:AGF]] (saying things like {{tq|they want to paint Hunt as a sexist}} when someone disagrees about anything is not what I would consider good-faith). In terms of dropping the stick, we can all see the responses at BLPN and they have not been {{tq|mainly answer[ing] their questions}}. See for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215520494] (repeating the same argument from when this all started) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214835462] (continuing to double down) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214823751] (no one asked any question here either) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214976196] (example of [[WP:IDHT]], editors have repeatedly explained that no one is suggesting the article call him sexist, but Thomas is still arguing as if they are) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214981527] (accusing other editors of bad faith unprompted). This whole situation is getting ridiculous. The RFC is closed. The article is being edited productively. Let's all just move on. &lt;small&gt;(also this is my first comment at ANI so please let me know if I messed up formatting somewhere or need to change anything)&lt;/small&gt; [[User:CambrianCrab|CambrianCrab]] ([[User talk:CambrianCrab|talk]]) 22:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' – no harm is being caused to the encyclopedia by raising legitimate and genuine BLP concerns. If you don't want to interact with him, then don't. I believe there are legitimate BLP concerns as well about the Hunt article, but after seeing the way Thomas B has been treated in this whole shameful debacle, I'm afraid to say anything for fear of proposals like this being thrown my way.[[User:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue&quot;&gt; ''Isaidnoway'' &lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:black&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/b&gt;]] 00:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&quot;I don't think he should be blocked because I agree with him, and his behavioral issues are actually the fault of other people&quot; ok then. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Less sarcastically: Wikipedia operates on a consensus-based discussion model. Consensus models only work if (1) people are generally willing to accept when consensus is against them, and (2) people who refuse to acknowledge this can be prevented from disrupting discussions. The problem with Thomas B is not his views, it's that he's failing (1) and consequently forcing others to rely on (2). &lt;br&gt; Here is a very simple question you could ask yourself: suppose that there were a 60-comment discussion involving 10 or 12 participants; how many comments would you expect each person to be making under normal circumstances, if no one is bludgeoning or arguing just for the sake of arguing or exhibiting [[WP:IDHT]]? Personally, I think any time you see someone making 12 or 15 comments in those circumstances, it's a very bad sign. [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt|Thomas B has made 20.]] --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I would expect the person who started the discussion to make significantly more comments than anyone else in the discussion. It would not surprise me if they replied at least once to each of the others, sometimes merely to grant a point, clarify a statement, or answer a question. So, in a discussion with 10-12 participants, that 12-15 number seems conservative to me. Your reasoning, however, certainly explains the hostility against me if it has become the general view at WP. Like I say in my statement, things do seem to have changed since I was last involved in a big controversy. I mean, people have taken even my participation in this ANI proposing to ban me as a sign that I can't drop the stick (or shovel, per Hand). It's just peculiar, frankly. [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 08:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{tq|if it has become the general view at WP}}<br /> *::::This has been the general view for a long, long time, hence [[WP:BLUDGEON]], which has existed since 2008. Responding to every single comment is the very heart of BLUDGEON. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' By the time the post was made to BLPN {{u|Hemiauchenia}} had already been working on the issue of implementing the RfC result. {{u|Firefangledfeathers}} trimmed the controversy section, tho i'm not sure if this was in response to the posting. {{u|S Marshall}} was providing some valuable comments. {{u|Morbidthoughts}} and {{u|Hemiauchenia}} started a good discussion which probably could have been very useful. Could have been better if more editors would have kept their eyes on the ball, but not the worst WP noticeboard discussion ever. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' It's become clear that Thomas B really can't drop this issue. Even if the BLPN thread has resulted in some constructive changes, his responses in the BLPN discussion make it obvious that he just cannot accept that the majority of people don't agree with him on what the section should look like, and that he's just going to keep causing disruption regarding this issue unless he is topic banned. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It's entirely correct that in my opinion the majority is wrong and that I think the article is currently misleading. I've added an update to this effect at the BLPN post.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard#Tim_Hunt] But expressing this opinion is not in itself a disruption. I've been puzzled at the amount of annoyance (and administration) I've caused simply by posting things that could easily just be ignored, especially since I'm working within the contraints of a block that I have not appealed. [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 11:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Thomas B, you may wish to reread [[WP:IDHT]]. I feel encompasses why this {{tq|amount of annoyance}} is being had from your conduct. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 17:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. Consensus at this point on the article is clear (and has been for a long time); Thomas B's continued refusal to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], his [[WP:IDHT]] response to months of discussion and attempts to [[WP:FORUMSHOP]] the dispute are long past the point of being disruptive. Simply believing that the majority is wrong doesn't allow someone to endlessly raise the same issue in every possible venue available to them forever - we don't write articles or reach consensus via filibuster. The fact that his responses, above, show that he ''still'' doesn't get it even after an article-level block and after numerous people here have explained to him shows that nothing but a topic ban is going to work here. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 05:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Proposal: additional two-month ban from English Wikipedia ===<br /> {{atop<br /> | status = <br /> | result = This is unnecessary, against policy and clearly will not achieve consensus. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I propose for Thomas B to be banned from the English Wikipedia for two months, independently and additionally to the above topic ban. The purpose of this ban is to act as a deterrent from any further [[WP:GAMING|gaming]] of the sanctions.<br /> <br /> * '''Support''' as proposer. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' as unnecessary and punitive. With a topic ban in place, escalating blocks may be imposed as necessary. Let's extend more [[WP:ROPE]] so they can contribute helpfully to other areas. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' premature. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' I haven't seen any indication of disruption outside of this topic area. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' Clearly unnecessary. It also would be easy for editors to presume the motive in suggesting this block was to be punitive. As I said above, if Thomas B's arguments aren't shifting consensus then why worry? If they are shifting consensus then this sort of block looks more like gaming than protective. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose'''. The issue seems to be contained to the topics proposed to be banned for the accused, and this proposal goes beyond reasonable prevention. If the topic ban above becomes enforced, a block can be imposed if it gets contravened. —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 05:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose'''. Not necessary or warranted. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 09:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' Seems punitive. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> === Comment ===<br /> <br /> I note there are now 3 threads related to issues surrounding the [[Tim Hunt]] article, making 4 in less than a month. I like {{ping|Elemimele}} and {{ping|Fiveby}} are concerned about the toxic nature of the discussion surrounding that article. I am no longer editing there like those two editors and don't intend to return. I suggest {{ping|Thomas B}} stops as well, not because he is wrong but for his own well being and mental health. Rather than being guided by sources, looking at what the prevailing views are in the literature, the discussions have descended into editors looking for sources to validate their own opinions. ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents in the discussion rather than addressing urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Notably, accusations of disruptive behaviour are unsupported by evidence, scratch the surface of what little is offered as evidence and it crumples. I haven't called for any sanctions, I opposed a proposal yesterday and still urge that as {{U|S Marshall}} suggested that an intervention by an uninvolved SySop may be required to stave off an arbcom case. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 10:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :{{tq|ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents}} You have moaned about this in two or three places now, but oddly you have not noted that ''you'' started one of the threads, nor have you apologized to me for doing so; odd, that. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Do you intend to do anything about these accusations that {{tq|ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents}}, or are you going to keep posting this in some vague [[WP:FORUM]] manner? — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Note that I am not involved in the Tim Hunt article, BLPN discussion, or this issue anywhere that I can tell. I don't think it's productive at this time to cast this as an &quot;us vs them&quot; situation. Rather, this should be looked at on its own merits. To me, the question is: Does Thomas B's conduct help or hurt the encyclopedia? In my mind, it hurts it by draining the other editors' time and energy over an issue that seems to have already reached a consensus. I believe he's acting in good faith (honestly trying so solve what he views as a BLP issue), but we all need to accept that consensus is sometimes against us and move on. You may disagree that the harm outweighs the good, and that's also completely valid; answering that question is a judgement call, not a matter of fact.<br /> :I'd also posit that those editors not engaging on BLPN does not remove the problem; if nobody dissents to Thomas B there, it seems to me that a new consensus could be formed there which is not truly representative of the community's opinions. Maybe it wouldn't happen, but the fear of having to go back and sort out the two opposing consenses makes doing nothing less palatable. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 23:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 158.223.0.0/16 and 2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64 ==<br /> <br /> <br /> *{{userlinks|158.223.0.0/16}}<br /> *{{userlinks|2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64}}<br /> <br /> I previously raised concerns on [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#158.223.0.0/16_and_2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64|18 March 2024]], and the [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]] editing is continuing. <br /> <br /> The very latest example is yet another modification of a direct quotation ([[Special:Diff/1215894901]].) I tried pointing that out the last time it happened (see [[User_talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct#HGV20]]) but whether the editor just ignored it or just flat out doesn't understand is difficult to say. Their English comprehension seems limited; a number of haphazard edits (like [[Special:Diff/1213373005]], [[Special:Diff/1215867316]], [[Special:Diff/1215727741]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shi_%28rank%29&amp;diff=1215693311&amp;oldid=1215637799]) make it look like that they don't understand what was written before or the effects of their own changes.<br /> <br /> Combined with their talk page interactions (including on [[User_talk:158.223.122.211]]) my impression is that they tend to miss the point a whole lot and are quite oblivious to it. - [[User:RovingPersonalityConstruct|RovingPersonalityConstruct]] ([[User talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/RovingPersonalityConstruct|contribs]]) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == user:Zack097 adding unsupported categories ==<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|Zack097}}<br /> <br /> Noticed a few additions of categories which were not supported by article contents. User has a history of adding poorly or unsourced content, with numerous level 4 warnings. Some examples include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spies_in_Disguise&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215901686], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_2&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215901539], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eternals_(film)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215901826].--[[User:Loriendrew|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #005000;&quot;&gt;☾Loriendrew☽&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Loriendrew|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #000080;&quot;&gt;☏''(ring-ring)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 22:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This user has done almost nothing constructive in the many years since they created the account. Indefinitely blocked.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == IP Repeatedly Disrupting Table Formatting ==<br /> <br /> *{{vandal|2804:14C:128:270D:0:0:0:475}} &amp;ndash; On {{No redirect|:Kingsman (franchise)}} ({{diff|Kingsman (franchise)|1215922664|1214567618|diff}}): vandalism after final warning. Repeated disruptive changes to content and removal of formatting across a variety of articles. Majority of edits have been reverted. The IP has also repeatedly performed such disruptive behaviors on the [[Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One]] and [[Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Two]] articles, among many other franchise-related tables. This is getting quite annoying to revert each time they return and they ignore any warnings given, and have edited as such through different IPs. The reach of their edits is problematic, though individual page protection for every article may be too extreme. I previously took this issue to AIV though they recommend I bring it here instead. [[User:Trailblazer101|Trailblazer101]] ([[User talk:Trailblazer101|talk]]) 01:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Improper close ==<br /> {{atop|Reported editor blocked indefinitely by {{noping|Dennis Brown}} per [[WP:NOTHERE]]. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) {{nac}}}}<br /> * {{Userlinks|Candied Taters}}<br /> I reverted this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1215965720 close]. Can someone review the account which made the close. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 06:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I also notice that Candied Tater's userpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Candied_Taters&amp;redirect=no redirects to an admin's user page] (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACandied_Taters&amp;diff=1215965100&amp;oldid=1215959997 here] is the diff where they created that redirect). Seems like the user picked out the longest thread, or saw it [[Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Administrative_discussions|at WP:CR]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests&amp;oldid=1215947052#Administrative_discussions permanent link]). Whatever the user was trying to do, it seems disruptive. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 06:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I blocked him under [[WP:NOTHERE]]. The user page (now deleted) sealed the fate, redirecting to an admin's page ([[User:Red-tailed hawk]]) after that admin changed it so they don't redirect their user page to a Guideline. Troll like behavior, obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. [[User:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;Dennis Brown&lt;/b&gt;]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;2&amp;cent;&lt;/b&gt;]] 06:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I went ahead and deleted their 2 !votes on this page. If someone objects feel free to restore. But seems like [[WP:DENY]] is the best approach here. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 06:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == [[User:99.209.199.62]] Keep vandelzing Wikipedia ==<br /> <br /> Hi I just saw a ip keep vandelzing the page [[Final Fantasy XVI]] can you please block the ip since he continued after the final warning [[User:Fixer332|Fixer332]] ([[User talk:Fixer332|talk]]) 16:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Fixer332|Fixer332]] The IP has now been blocked for a week. Next time, a better place to report this would be [[WP:AIV|AIV]]. [[User:Kline|Kline]] • [[User talk:Kline|talk to me!]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kline|contribs]] 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:8diq]] and disruptive editing ==<br /> <br /> {{User2|8diq}} has <br /> * repeatedly inserted a large amount of inline images (which is basically the only type of edits they did) despite [[MOS:IRELEV]] and other editors' warnings on their talk page<br /> ** first warned on December 2023, around ~25 edits afterwards<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delhi_Republic_Day_parade&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1189195027 posted copyrighted materials] on articles and cross-wiki-[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/8diq uploaded] copyrighted images to Commons tagged as &quot;own work&quot;<br /> * not even one edit that is not reverted<br /> [[User:Northern Moonlight|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,Inter,-apple-system,Twitter Color Emoji,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap&quot;&gt;Northern Moonlight&lt;/span&gt;]] 00:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Barr Theo]] and bot-like mass creation of articles ==<br /> <br /> [[User:Barr Theo]]'s only contributions have been to create many new articles in batches, often several in less than one minute, and always at timestamps ending in :59 or :00. This pattern of mass-creation, as well as the total unresponsiveness on their talk page regarding their behavior, makes me believe they might be running an unauthorized bot creating these articles for them. [[User:Chaotic Enby|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#8a7500&quot;&gt;Chaotıċ &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1&quot;&gt;Enby&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 01:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :*'''Blocked''' until he explains this bot-like activity. [[Manuel María Smith]], [[Manuel Rodríguez Arzuaga]], [[Manuel de la Sota]], [[Manuel del Castillo]] and [[Manuel Gallego]] were all created within the exact same minute. There's no way those were done manually (or is it [[WP:ASSPERSIANS|Manuelly]]?) &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 02:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:{{tq|(or is it [[WP:ASSPERSIANS|Manuelly]]?)}} Boooooo. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:default;color:#246BCE;&quot;&gt;Liliana&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;&quot;&gt;UwU&lt;/span&gt;]]''''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])&lt;/sup&gt; 04:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::Bot-like? Or butt-like? [[User:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:red;&quot;&gt;E&lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:blue;&quot;&gt;Eng&lt;/b&gt;]] 06:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:Hi, I am [[User:Barr Theo|Barr Theo]]. I am currently unlogged because I do not want to break my &quot;insane streak of creations for March&quot;, which is also the reason why I did not answer [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]]. (The last time I used an IP address was in 2022 by the way, and this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat).<br /> :*:Regarding these wild accusations of bot usage, I must say that I am very disappointed with your conclusions... No, I do not use &quot;unauthorized bots&quot;, I simply create the articles that I have scheduled for the day and then wait for :59 to click on publish, usually at 23:59. Why do I do it? Because I am obsessed with details (grouping individuals by name, such as Luises and Manuels) and with symmetry (I always edit in pairs, and very often two or four pages per day), and also because I am a perhaps slightly stupid and crazy. But one thing that I am not is a criminal and I have never used &quot;unauthorized bots&quot;; in fact, I do not even know how to do that and I am not even sure if there is any kind of bot that can do what I have been doing. <br /> :*:Perhaps my insane levels of consistency and tiredness lead some of you to believe that I am being aided by machines, or that I am machine myself, but I ain't. I am just a human being, a very relentless and determined one. Sorry, Chaotic Enby, but there are no shortcuts for greatness.<br /> :*:Now that this miserdustanding has been clarified and now that I have explained by &quot;bot-like activity&quot;, I need to be unblocked as soon as possible because my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today (two of which are already done since 21 March, but that I will only publish at :59 of today).<br /> :*:Kind regards (waiting for 14:59 to upload this). [[Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D]] ([[User talk:2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|talk]]) 14:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Block evasion, isn't going to help, in fact that makes the situation worse. {{tq|my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today}} what schedule? [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|The Wordsmith}}, self admitted block evasion above. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I see it, thanks. I've responded at [[User talk:Barr Theo]] and blocked the /64. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barr_Theo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216190435 {{tq|I really didn't wanna break my streak nor use IP addresses due to my previous problems with multi-accounts}}] doesn't fill me with enthusiasm. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I'd guess they are referring to their previous unblock conditions: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABarr_Theo&amp;diff=1160765567&amp;oldid=1160703744]. &amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8093:5F01:91C5:7125:1875:DAC1|2804:F1...75:DAC1]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:8093:5F01:91C5:7125:1875:DAC1|talk]]) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *As much as {{u|Barr Theo}}'s explanation here and on their talk might be unusual, I don't see reason not to believe it. Unless there are any substantive issues with the pages that would warrant administrative intervention (and nobody has raised any), I don't think we should be keeping them blocked, and I don't think we should be weighing their evasion against them, since all they've been doing is appealing, albeit in the wrong place. {{u|The Wordsmith}}, are you okay with an unblock? --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I mean, they admit they're just creating/posting these articles rapid fire to meet some sort of self-imposed schedule. And then failing to respond to inquiries on their Talk page when people asked what they were doing. If nothing else, they need to acknowledge that this is a collaborative editing environment and just ignoring concerns is a bad idea.<br /> *:More concerning, this isn't the first time they've resorted to sockpuppetry. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|I mean, they admit they're just creating/posting these articles rapid fire to meet some sort of self-imposed schedule.}}<br /> *::I don't think people's &quot;internal schedules&quot; are something we should be concerned with (or concerned by), provided that their scheduling doesn't lead to problematic ''behaviour''. The problematic behaviour raised here so far is them not responding to [[User talk:Barr Theo#Mass creation of articles|a single query]]. I agree that's something they need to change in the future, but it's not a what I'd consider a major offence, and neither is their logging out to respond here. If they had done (or were to do) anything other than trying to engage with community concerns while logged out, it'd be a very different story, but they haven't. This is what I'd essentially consider a &quot;good faith&quot; SOCK violation, as opposed to &quot;proper&quot; socking. <br /> *::All that said, I'm a bit concerned by the &quot;line-pulling&quot; referred to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barr_Theo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216209252 in response to The Wordsmith's query], and concur that this should probably be cleared up before proceeding. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 23:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't really care about the block evasion, since it clearly wasn't intended to actually be ''evasive''. I see we've had an explanation about what this project is for, and I find it unusual but plausible. I'm satisfied that there's no unauthorized botting happening. I've asked one more question, about whether the text for these articles is original or translated/copied from somewhere (which might require attribution or checking for copyvio). If that's answered, and {{u|Barr Theo}} agrees to be reasonably responsive to the questions/concerns of other editors in the future, I'm fine with any admin unblocking if I don't get to it first. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Personal attack by {{u|ජපස}} ==<br /> <br /> I believe that I should be able to discuss the reliability of sources without being called an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216111388 ideologically-driven antiwokist]. Please do something about it. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 03:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :That seems to be the upshot of your argument. I look at impact of your rhetoric and cannot judge the intent. I have no way to judge what your mindset is. Shall I add something to that effect? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 03:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I shall! [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216113708]. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 03:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::That's scarcely any better. Frankly, any accusation related to &quot;[[woke]]ness&quot; (supposedly for or against) is inappropriate and poisons a topic. On any culture war-adjacent topic where it might be invoked, it could be hurled against any participant (again, supposedly for or against). As [[WP:NPA#WHATIS]] says, {{tq|Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden.}} &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Palatino&quot;&gt;[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : So jps decided to double down on his attack. Jps argues against the reliability of an academic journal mostly based on his own opinion of what he thinks is the ideology of the journal. This includes sweeping assertions about 60 academics: &quot;the members of this editorial board really are proponents of fringe theories&quot;, BLP be damned. My argument is that the reliability of a journal doesn't depend on whether jps or myself like what it publishes. I should be able to take that position without being accused of being a supporter of the ideology that jps abhors. I would take the same position if the ideology of the journal was the opposite. The fact is that jps doesn't have a clue what my ideological position is and I shouldn't have to take his ignorant insults. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 04:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@jps: There are times to go hard and pour buckets on opponents, but this is not one of them. The entire [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Journal of Controversial Ideas]] discussion is a waste of space because there is no actionable proposal. Is someone saying that journal can ''never'' be used as a source? Surely people know that explicit examples must be discussed before assessing whether something is reliable. Zero0000 is not playing a [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] game—it's actually you who are missing what Zero0000 has written. I am sympathetic to the view that some philosophers struggle to find interesting topics to discuss and they offer opinions on topics outside their expertise. We could chat about that but again it would be a waste of space. Please stop arguing there and wait until something actionable arises (should a particular claim in a particular article be sourced to the ''[[Journal of Controversial Ideas]]''?). And stop insulting valid comments. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I've blocked {{u|ජපස}} 1 week (as an Arbitration Enforcement action) for violating [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]]. There's a long history of warnings, sanctions and blocks for incivility in pseudoscience-related matters, dating back to at least 2006 with an Arbcom &quot;Caution&quot; at [[WP:ARBPSCI#ScienceApologist is uncivil]] up through a 2023 Arbitration Enforcement report [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive319#ජපස|where he was reminded]] to report pro-fringe disruption to administrators rather than being uncivil to them. Most recently, he was [[User talk:ජපස#Uncivil behavior|asked]] just a week ago to tone down the language and informed about [[WP:BRIE]]. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 05:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Although I consider myself a wikifriend of jps, and I tend to agree with his views on content matters, The Wordsmith accurately points to my warning about BRIE as part of that recent discussion at jps' talk page, and I endorse what The Wordsmith did. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::'''Good block'''. I encountered JPS here at ANI and through the Ammonihah page linked below. I'll add that JPS's behavior extends beyond the above thread. In this past month, he has [[WP:CIVIL|repeatedly chosen to express himself uncivilly]] on multiple pages (diffs provided below). As The Wordsmith points out, editors [[User talk:ජපස#Uncivil behavior|encouraged JPS to be more civil at his talk page]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;oldid=1216122139#Uncivil_behavior permanent link]) preceding the behavior at [[WP:FTN]]. JPS's acknowledgment that the thread had presented [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214739500 {{tq|a fair critique}}] apparently wasn't an indicator he would change his behavior.{{pb}}On user talk pages:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AViriditas&amp;diff=1214128433&amp;oldid=1213922579 {{tq|are you being petty? I don't see any substantive argument, just sour grapes}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214523384 {{Tq|profoundly weird sources you are demanding}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}In tags for Second Nephi<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214148955 {{tq|What in the actual fuck does THAT mean?}}; {{tq|You kidding me? Who wrote this? They need to be stopped.}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}At Talk:Massacre of the Innocents:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214212860&amp;oldid=1214211214# {{tq|that's just nonsense.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214213832&amp;oldid=1214213492 {{tq|::rolleyes:: This isn't serious}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214214550&amp;oldid=1214213931 {{tq|His bullshit needs to go too.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214214814&amp;oldid=1214214638 {{tq|Lol.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214217933&amp;oldid=1214216833 {{tq|Grow a thicker skin,}} and {{tq|If that offends a believer, then they need to leave this project.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1215521407&amp;oldid=1215520011 {{tq|Are you kidding?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214220315&amp;oldid=1214220053 {{tq|a charlatan. A hack. A biblical literalist who wants to play with the real scholars but can't because his faith requires him to believe absolute absurdities.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1216096055&amp;oldid=1216031705 {{tq|It looks like you are WP:POVPUSHing for your religious beliefs at this point.}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}In edit summaries for Massacre of the Innocents:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214194312&amp;oldid=1213785701 {{tq|This is not Sunday School. Take your biblical literalist whining elsewhere.}}] (Supposing editors are either not aware this is Wikipedia and not Sunday School (seems to be an implication of stupidity) or that they're acting in bad faith)<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214195168&amp;oldid=1214194881 {{tq|bullshit}}]<br /> ::* Stating that other editors are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214196547&amp;oldid=1214196395 {{tq|promoting lies in the encyclopedia}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1215406387&amp;oldid=1214982462 {{tq|ideology that is quite bizarre}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}At Talk:Ammonihah<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213721999 {{tq|why the hell did Joseph Smith bother to make up this silly story? Y'know?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213810626 {{tq|these &lt;s&gt;three&lt;/s&gt;two-and-a-half Mormons}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213906438 {{tq|They seem to say that, yes. That makes them Mormon apologists. Yep!}}] (said of [https://rap.wustl.edu/people/laurie-f-maffly-kipp/ Laurie Maffly-Kipp] and [[Penguin Books]])<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213909094 {{tq|LOL, WP:NOR isn't a suicide pact.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213912920 {{tq|This is Wikipedia. We don't play stupid games like this.}}]<br /> ::* When I asked if he meant to say that {{tq|Scholarship published in academic venues constitutes &quot;stupid games}}, referring in large part to [https://muse.jhu.edu/article/522405 an article from a secular academic journal published by the University of Pennsylvania Press that I was linking on the talk page], JPS answered, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213913325 {{tq|In most cases, absolutely}}].<br /> ::* When I asked if JPS meant to imply {{tq|&quot;Lunatic charlatans&quot; like professors of literature? Is that the implication?}} (literature professors like [https://www.uvm.edu/cas/english/profiles/elizabeth_fenton Elizabeth Fenton], whose research was cited for explanatory purposes on the talk page, a living person), JPS answered, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213917026 {{tq|Well, we had about a big long discussion about blacklisting those words, but it came up &quot;no consensus&quot;. Whachagonnado?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213940114 {{tq|Does it hurt your feelings or something?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214007074 {{tq|A bit sloppy there, old Joey S.}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}In edit summaries, body text, and tags for Ammonihah:<br /> ::* Inserted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213941828 {{tq|???}}] into the body text<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214001273 {{tq|This isn't Sunday School}}] (Supposing editors are either not aware this is Wikipedia and not Sunday School (seems to be an implication of stupidity) or that they're acting in bad faith)<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214003860 {{tq|Removing this section. It's a flight of fancy}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214003935 {{tq|some nonsensical readings}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214004257 {{tq|Removing this paragraph. I really hate it.}}] (a human editor wrote that paragraph; we can criticize with less hostile language)<br /> ::{{pb}}Here at ANI:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213600134&amp;oldid=1213599753# {{tq|This is an editor who can't follow a hypothetical}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213696119&amp;oldid=1213696098# {{tq|a complete clusterfuck.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213871517&amp;oldid=1213871371 {{tq|I think people like you are to blame}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214030158&amp;oldid=1214029645 {{tq|cult-like behaviors.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214095402&amp;oldid=1214093441 {{tq|absolutely atrocious edits}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214340841&amp;oldid=1214340684 {{tq|Forget it. At this point, you're running interference.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215421882&amp;oldid=1215418186 {{tq|I will not apologize for being a disruptive force in those places}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}I understand there's been a lot of ferment about articles in Mormon studies topic areas. I can accept if how I or others have contributed isn't what the community wants; I can accept articles like Ammonihah being revised, even drastically. But I'm unconvinced that JPS's behavior is necessary to accomplish that (to use the Ammonihah page as an example, other editors have been able to talk about revising the article without similar behavior; Ghosts of Europa, Steve Quinn). As Zero0000 said, editors shouldn't have to take JPS's insults. And this behavior is not limited to Mormon studies (as FTN and Massacre of the Innocents demonstrate). Maybe a one-week block will be enough to remind JPS of the ArbCom caution. But when this has apparently been going on for so long, and when JPS seems to react to concerns about his behavior with relative indifference (even when he invites discussion on his talk page about his behavior, he says, {{tq|You can even request that I reword things, if you like. I'm not saying I necessarily will agree to reword things}}), I'm left wondering whether this will stick and if some other sanction will be necessary to prevent more uncivil behavior in the future. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 08:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::: For record, I actually agree with much of jps's effort in keeping bible literalism out of the encyclopedia. He could do it with a lot less incivility though, as some but not all of these examples illustrate. Also, these examples don't sufficiently distinguish between robust discussion of sources (which is allowed and necessary within BLP limits) and insults and insinuations against editors which are not allowed. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 11:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yes, discussion of sources is allowed within BLP limits. The diffs pertaining to source discussion that I chose to include affect discussion and other editors in a way that I think is well characterized by this quote from the talk thread page that The Wordsmith linked above ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=1214739500&amp;oldid=1214681976 diff]): {{tq|I'm}} [Tryptofish] {{tq|not worried that you}} [JPS] {{tq|hurt the sources' feelings. But when you say these things about sources in a way that causes bad feelings among other editors, it's not necessarily those other editors' fault that they feel bad. If you think it's a source of pride to hurt other editors' feelings, well, that's both bullshit and baloney.}} [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 11:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :*I think this is a good example of &quot;it's not what you say, it's how you say it&quot;. I don't like to see jps blocked as I feel he's a tremendous resource when it comes to astronomy, astrophysics, and matters related to skepticism and paranormal nonsense. But when it comes to some topics, particularly religious topics, jps can get into a kind of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation, and his demeanor rapidly changes and he can get nasty. I can completely understand his approach because I have myself been there (as my block log can attest), particularly when it comes to political topics. I think what helped me loosen up and calm down a little bit was to remember two things: try to remember the human on the other side, and to acknowledge the ''coincidentia oppositorum''—that we can't have the black without the white, the light without the dark, and the religious without the non-religious. My goal is to try and remain civil within that tension of the opposites. I hope jps can do the same in the future as he's a valuable contributor. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*: If JPS's pattern of incivility crops up in certain topic areas, would focusing JPS's editorial efforts on other topic areas be a reasonable preventative measure to take going forward, in light of the long duration of this recurring behavior? Focusing on astrophysics and astronomy, for example, and avoiding religious studies. (Or, so as to also encompass the topic area of the thread at FTN—apparently about a philosophy periodical—avoiding the humanities?) [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 01:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::I was merely providing an example, but my guess is that the intersection between fringe theories, scientific skepticism, and other topics is quite large, so it can’t really be reduced to a single topic area. The best thing jps can do is to limit their replies (avoid bludgeoning) and allow their opponents to have the last word. This is something I’ve tried to bring to the table with my own contributions, and while I haven’t always been successful, it has personally helped me become more civil in my approach. In the relevant example, jps already had his say and didn’t need to keep replying to Zero. I think we have to try to avoid protracted discussions that have a tendency to become personal. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::That's good advice for all of us and could be a good thing for JPS to do. I do wonder, with this behavior having such a long history (nearly 18 years), wide breadth (multiple topic areas), and vitriolic depth (visible in multiple examples), whether as a community we should consider applying further formal measures designed to help JPS to do so and to avoid incivility and personal attacks. As much as [[WP:AGF|his goal is to help the project]], JPS has received warnings, cautions, advice, and blocks about this for more than a decade and a half, and he has evidently nevertheless kept resuming this pattern of behavior. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 07:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{admin note}} ජපස has asked that the his statement be copied over here, so I've done that below &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 13:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC):<br /> :Please copy my statement to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. I do apologize for personal attack offense. I tried to redact and am always amenable to discussion. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස#top|talk]]) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස#top|talk]]) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Emrahthehistorist17]] ==<br /> <br /> This emerges from [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Emrahthehistorist17 mass edits to infoboxes]]. While the discussion was active on AN, the mass edits to infoboxes stopped albeit with no response of any sort from Emrah. Mere days after it was archived, the mass edits described there promptly started up again. The exact same issues I noted previously which deal with [[MOS:INFOBOXFLAG]] and use of the {{parameter|result}} in {{t|infobox military conflict}} immediately recurred.<br /> <br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhus%27_invasion_of_the_Peloponnese&amp;oldid=1128963126&amp;diff=cur (inserting anachronistic infobox flags)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Sparta&amp;diff=1215622745&amp;oldid=1092629126 (inserting fictional and anachronistic infobox flags)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215737268&amp;oldid=1208663331&amp;title=Byzantine%E2%80%93Norman_wars (misunderstanding the article; inserting more flags)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&amp;diff=1216054692&amp;oldid=1213019550 (restoring partially [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&amp;diff=1211101487&amp;oldid=1193607582 previously reverted] edits that misunderstand the article – noting that Asiagenes and '''not''' Africanus was the main Roman commander – are inconsistent with use of {{parameter|result}})<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ecbatana&amp;oldid=1199556869&amp;diff=cur (misusing {{parameter|result}})<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_campaigns_in_Germania_(12_BC_%E2%80%93_AD_16)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215919875 (misusing {{parameter|result}})<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_Actium&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216062151 (misusing {{parameter|result}} along with unsourced additions)<br /> <br /> There have been multiple attempts to discuss this. I noted five previous attempts in my AN report:<br /> <br /> {{tq2|This behaviour has been consistent, with a long series of warnings from January 2024 to that effect on the user's talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#January_2024 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#February_2024 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Mass_edits_to_infoboxes 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#March_2024 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Warning 5]. I see no indication that the Emrahthehistorist17 has learnt anything from these discussions when replies therefrom can be generously characterised as emerging from a prosecutorial complex: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Mass_edits_to_infoboxes {{!tq|As long as you delete my edits like this, your website will never improve. It's done.}}], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mithridatic_Wars#Revert,_March_2024 {{!tq|I don't even have an idea about what are you talking about. But you seem like someone with authority on Wikipedia, and restricting me just because of your authority is a sign of injustice}}].}}<br /> <br /> There was absolutely no response to the notification of AN discussion. The only response I am aware of to anything since then was on [[User talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Roman–Seleucid war|Emrah's talk page]] yesterday where he simply responded with a curt {{!tq|Okay, I changed Hannibal and Ligustinus, but don't delete my other additions}} when factual errors were found. These edits to infoboxes are highly disruptive, especially when Emrah does not seem to understand that infoboxes are supplementary summaries of articles that reflect the contents therein and then misunderstands what is being summarised (as at [[Roman–Seleucid war]]). This has been made clear multiple times; to pause these edits while the behaviour was under discussion at AN, be entirely silent contra [[WP:COMMUNICATE]], and then restart them immediately after that discussion at AN was archived, feels akin to a sort of bad-faith gaming and at minimum a [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]]. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|talk]]) 05:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Its the same behavior of refusing to read what [[WP:MOS]] says and trying to push his views at whatever cost. When some points out that he has introduced an error its either [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]] or making minor modifications that do not solve the underlying problem and then saying: &quot;I changed it, it fine now.&quot;.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Nonsensical edit summaries ==<br /> {{atop|Dealt with. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> {{User4|Polavarapu Mokshith Sai}}: over 200+ nonsensical edit summaries like &quot;cv bnbv hftzgrzdcrfdcgert drfycjg h&quot; and &quot;yjtttttttt&quot;. They were warned 2 days ago and proceeded with 30+ more edit summaries with keyboard smashes. Bonus: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narayana_Group_of_Educational_Institutions&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215692360 promotional] edits. [[User:Northern Moonlight|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,Inter,-apple-system,Twitter Color Emoji,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap&quot;&gt;Northern Moonlight&lt;/span&gt;]] 07:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have indefinitely blocked Polavarapu Mokshith Sai as not here to build an encyclopedia for overtly non-neutral promotional editing, and hundreds of instances of gibberish in edit summaries. A toxic combination. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 08:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == Legal threats at Talk:Richard Huckle ==<br /> {{la|Richard Huckle}}&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> 2600:1700:3EC7:4150:CDF5:ECBA:20AF:BA6F making legal threats against the site. [[User:Gene Stanley1|Gene Stanley1]] ([[User talk:Gene Stanley1|talk]]) 08:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Yes. And I can't say I'm particularly surprised, when you see that someone had vandalised the article repeatedly to change the name of the article subject (a convicted serial child abuser) to the name of another individual - quite possibly the IPs. It is entirely unreasonable to expect anyone in that situation to engage in deep research into Wikipedia policy on what is or isn't permitted on article talk pages before responding. See [[Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats]]. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 09:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: Following this, is there any real benefit to letting IP users edit this article? [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Not particularly, though one could say the same about the many other biographical articles that see similar vandalism. The problem needs fixing properly: i.e. pending changes for all BLPs at minimum. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 10:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The benefit to letting IP users edit this article was demonstrated here. An IP user removed the serious [[WP:BLP]] violation. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I don't think that there's much more that we can reasonably do about this specific threat, given what [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] says and that this is an unregistered user. I get the impression that the editor simply wanted to correct an egregious fault on Wikipedia. I have left them a note explaining [[WP:NLT]] in case they come back. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Blocked two weeks.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Why? We have absolutely no reason not to assume that the contributor had a legitimate complaint about the content. Do you really expect individuals in such a situation to read through the entire corpus of Wikipedia guidelines and policies before responding? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Yes, that does seem a little thoughtless and heavy-handed. Surely some information about legal threats would have been better than a block in the circumstances. The originator of the threat, who seemed to be acting in good faith and for the good of Wikipedia, did not have a chance to retract it.[[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *The legal threat has been retracted. I hope that this editor is unblocked now. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I've just unblocked them a few minutes ago. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> The block was a good block -- it does not matter whether the issuer of a legal threat is [[WP:BRIE|in the right or not]]. The threat itself is [[WP:NLT|against policy]]; it creates a chilling effect on editors; and prevents the assumption of good faith. That's not an opinion -- that's [[Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Rationale|explicitly what our policy states]]. And the policy describes exactly how to handle this situation -- block them for the duration of the legal threat, and [[Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Conclusion_of_legal_threat|unblock them without prejudice or ill-will once they rescind it]]. We should also, if it hasn't been done, sanction the editor who made the offending statement in the first place. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Personal attacks at [[User talk:Anant-morgan]] ==<br /> [[User:Anant-morgan]] continues making personal attacks following a block [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anant-morgan&amp;curid=76144123&amp;diff=1216149802&amp;oldid=1216058086]. Please remove talk page access. [[User:JimRenge|JimRenge]] ([[User talk:JimRenge|talk]]) 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I heavily agree. They literally flipped Doug off after he blocked them. I honestly feel pretty bad for him. [[User:NoobThreePointOh|NoobThreePointOh]] ([[User talk:NoobThreePointOh|talk]]) 13:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Well, Ingenuity resolved our problems. [[User:NoobThreePointOh|NoobThreePointOh]] ([[User talk:NoobThreePointOh|talk]]) 15:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I have a strong suspicion that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anant-morgan&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214217589 {{tq|Are you restarted or something?}}] isn't what A-m meant. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == MisteOsoTruth and Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. ==<br /> <br /> <br /> * {{userlinks|MisteOsoTruth}}<br /> <br /> MisteOsoTruth is a single purpose account dedicated to the recent controversy surrounding Sweet Baby Inc, an area covered under contentions topics restrictions. They [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMisteOsoTruth&amp;diff=1215603055&amp;oldid=1215602860 have received notices about this]. They have been filling the talk page there with personal attacks on other editors and BLP violations (by accusing named individuals of committing harassment). Personal attacks: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Codename_Noreste&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213691434][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215673592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216160102] and BLP violations: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215674592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215675312][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215676001][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215850309][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215602536]. Here's a personal attack (against someone else) repeated on my user talk in response to a warning I placed about personal attacks: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215677916]. And here is the response to my efforts to warn them about this on their user talk page, repeating the accusations: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MisteOsoTruth&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216162074].<br /> <br /> This has gone on long enough, I would suggest a block as this user is clearly not going to stop and is clearly [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build an encyclopedia.]] - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 13:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :They have been given more than sufficient rope. I concur [[WP:NOTHERE]] applies. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support''' a NOTHERE block, the repeated BLP violations make it clear they're not going to adhere to our rules. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :They have contacted me though email to also discuss the same points they argue for in the talk page. I have emailed them back advising them to focus on getting RSs instead of tweets, youtube videos and screenshots while trying to explain why those are disallowed. I hoped that as someone who hadn't been very involved in the talk page (having only made one comment) I could advice them without any feelings of hostility. Seeing them continue their old ways without taking my advise saddens me but does reinforce my feeling that they simply refuse to learn the policies of wikipedia, instead of simply being ignorant of it.<br /> :[[User:Speederzzz|Speeder''zzz'']] ([[User_talk:Speederzzz|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Speederzzz|Stalk me]]) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Based on this user being an SPA, creating a significant amount of heat and not much light around a contentious topic page that's been immensely disrupted over the past several weeks, and the demonstrated lack of [[WP:CIR|competency]] and [[WP:NOTHERE]] concerns, I'm going to partial block MisteOsoTruth from the SBI article and talk page for 2 months. Because of the way the CTOPS appeals process works, and the fact that I'm editing on a laptop from out-of-town, I'm proactively giving my approval in advance for any uninvolved admin to modify or remove that block without needing to consult with me first. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Although I'm a bit late with this, I would also point out that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1213691434&amp;oldid=1213542170&amp;title=User_talk:Codename_Noreste this] edit (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215677916&amp;oldid=1215652642&amp;title=User_talk:MrOllie this] one from above) targets [[User:Ryulong]], who was blocked almost a decade ago as part of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate]]. It is simply implausible that a new editor could randomly decide to bear a grudge against someone who was indefinitely blocked nearly a decade ago. Their focus on him strongly suggests that this editor is either a sockpuppet or arrived here via one of the gamergate blogs or forums that still (to this day) regard Ryulong as something of a [[Bête noire]]; the nature of that focus suggests possible [[WP:MEAT]] / [[WP:CANVASS]] issues. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 05:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Molarinoye09 ==<br /> <br /> <br /> {{userlinks|Molarinoye09}}<br /> <br /> Since September 2023, Molarinoye09 has been disrupting [[Take That]] related articles by introducing unsourced material, or creating articles and using sources from Instagram, which aren't enough to go about on. When the article gets redirected due to [[WP:NSONG]], or if a link is removed due to said article being redirected like these articles [[You and Me (Take That song)|here]], and [[New Day (Take That song)|here]], they revert back and sometimes respond with &quot;{{tq|Don't do something bad.}}&quot; or &quot;{{tq|leave this article alone!}}&quot; and has even got to even posting those on the article talk pages of those redirects, as well as stating &quot;{{tq|This is an article, not a redirect.}}&quot; which also suggests [[WP:OWN]] issues. They have been previously warned multiple times, but they have [[WP:LISTEN|continued to ignore them]] as if the policies of Wikipedia do not apply to them, though they did state that they &quot;{{tq|would not be blocked}}&quot; when they were warned about missing copyright and/or source information for images they upload. [[User:HorrorLover555|HorrorLover555]] ([[User talk:HorrorLover555|talk]]) 14:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Their behavior to date unsuitable on multiple grounds--uploading fair use images without appropriate justifications, poor quality articles, bad sourcing. [[Special:Diff/1216135204|This]], created today, is obviously unsuited for mainspace. If this continues they're getting blocked, but I'd like to hear from them first. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 14:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::...aaand within 35 minutes of {{-r|You and Me (Take That single)}} being redirected to the band (09:26), they're back again with [[Draft:You and Me (Take That song)]] (09:59). [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 15:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Definitely no response to the ANI notice either. I think they are refusing to communicate. [[User:HorrorLover555|HorrorLover555]] ([[User talk:HorrorLover555|talk]]) 16:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Double check me on this, but based on the timestamps I don't believe they've edited since this discussion opened. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 16:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I created the page for the band's new album back in September, and I've been chasing after them and trying to fix their, to be frank, pretty poor edits. They are constantly trying to make new pages for singles which might not need them, and even when they're in draft form, add links to them on the actual wiki. You can see this on some of the edits they did to the page for ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wonderland_(Take_That_album)&amp;oldid=1192829324 Wonderland]''. I've helped out a little with these pages to make them a little more justifiable to exist, but even then they are purely stubs which are just on the cusp of notability.<br /> :Another thing I've had to deal with them (which I find particularly annoying) is they stole the description on my profile page, changed &quot;The Beatles&quot; to &quot;One Direction&quot;, replaced my name with their own and did nothing else. It does make it funny therefore that their profile page claims they are interested in 90/00s electronic music, and have been writing for a wiki about aviation accidents since 2020, when they certainly haven't. But still, it's annoying.<br /> :As to whether or not I think they should be banned, I think so, but only for a week at most. This person clearly doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and just telling them doesn't seem to be fixing it, as you mentioned. I think banning them temporarily will show them that they need to listen to us. [[User:Tedster41|Tedster41]] ([[User talk:Tedster41|talk]]) 17:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Based on their edits, I would say it would be a longer temporary block than just a week. I don't think a week is going to get them to hear us out, as they'll likely jump back to doing the same edits as before once it expires. [[User:HorrorLover555|HorrorLover555]] ([[User talk:HorrorLover555|talk]]) 17:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Block request ==<br /> {{atop|Dealt with. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> Can somebody please block this IP? [[Special:Contributions/170.231.85.132]] Petty vandalism adding fake death dates to BLPs. Thanks [[User:Jkaharper|Jkaharper]] ([[User talk:Jkaharper|talk]]) 14:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :There's someone in Brazil who does this frequently, using various IPs. Just revert/warn, revert/warn, report to [[WP:AIV]]. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 14:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::And they're blocked. Thanks, {{ping|Jauerback}}! [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == S201050066 once more ==<br /> {{previous discussion|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive357#S201050066 again}}<br /> <br /> Could we get a block on IP 64.229.35.200 ([[Special:Contributions/64.229.35.200|contributions]]) and {{U|S201050066 number 43.3}}, who posted [[Special:Diff/1216199096|some angry rant on my talk page]]? It looks like this user is being disruptive in COVID-19 articles again. —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Tenryuu all the rest of the Timeline Of The COVID-19 pandemics articles on our list to [[User:S201050066 number 43.3|S201050066 number 43.3]] ([[User talk:S201050066 number 43.3|talk]]) 18:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Indeffed by Spicy. [[User:Lynch44|Lynch44]] ([[User talk:Lynch44|talk]]) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{Non-admin comment}} And the IP's been blocked for 7 days by Nthep. [[User talk:Relativity|&lt;b style=&quot;border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#e82c52;color:white;&quot;&gt;‍ Relativity &lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I give thanks to all the admins involved. I don't suppose this is enough to merit semi-protection on COVID-19 timeline articles that S201050066 has edited? —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 00:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Sak7340 ==<br /> <br /> {{User|User:Sak7340}} has been edit-warring on [[Mohammed Zubair (journalist)]] and is on their 8th revert so far. There is a [[WP:EWN]] report but it hasn't been reviewed yet. They've now created a couple of retaliatory and incomplete reports there on DaxServer [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216202193] and myself [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216202864]. There is a discussion on the article talk page, but it's going nowhere fast. I'm hoping this will get some faster attention as they've continued the disruptive editing after all of the warnings and the original EWN report. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|&lt;span style=&quot;color: darkred;&quot;&gt;Ravensfire&lt;/span&gt;]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :The edits are a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Sak7340 has been blocked by ToBeFree for two weeks and the article ECP'd for a while. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|&lt;span style=&quot;color: darkred;&quot;&gt;Ravensfire&lt;/span&gt;]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 18:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Needs extending to indefinite, and talk page access removing, in my opinion: see this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sak7340&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216231118] [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 21:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I've increased to indefinite. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Vauban Books]] ==<br /> <br /> From [[WP:BLPN]]. {{uls|Vauban Books}}: {{tq|This page, and particularly its first paragraph, is gross libel [...] Failing to properly edit may well invite legal action.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216229796]. Does this post violate or come close enough to violating [[WP:NLT]]? Does the OP's username violate our [[WP:CORPNAME]], [[WP:COI]] or other policies? I'll note, this is apparently a publisher of the subject, [[Renaud Camus]]. See [https://www.vaubanbooks.com here] for the identically named publisher promoting the subject for commercial purposes. Cheers! [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 22:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :No, [[WP:NLT]] is not appropriate here. It's just someone wanting to correct what they regard as inappropriate wording in [[Renaud Camus]] and, as is typical for someone new to Wikipedia, they have no idea about how to phrase their thoughts. They need guidance. The user name is a problem but please let's not get hung up about that either. Their thoughts should be considered at [[Talk:Renaud Camus]] if they respond there. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> == [[User:Graywalls]] reported by [[User:72.83.72.31]]==<br /> <br /> '''Pages:''' See below &lt;br /&gt;<br /> '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Graywalls}}<br /> <br /> A few days ago, [[User:Graywalls]] started on a personal mission to attack a number of scouting related articles:<br /> <br /> *{{la|White Stag Leadership Development Program}} - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Stag Leadership Development Program]]<br /> *{{la|Béla H. Bánáthy}} - unilaterally removing large swaths of content<br /> *{{la|Boy Scouts of America}} - removing content repeatedly, and after being challenged ignoring the discussion started on the talk page<br /> *{{la|COPE (Boy Scouts of America)}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion<br /> *{{la|Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America)}} - unilaterally removing large swaths of content with no discussion<br /> *{{la|National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion<br /> *{{la|Philmont Training Center}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion<br /> *{{la|Scouting}} - unhelpful editing<br /> <br /> Graywalls ignored the discussion started on this page, [[Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America#Meeting_of_the_minds]], and moved the discussion to: [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Quotes_based_on_primary_sources_on_Boy_Scouts_of_America]]. <br /> <br /> It seems that whenever the discuss is not going their way they escalate the disagreement to another fourm. In the last day, this has happened:<br /> <br /> *[[American Heritage Girls]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[COPE (Boy Scouts of America)]] - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COPE (Boy Scouts of America)|Nominated for deletion]]<br /> *[[Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America)]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[Philmont Training Center]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[Philmont Scout Ranch]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> <br /> It's somewhat bewildering. On top of all that is Graywalls personal attacks against btphelps. You can find it here:[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Big Sur, California area touristy contents]], here [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User: btphelps with regard to Bél H. Bánáthy]], and then there is this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leadership_training_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215215397 personal attack in the edit summary]. I submitted the last item to the administrators to be removed.<br /> <br /> '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215082335]<br /> <br /> '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graywalls&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215438291]<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;'''Comments:'''&lt;/u&gt; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The following users may be able to help:{{ping|evrik|Jergen|btphelps|North8000|erp}}<br /> See: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive480#User:Graywalls%20reported%20by%20User:Evrik%20(Result:%20Declined)]]<br /> Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/72.83.72.31|72.83.72.31]] ([[User talk:72.83.72.31|talk]]) 02:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Long story short IMO definitely an &quot;axe to grind&quot; situation. Painful for several people and many articles. I wish this situation could get made better or fixed somehow. Maybe just a warning or something. Sincerely, &lt;b style=&quot;color: #0000cc;&quot;&gt;''North8000''&lt;/b&gt; ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 02:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == New attack account harassing GuardianH ==<br /> {{atop|Account blocked with promise of required SPI paperwork being completed shortly. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> [[:Special:Contributions/Iamguardiansguardian]] is a new attack account harassing {{ping|GuardianH}}. They have made 4 posts so far.&lt;sup&gt;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGuardianH&amp;diff=1216279273&amp;oldid=1215257056 diff]&lt;/sup&gt; [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#Single-purpose account devoted to attacking GuardianH]] identified similar accounts as socks of [[:Special:Contributions/Korensho|Korensho]].&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000&quot;&gt;--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]&lt;/span&gt; 06:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == [[Altay S.K.]] and [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] battleground behaviour ==<br /> <br /> <br /> Can I get a second (or more) set of eyes on the above.<br /> <br /> We've got an ongoing dispute between {{userlinks|Delbatros}} and various IP user(s). The crux of the matter appears to be of all things a logo/jersey design.<br /> Neither the IP(s) nor the registered editor is behaving particularly well and has resorted to edit warring and personal attacks towards each other, to add to the mix theres (potential) copyright concerns which dont appear valid false accusations of vandalism and definite ownership problems.<br /> <br /> Delbatros was blocked for edit-warring already and the Karşıyaka S.K. page semi-protected to try to resolve the dispute, the issue now appears to have migrated to Altay S.K. with similar behaviours from all involved, to prevent more damage at this point i've partially blocked Delbatros from the page and semi-protected it to prevent either user from further disruption.<br /> <br /> We do need a long term solution to this though and given the amount of action I've already done I'd appreciate wider opinions/assistance. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :As an aside the IP's appear to be too variable to realistically target/notify a single page so I haven't notified any of the IP editors but they seem to be quite good at locating posts related to Delbatros. If anyone can think of a good way of notifying them please let me know for future reference. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm trying to edit the pages of Turkish clubs in other languages ​​as well. I'm not making any wrong changes, I'm not vandalizing, I'm not a malicious user, I know Wikipedia rules, I'm just annoyed that the anonymous user (I know he has an existing wikipedia account) is following me with a different IP because he is wrong interfering with all my positive contributions. I started a new project to keep the jerseys of various branches of Turkish sports clubs up to date on other Wikipedias. We will design the jerseys with the support of relevant users, we will update the Wikipedia pages in other languages ​​of the relevant participants and branches of our sports clubs. (I will update most of the pages) [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1216307069 2024-03-30T09:01:29Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Altay S.K. and Karşıyaka S.K. battleground behaviour */</p> <hr /> <div>{{Short description|Report incidents to administrators}}<br /> &lt;noinclude&gt;&lt;!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.--&gt;{{/Header}}&lt;/noinclude&gt;{{clear}}<br /> {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}<br /> {{User:MiszaBot/config<br /> |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}<br /> |maxarchivesize =800K<br /> |counter = 1151<br /> |algo = old(60h)<br /> |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c<br /> |archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d<br /> |headerlevel=2<br /> }}<br /> {{stack end}}<br /> &lt;!--<br /> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE<br /> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE<br /> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--&gt;<br /> <br /> == NoonIcarus and &quot;Failed verification&quot; ==<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|NoonIcarus}}<br /> <br /> Apologies in advance for the [[WP:TEXTWALL|wall of text]], but this is mainly due to having to outline and explain a list of concerning edits. NoonIcarus has inaccurately cited &quot;failed verification&quot; in an apparent effort to remove information from the project. This was addressed before by {{u|Mbinebri}} in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2002_Venezuelan_coup_attempt&amp;diff=1156165078&amp;oldid=1156111689 the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt article talk page], who said {{tq|&quot;In your recent edits, you removed info again, claiming failed verification because you couldn't access the two cited articles. I think this was inappropriate&quot;}}. More recently, I have noticed NoonIcarus performing this similar edit (and engaging in an edit war) to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=1211447585&amp;oldid=1210444201 remove information about leftists being tortured during a former Venezuelan government], arguing that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANational_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=1213263432&amp;oldid=1213263020 this was not presented in sources]. Well, this information is from the ''[[New York Amsterdam News]]'' article cited, where the paper writes {{tq|&quot;Posada worked as an official in Venezuela's DISIP ... where he participated in the torture of left-wing activists&quot;}}. So, instead of NoonIcarus actually not having access to information to &quot;verify&quot; source content, it appears that they are {{underline|''intentionally'' ignoring source content in order to maintain a particular POV}} on the project.<br /> <br /> After noticing this repetitive behavior, I reviewed NoonIcarus' similar &quot;failed verification&quot; edits, recognizing inconsistencies:<br /> *[[Carlos Vecchio]]: NoonIcarus removes information about Vecchio working for [[ExxonMobil]], saying it &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Vecchio&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212775596 failed verification].&quot; However, on [https://books.google.com/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false page 38 of ''Libres: el nacimiento de una nueva Venezuela''], Vecchio writes {{tq|&quot;Trabajo entonces en Mobil de Venezuela, la empresa petrolera, estaba ganando seis veces más de lo que ganada en PDVSA,&quot; (&quot;I then worked at Mobil de Venezuela, the oil company, I was earning six times more than what I earned at PDVSA&quot;}}, showing that he clearly worked for ExxonMobil. This may be an attempt to hide that a high-level Venezuelan opposition leader previously worked for an American company, which is controversial in Venezuelan politics. <br /> *[[2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum]]: NoonIcarus removes information about the [[Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies]] working with the Venezuelan opposition during the election, citing &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212425521 Failed verification, dead links]&quot;. {{strike|Strangely, these Stratfor articles were taken down after I added them to the election article,}} however they are still present in Google searches (as of now, though I took screenshots if necessary) and [http://blog.b92.net/text/1561/Dole-opozicija/ the article in particular can be seen mostly intact in this random 2007 forum]. And [https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/venezuela-new-player-mix here]. '''Edit:''' Links should work now. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1213326088&amp;oldid=1211357855 Thanks]!--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 10:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *[[Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies]]: NoonIcarus tags &quot;CANVAS is funded by primarily American organizations&quot; as &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centre_for_Applied_Nonviolent_Action_and_Strategies&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211946387 Failed verification]&quot;. However, if you look at the ''[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]'' article about the Venezuelan opposition's links to CANVAS, it says {{tq|&quot;Canvas wird wesentlich von amerikanischen Organisationen finanziert&quot; (&quot;Canvas is largely funded by American organizations&quot;)}}, showing that this can be verified.<br /> *[[Venezuelan opposition]]: NoonIcarus removed information about CANVAS training members of the Venezuelan opposition, saying &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuelan_opposition&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211946246 Failed verification. This information comes from a 2012 WikiLeaks piece]&quot;. This is entirely inaccurate and a falsehood as this information is sourced from [[Stratfor]], ''[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]'' and ''[[Le Monde diplomatique]]'', with these sources not citing Wikileaks at all.<br /> *[[Guarimba]]: NoonIcarus tagged the sentence &quot;Oxford Analytica wrote that half of the protest deaths resulted at barricades&quot; as &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199089123 Failed verification]&quot;. In the cited article, it clearly states {{tq|&quot;an estimated half of those killed losing their lives at opposition barricades&quot;}}.<br /> *[[Guarimba]] 2: NoonIcarus says &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1198710396 Failed verification]&quot; about the sentence &quot;Many families were confined to their homes as a result of guarimbas and in turn, children were prevented from attending school and individuals were unable to receive medical care.&quot; The source, the notable Venezuelan historian [https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/margarita-lopez-maya Margarita López Maya] [https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/403/40305606.pdf writes] {{tq|&quot;Las protestas, conocidas como el «guarimbazo», ... [resultaron con el] confinamiento de centenares de familias a sus hogares por los cierres de vía que impidieron llevar a los niños a las escuelas, acudir al trabajo, o llegar a centros de salud.&quot; (&quot;The protests, known as the 'guarimbazo', ... [resulted with the] confinement of hundreds of families to their homes due to road closures that prevented them from taking children to schools, going to work, or reaching health centers.&quot;}}<br /> *[[Guarimba]] 3: With the sentence &quot;At some guarimbas, protesters rob individuals who criticize the method&quot;, NoonIcarus said &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197831253 Failed verification. Nowhere to be seen in article]&quot;. The [https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/venezuela-deadline/534885/ cited article] by ''[[The Atlantic (magazine)|The Atlantic]]'' says {{tq|&quot;more radical elements of the party take to what’s called guarimba ... MUD supporters have stationed themselves at these ... shaking down people who don’t support the shutdown&quot;}}.<br /> *[[Protests against Nicolás Maduro]]: A sentence about opposition protesters attacking a government facility said &quot;President Maduro said the attack forced the evacuation of workers and about 89 children&quot;, with NoonIcarus saying that this had &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protests_against_Nicolás_Maduro&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1185537948 Failed verification, no mention of children]&quot;. The [https://web.archive.org/web/20140425021139/http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/protestas-en-venezuela/140403/maduro-revela-que-hay-un-detenido-por-ataques-a-ministerio-de-vivienda archived story], however, says {{tq|&quot;había 89 niños dentro de la sede, de los cuales 3 necesitaron asistencia con oxígeno&quot; (&quot;there were 89 children inside the headquarters, of which 3 needed assistance with oxygen&quot;)}}. One could excuse a potential lack of knowledge about [[web archiving]], but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuela_and_state-sponsored_terrorism&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211037807 NoonIcarus is very knowledgeable about web archiving when they want to be].<br /> <br /> This is just a small review of the last four months of editing by NoonIcarus, so again ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1183363529&amp;oldid=1182822268#Advocacy? see here] about the previous [[Wikipedia:Stable version#Inappropriate usage|inappropriate use of &quot;stable version&quot;]]), who knows how much they have removed using the &quot;failed verification&quot; method this time. Overall, NoonIcarus' editing behavior makes it clear that they are removing information not based on &quot;failed verification&quot;, but for other reasons; most likely related to seeing this information as a [[WP:BADPOV|bad POV]] about the Venezuelan opposition. This is further evidence to add to the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive editing by NoonIcarus|previous concerns]] about NoonIcarus [[WP:NOTHERE|not being here to build an encyclopedia]]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 06:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Wow. These &quot;failed verification&quot; lies (which is what these are) are so pervasive that unless NoonIcarus has a very good explanation for all of these, I'd go ahead with a site ban. &lt;span&gt;♠[[User:JCW555|&lt;span style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;JCW555&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:JCW555|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;(talk)&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt;♠ 07:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::All of these edits are recent or recent-ish (2024), and it's apparent from his userpage that NoonIcarus speaks Spanish. NoonIcarus isn't an inexperienced editor. I ''do'' find NoonIcarus' position defensible on the 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum; I could imagine that if I saw commentary I found suspicious that was sourced to a dead link, I might tag it with {{tl|fv}}. I also think he's got an arguable case on Guarimba 3 because &quot;shaking down&quot; doesn't necessarily mean &quot;robbing&quot;. On the other matters I fully side with WMrapids.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 09:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{re|S Marshall}} There was a URL issue,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1213326088&amp;oldid=1211357855][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213327198&amp;oldid=1213326269] though as I said, the articles were still easily accessible on Google. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 10:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yes, I can see your side of it. I just think it's only fair to note that it ''was'' a contentious claim sourced to a dead link.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 14:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::IMO the correct solution is to use {{tl|dead link}} for the link not working, and also {{tl|Verify source}} if you have doubts and cannot check the source due to the dead link. Failed verification implies that you checked the source and could not find the claim rather than you could not view the source. Note that the documentation for the failed verification template specifically says you should use dead link '''instead''' when the website is unreachable. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::While I didn't see anything in the documentation that I saw that says it's okay to use both the dead link and verify source template, I'd argue it's perfectly fine since they describe two related but separate issues. One is that the link is dead, so someone needs to either fix it in some way. E.g. they could find an archival link. Or alternatively replace it with a working source. Or in some cases if the source doesn't need a link ensure that there is sufficient info in the citation and possibly remove the link. The second issue is that an editor has doubts over the content but couldn't access the source to confirm it one way or the other. So wants someone who does have access to the source to verify it, perhaps providing a quote on the talk page to help or something. This isn't so different from a book or journal the editor doesn't have access to or a paywalled website, except here the problem is a dead link so fixing the dead link and confirming it verifies should be enough. If for whatever reason e.g. an editor gnoming a lot of related dead links doesn't have time to check, they're perfectly fine fixing the dead link, removing the dead link template and leaving the verify source for someone else to deal with perhaps even the editor who added it in the first place when they find the link was fixed. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Using {{tl|dead link}} is the correct option, but [[Template:Failed verification/doc]] only mentioned that in the body. I've made a slight change to reflect that in the lede of the documentation. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::The main issue with said sources is that their format ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;oldid=1211595977]) did not show how they were accessed in the first place. There weren't archive links, archive dates or quotes, and if they had been truly accessed just a few days ago they should have been available when I did. I want to leave clear that I oppose removing links for being dead as the only reason, and I have rescued several of these references when I have found the archives. I was unaware about {{tl|Verify source}}, and it looks like an useful tag that I will probably use in the future. Kind regards, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::It should be noted that {{tl|Verify source}} should only be used {{tq|only after you have made a good faith attempt to verify the information yourself}} if you are unable to find it, ''and'' still have doubts about its authenticity. You might also be interested in [[WP:IABOT]], which can often repair dead links. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::{{re|The Wordsmith}} Not trying to [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeon]] here, but &quot;good faith&quot; tagging has been a consistent issue for NoonIcarus as well.([[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#Tags??|1]],[[Talk:ZunZuneo#Drive by tagging|2]],[[Talk:Guarimba#Tags|3]]) {{ping|Boynamedsue}} even said &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGuarimba&amp;diff=1199140170&amp;oldid=1199098876 All of the in text tags here lacked justification. '''I am very concerned about Noonicarus'''… This is the diametric opposite of our actual policy]&quot;. Just wanted to share this to provide more context. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Response '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214571997 here]'''. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 19:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Sure thing. Thank you kindly, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Re Carlos Vecchio: The cited book says &quot;Mobil de Venezuela&quot; and in the previous paragraph it suggests that the date was [https://books.google.ca/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38&amp;lpg=PA38&amp;dq=%22mobil+de+venezuela%22+trabajo+vecchio&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=A2k2n37WUy&amp;sig=ACfU3U2bwYlwu_aQ-dZmPNmB8dZnqd5XCg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiS7YXn6-6EAxV4MjQIHcVoAdgQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%22mobil%20de%20venezuela%22%20trabajo%20vecchio&amp;f=false July 1998]. Wikipedia's [[ExxonMobil]] article says Exxon merged with Mobil to form ExxonMobil in November 1999. So I think NoonIcarus was correct, the Wikipedia claim that BLP subject Carlos Vecchio worked for ExxonMobil was poorly sourced. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 14:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::This is splitting hairs. Looking at [[History of ExxonMobil]], we do not simply say &quot;Mobil&quot; when discussing the company historically. If we want to be super specific, &quot;Mobil de Venezuela&quot; could have been edited as a redirect (like [[ExxonMobil|Mobil de Venezuela]]), but this still doesn't warrant NoonIcarus' removal of the information entirely. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 14:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::In fact Mr Vecchio did work for ExxonMobil a few years later, I was thrown off by your quoting of a passage that is not about that. Although I think the citing could have been more specific I was wrong to say it's poorly sourced. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 16:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}<br /> {{re|Nil Einne|The Wordsmith|Peter Gulutzan}} I'm appreciative of you all clarifying the appropriate usage of templates and the source content regarding Mobil (ExxonMobil). But, {{u|Mbinebri}} already warned NoonIcarus about inappropriately using &quot;failed verification&quot;, {{u|S Marshall}} notes that NoonIcarus has the experience to have known better and {{u|JCW555}} suggests a &quot;site ban&quot; since the user appears to be a deliberately removing unwanted information. We have been dealing with NoonIcarus' inappropriate edits for some time now ([[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions|block deletions and canvassing]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive440#User%3AOnetwothreeip_reported_by_User%3ANoonIcarus_(Result%3A_Filer_warned)|edit warring against consensus]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive_editing_by_NoonIcarus|activist/battleground edits]]). So, do any of you have suggestions on how to remedy NoonIcarus' [[WP:GAMING|gaming behavior]] that has continued (especially on Venezuelan topics) for years now? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1194288807&amp;oldid=1194288478 I previously suggested a topic ban], which is less severe than a full &quot;site ban&quot;.--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Such suggestions should wait until NoonIcarus has had some time to respond, I think. We normally give users a while to answer.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 19:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Pre-emptively, I would definitely support a TBAN, because I have watched NoonIcarus's behaviour for a long time, and it is absolutely unacceptable. To be honest, I am suprised they haven't recieved a ban or block of any sort regarding this issue. I fear that they might be one of the [[WP:UNBLOCKABLES|unblockables]], and that would be a great shame. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 05:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:JML1148|JML1148]] The reason this issue is getting little attention from admins is because of how verbose all of the participants are and how this dispute is outside of the knowledge of most people in the west, which is the English Wikipedia's main editor base. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I totally get the the thing regarding the conduct of the participants. I don't really think the issue is with it being outside the knowledge of most editors, though - there's been a few RfCs with widespread participation including the dispute between NoonIcarus and WMRapids. I definitely think a large number of administrators know about the dispute and the poor conduct involved, but aren't getting involved. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 06:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I didn't remember where we knew each other from, until I found the request for comment [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|RfC: VENRS]], which WMrapids started. If your understanding about my experience as an editor comes mostly from WMrapids, I kindly ask if you have a chance to take a look at the ANI own complaints against WMrapids below. Best wishes, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Currently writing a response to the accusations. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :If I understand this correctly, the allegation is that a user should be blocked for adding &quot;failed verification&quot; tags where other tags are appropriate? Isn't that a sledgehammer/nut response? As people have already shown the first two e examples aren't straightforward, I'm looking at the third example, the Frankfurter Zeitung source on [[Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies]]. The tagged reference is as follows: {{Cite news |date=1 April 2019 |title=Generation 2007 |work=[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]}} There is no link, so impossible for someone to verify without finding the 1 April 2019 edition of FAZ, something I couldn't manage to do easily. It looks like the complainant here has access to the text, as they quote it on this page, so why not just add a hyperlink, or at least give the full quotation and maybe a page number, and remove the tag? Maybe &quot;failed verification&quot; is the wrong tag, but surely the ref doesn't meet our standards of verification and therefore Noonicarus was correct to tag it? [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 06:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Now I'm looking at the fourth example, [[Venezuelan opposition]]. Here the sources were removed rather than tagged. All of the removed sources are problematic from a verification point of view: the same FAZ ref without a link, a Monde Diplo article that is paywalled but which in another edit Noonicarus says doesn't mention Venezuela, and Stratfor links which are dead. So it would have been right to tag it. The removal was part of what seems to be quite a lot of back and forth editing with the complainant here inserting very POV material and Noonicarus hastily removing it. Would have been better for both editors to slow down and talk it out, but this is not an example of one user deviously using &quot;failed verification&quot; as framed in the complaint. The fifth example, [[Guarimba]], is a bit like the third: the citation to Oxford Analytica doesn't have a hyperlink so is impossible to verify. The quote is too short to confirm it supports the text. Noonicarus tags it instead of removing it. It should be tagged in some way as it does indeed need more to verify it. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 06:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC) With the sixth example, also from [[Guarimba]], I agree with WMrapids that on the face of it this should not have been removed. Noonicarus' edit summary is &quot;Failed verification. Care should be also be taken, since unreliable government sources are frequently used, such as Venezolana de Televisión and Correo del Orinoco. It's clear that this is not the best source&quot; which doesn't seem to match the content removed, suggesting it may have been a mistake, and WMRapids was right to revert it. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 07:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) The seventh example, same WP article, was also a bad edit. Possibly Noonicarus searched the source without noticing the paywall half way down but the full article[https://web.archive.org/web/20170727021506/https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/venezuela-deadline/534885/] does include the &quot;shakedown&quot; passage. I'd say the removed content was a rather POV rendering of the material, so this may have provoked this excessive response. So far I agree with WMRapids in two out of seven examples. There doesn't seem to be the malignant pattern the complaint implies. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 07:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Last one, on the protests. It's true the second source, a dead link, contained text about children, so flagging as need verification or checking the archive would have been better than removal. However, the actual claim in the WP article text doesn't correspond to the sources as comments attributed to Maduro (including about children) weren't made by Maduro. Again, there was bad POV material to which Noonicarus overreacted. So three out of eight edits raised here are problematic, but not in a way that suggests a need to sanctions. Is there an 1RR rule on Venezuela articles? That might be a better solution, to calm down the editing in general. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 07:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|Bobfrombrockley}} I think you might be missing some of the context here. Although whether or not this specific incident warrants sanctions is debatable, according to your analysis, NoonIcarus has a history of POV pushing, incivility and assuming ownership of articles. There is a very long and detailed comment that WMRapids left on a previous ANI incident, found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1194288807&amp;oldid=1194288478#Disruptive_editing_by_NoonIcarus| here]. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 08:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::As I explained in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199976378 my own response to the comment], the problem is that there hasn't been much ''pushing'' from my part, but rather from WMrapids. They have aggresively introduced POV in several articles for months now: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207984331 National_Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuelan_opposition&amp;oldid=1185607237 Venezuelan opposition], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;oldid=1185456874 Guarimba], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211595977 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Venezuelan_blackouts&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211608041 2019 Venezuelan blackouts], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Venezuelan_parliamentary_election&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199025984 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary election], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Venezuelan_municipal_elections&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199019968 2013 Venezuelan municipal elections]. Most, if not all, of the recent disputes with WMrapids have resulted from me challenging the POV content and WMrapids' reluctance to change it. As of article ownership, it's enough to point out to articles such as [[Operation Gideon (2020)]], [[Rupununi uprising]] and [[Guarimba]] to show how difficult it has been to make any changes different from the editor's preferred version. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 02:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thank you {{u|JML1148}}. I wasn't aware of that context. Was WMRapids' last complaint supported by the community? It seems to me that WMRapids engages in exactly the same sort of behaviour that NoonIcarus is accused of in these same contentious topic areas, and if NoonIcarus has been a bit quick on the trigger with tagging WMRapids content (which often tends to POV), WMRapids is quick to revert NoonIcarus' edits without establishing consensus. Both of them do engage in discussion on talk pages, but often it is hard to get consensus due to a lack of un-involved editors. I don't think this is a disciplinary matter, and if it is then similar sanctions should apply to WMRapids. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Prequel to some of the tagging mentioned in the allegation above appears to be a request to the OP for info on the sourcing which was responded to rather brusquely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum#Stratfor [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{re|Bobfrombrockley}} It looks brusque and rude, but it actually isn't. OP pointed to dead links [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=1212425673&amp;oldid=1196506749 asking] &quot;How did you get the information?&quot; WMRapids [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213305378 replied] on 06:36, 12 March 2024 that the links came from Google and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1212425850 '''corrected the deadlinks'''] four hours later (10:45, 12 March 2024) saying, &quot;No idea how this happened. Links should be fixed.&quot; Six hours ''after'' the links were corrected (16:32, 12 March 2024), instead of thanking WMRapids for correcting them, OP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=1213365508&amp;oldid=1213305378 said], &quot;Rude. It's your responsibility to ensure the verifiability of the content.&quot; WMRapids already had, so if anyone was rude, it was NoonIcarus, not WMRapids. One wonders if OP even made a minimal effort to correct the links.<br /> :::::I will give WMRapids the thanks at that discussion that s/he deserved and so the context is clearer for anyone who reads the short back and forth.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212425673 My message] showing how the previous links gave no results in Web Archive should hint enough that I did try to fix the links. WMrapids fixed the references five days after the ping, &lt;s&gt;only after I pointed out this fact again in this ANI&lt;/s&gt;. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 23:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::{{tq|WMrapids fixed the references five days after the ping, only after I pointed out this fact again in this ANI}}. I don't believe that is true. WMRapids fixed the links on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1212425850 10:45, 12 March 2024] shortly after {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1213326088&amp;oldid=1211357855 explained] the link problem on 09:08, 12 March 2024. (Thanks.) From my review of [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=NoonIcarus&amp;page=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max= your contributions here at AN/I], your first comment here was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=1213483343 09:58, 13 March 2024]--a day after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1212425850 the links were corrected]. Please provide a diff showing where you pointed this out at this ANI ''before'' WMrapids corrected the link on 10:45, 12 March 2024. Providing a false timeline does not help your case.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 01:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::{{re|David Tornheim}} You're right. It was after ActivelyDisinterested told me that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213326088 I thanked them] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213326713 fixed the links about ten minutes later]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 02:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::I'm striking that specific part since you're correct. My main point stands, though: WMrapids provided this example to falsely accuse me of &quot;ignoring the content&quot;, when I showed in my comment that I tried accessing the references and that Web Archive did not provide any results. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|Bobfrombrockley}} As I said in the opening of this discussion, {{u|Mbinebri}} already warned NoonIcarus that a &quot;failed verification&quot; tag is inappropriate if the user didn't have access to the source. A source does not need a link to be included. Failed verification means that someone had read the source and the content did not match the source. So, no, many of the tags and edit summaries were not &quot;correct&quot; as you suggest and NoonIcarus was deliberately removing information without properly verifying it.<br /> ::I know that [[Talk:United States involvement in regime change#Trimming|you two have worked pretty closely together]] on removing some info from [[United States involvement in regime change]]. This is where NoonIcarus and I have had a conflict (their frequent removals), but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1209395892&amp;oldid=1209308986 I reached out to them in an effort to avoid edit warring], suggesting that we ''add'' to articles and discuss instead of constant removals. This worked for but a moment until they reverted back to edit warring. It crossed the line when they inappropriately began removing information citing &quot;failed verification&quot;, and now we are here. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 14:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::By &quot;worked together closely&quot;, I think you mean that we have at times agreed on what the content should look like and you've disagreed. On that page, you secured consensus for some of your preferred edits and not for others. It seems to me that you both engage properly in talk pages and I was surprised to see you escalate this to an incident for admins. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Same here, particularly since WMrapids never told me about the misuse of &quot;failed verification&quot; or claimed that I wasn't accessing the references. While I have been frustrated by slow progress, I felt that the conflict had escaled down until now. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 18:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::1RR is a solution that has been proposed previously and I have tried to abide by. It wouldn't solve all of the current issues, but it is not currently implemented and it probably would be a good first step. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 12:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I agree with this, this may help lower the temperature without an excessive overreaction. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Just remembering that this is an electoral year and there will be presidential elections in Venezuela. There will definitely be more traffic and more disputes. The 1RR general restriction should be helpful. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Again, NoonIcarus, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214766605&amp;oldid=1214764162 you exaggerate and seem to inaccurately portray yourself] as the {{tq|&quot;last one remaining&quot;}} for Venezuelan political articles when this isn't the case ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214797142][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214797142]). [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable#You can be replaced|We can all be replaced]] and your depiction of yourself performing some sort of last stand (as you seem to do, arguing that this is an election year), is literally [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable#Situations|an example of a situation]] that validates evidence of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]]. {{u|Number 57}} themself has [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Number+57&amp;page=2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max= consistently assisted with the election article] too, so it's untrue to suggest we don't have knowledgable users focused on the topic. You seem to be more concerned about someone with what you consider a [[WP:BADPOV|bad POV]] participating in articles that you are interested in. <br /> <br /> :::::An unofficial [[WP:0RR]] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1209395892&amp;oldid=1209308986 {{underline|already}} recommended] and you reverted back to edit warring (and inaccurately removing information citing &quot;failed verification&quot;). Given the previous sanctions ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|you {{underline|already}} had 0RR and 1RR restrictions placed upon you]]) and the multiple ignored warnings, we are well past the point of further reversion restrictions as you have {{underline|already}} crossed over [[Wikipedia:BRINK|the brink]]. {{underline|''Multiple'' other users have outlined many examples of [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]];}} I have showed how [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Repeating a penalised edit|you are repeating behavior you were penalized for]] and that [[WP:REMOVECITE|you delete pertinent cited additions of others]] (the &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1183363529&amp;oldid=1182822268 stable version]&quot; and &quot;failed verification&quot; methods), {{u|Boynamedsue}} and {{u|Mbinebri}} already discussed you [[WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH|disputing the reliability of apparently good sources]] and [[WP:RGW|your &quot;political activism&quot; or &quot;ideological rewriting&quot;]] in articles, while Number 57, {{u|David Tornheim}}, {{u|Goldsztajn}}, {{u|Lavalizard101}}, {{u|Simonm223}} and {{u|JML1148}}, have shared how you have consistently [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject|introduced undue material]]. After reviewing all of the above, it shows that on Latin American political topics, NoonIcarus, [[WP:NOTHERE|you are ''not'' here to build an encyclopedia]]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::::::You have already made your point, there's not need to repeat yourself. Don't bludgeon the process. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> How long are admins going to let this go? It has been obvious for some time that Noonicarus can not edit competently on Latin American political articles and they need to be topic-banned at the very least.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 06:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Another few days. The OP has had time to write a thorough and well-formatted complaint. We give their target the same courtesy.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 08:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === WMrapids and source misinterpretation ===<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|WMrapids}}<br /> <br /> :'''''[[Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read|TL;DR]]: WMrapids accuses me of &quot;ignoring source content&quot; but omits that I access said content and try to help with verifiability, such as by asking for quotes, which the editor never provided until now. WMrapids has a history of source misinterpretation that needs to be checked.'''''<br /> <br /> :I was hoping that with [[User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 10#Future collaboration recommendations|this exchange]] and more interaction in talk pages there would be less conflict but alas, we find ourselves here again. I have already made several complaints about WMrapids' poor behavior in the past, including but not limited to edit warring, blanking and hounding ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS|ANI#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:WMrapids (blanking)|ANI#User:WMrapids (blanking)]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids|ANI#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids]]). For the sake of brevity I will focus in the recent issues.<br /> <br /> :WMrapids has a history of reference misinterpretation, original research and poor sourcing, sometimes leading to BLP violations (eg: [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 106#Nelson Bocaranda|WP:NPOV/N#Nelson Bocaranda]] and [[Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis#Lancet editorial misrepresented]]), ''not to mention lack of attribution or personal interpretation, as with the &quot;shaking down&quot; example''. Controversial or fringe claims such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=José_Manuel_Olivares&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1180967211 a congressman leading an auto theft gang], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207984331 the CIA infiltration of Venezuelan intelligence services] or the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Venezuelan_blackouts&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211608041 opposition involvement in the 2019 blackouts] don't help either. The editor continues accusing me of bias, but with them casting doubts about Venezuelan torture victims testimonies [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorent_Saleh&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208811280][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorent_Saleh&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209208884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81ngel_Vivas&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208817265][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karen_Palacios&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208819970][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81ngel_Vivas&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209050808][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilmer_Azuaje&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208822867] and own removal of content[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207924351][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protests_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211596504][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1159024505][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuela_and_state-sponsored_terrorism&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209509663] shows that the editor does not hold all of the information to the same standard depending on its point of view. Another example of this is how they question the Organization of American States as a source in the Guarimba article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197738262]), but doesn't have to have an issue with using it at the [[Ayacucho massacre|Ayacucho]] and [[Juliaca massacre]]s articles ([[Special:Diff/1156851831|1]], [[Special:Diff/1156852169|2]]). To this date no explanation has been provided for this.<br /> <br /> :When I say &quot;failed verification&quot; it doesn't mean that I wasn't able to access the source or that I was too lazy to try to. God knows I have. Web Archive, Google Books, JSTOR, all the possible means available online if I don't happen to have an offline method to verify. Threads that include [[Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman)#CIA informant accusation]], [[Talk:National Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services#Luis Posada Carriles|Talk:DISIP#Luis Posada Carriles]], [[Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs]] and [[Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia]] show that I have accessed the references and that I am familiar with their content, if I had already not said it at the edit summaries.<br /> <br /> :WMrapids often doesn't include URLs, pages, quotes or other means to help with verifiability for bibliographical sources, even when they are easily accesible ''(just as BobFromBrockley as noted above)'', and have continued to do so even when other users that asked for them to be included. [[WP:BURDEN|The responsability to ensure the verifiability of the information lies on the user that adds it]], but the user shifts this burden onto other editors, best exemplified by one of the last responses to the source requests: &quot;{{tq|Google}}&quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213305378]. Talk pages such as [[Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor]] are witness that I have tried asking about the original quotes or learning more about the content in question, even when I haven't found it after accessing the source, and I often choose rewording or fixing the references instead of removal when I have the opportunity: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enforced_disappearances_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209604584][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enforced_disappearances_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213352590][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211455507][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thor_Halvorssen_(businessman)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208919306][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213212436].<br /> <br /> :I am very dissapointed that this is the first time that any of these quotes are brought up: not in its references, not in the talk pages, but to make a case against me, as they have with other editors that have challenged their edits, for requesting them in the first place. I don't want to speak on behalf of {{u|Mbinebri}}, but I believe that our exchange was a lot more open and amicable at [[Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt#Recent edits... with more to go(?)]] than the ones that I've had with WMrapids when I have challenged the content. <br /> <br /> {{collapse top|Responses to WMrapids accusations|indent=1.6em}}<br /> * The text's original source about Luis Posada Carriles ({{cite book |last=Bardach |first=Ann Louise |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780375504891 |title=Cuba Confidential: Love and Vengeance in Miami and Havana |publisher=Random House |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-375-50489-1 |pages=184-186 |url-access=registration}}), which describes the group saying {{tq|[he] immediately went to war against the leftist guerrilla movements supported by Castro in Venezuela}}. It directly contradicts the description of {{tq|he participated in the torture of left-wing activists}}.<br /> * [https://books.google.es/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=Exxon&amp;f=false Searching &quot;Exxon&quot; in Google Books] gives back page 56, whose preview doesn't mention anything about Qatar or Vecchio being a tax manager. Looking online, the main websites that have this information are outlets with a heinous reliability record, such as {{RSP entry|The Grayzone|[[The Grayzone]]|d}} [https://thegrayzone.com/2019/06/18/exxon-ambassador-carlos-vecchio-venezuela-coup-lobbyist/] and {{RSP entry|Telesur|[[Telesur]]|d}} [https://www.telesurenglish.net/opinion/Donald-Trumps-War-of-Recolonization-Against-Venezuela-20190201-0015.html], as well as Venezuelan state outlets. ''This was added to the article just months after these articles were published:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Vecchio&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=929539862]''. [https://books.google.es/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA56&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false Modifying the URL solves this issue].<br /> * See [[Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor]] for the CANVAS content. The provided links were broken, Web Archive [https://web.archive.org/web/20240303110440/https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/article/venezuela-marigold-revolution][https://web.archive.org/web/20240303110438/https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/article/venezuela-new-player-mix] didn't throw any results, and I asked for the specific quote. Nothing misleading here, the provided reference did not reflect the added content. I'm glad this has been fixed now.<br /> * The information about the alleged relations between the Venezuelan opposition, Otpor! and CANVAS comes from Wikileaks' &quot;Global Intelligence Files&quot;. This is even mentioned by a source that WMrapids provided:[https://inthesetimes.com/article/wikileaks-docs-expose-famed-serbian-activists-ties-to-shadow-cia Wikileaks Docs Expose Famed Serbian Activist’s Ties to ‘Shadow CIA’]. Stratfor links were broken (see above) and ''[[Le Monde diplomatique]]'' didn't mention Venezuela, something I also asked at [[Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs]]. {{RSP entry|WikiLeaks|[[WikiLeaks]]|gu}} is an unreliable source per [[WP:RS/PS]].<br /> * See S Marshall's comment regarding &quot;shaking down&quot;. I'm not the only person that does not think that &quot;extortion&quot; is the same as &quot;robbing&quot;<br /> * If I recall correctly, I removed the information about children because the sentence talked specifically about evacuation. Yahoo's source was also dead, but can be accessed through Archive and says: {{tq|Several people, including a young girl, have been rescued from Venezuela's Housing Ministry after it was set on fire by anti-government protesters.}}[https://web.archive.org/web/20140425004926/https://uk.news.yahoo.com/venezuela-ministry-torched-protesters-094601485.html#ugF7qD3] If I had removed content simply because the links are dead and I didn't bother trying accessing them, as WMrapids claims, I would have deleted the whole statement, which is clearly not the case.<br /> The only exceptions that I can see are Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung's and Oxford Analytica's sources; in both cases I tagged the sentences accordingly and did not remove the content. I'm finding out about &lt;nowiki&gt;{{verify source}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; due to this thread, and I will probably use in the future in this context. As of López Maya's source, I simply did not find the original source. It is a 25 pages document and WMrapids usually doesn't provide quotes for the references, as I mentioned above.<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> <br /> :I cannot stress how exhausted I am of this. It will be almost a year since this pattern has started since WMrapids started editing in Venezuelan topics. I don't know what to ask anymore besides for the community to make up their position based on this information and to propose a solution. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :&lt;ins&gt;PS: I don't want to delve too much into the POV pushing accusations to not make the thread longer than it already is, and that it is neither the main topic at hand nor diffs have been provided to justify them, but in turn I want to provide a few in response:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209296860][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211821592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209088145]. I don't care about any specific point of view, just about the quality of the sourcing.&lt;/ins&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 18:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{collapse top|&lt;ins&gt;Response about POV&lt;/ins&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)|indent=1.6em}}<br /> :I'll provide more information about the POV, since it is one of the two main topics at hand but I haven't provided a response, although I will collapse this.<br /> <br /> :To describe my editing scope, in en.wiki I'm more interested in updating articles or current events, while in the es.wiki I'm more interested in created new content and starting articles, unless we're talking about translations into English or biographies for [[Women in Red]]. What I wouldn't want is that, given that writing about the current situation in Venezuela reflects negatively on the government, that automatically means having an anti-government POV, which in turns means having a pro-opposition POV. However, I want to leave clear that I am aware of my biases, as they're intrinsic to every person. I'm Venezuelan, which means that I have a different background and experiences from people from the Anglosphere, which is why I also understand the position of many of the participants here.<br /> <br /> :To provide an overview, I was the first person [[Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis#End date|to suggest an end date for the presidential crisis article]]. Since the Punto Fijo governments were brought up, though, as examples, in Spanish I have created the article about the 1969 [[:es:Operación Canguro|Operación Canguro]], the intervention of the Central University of Venezuela by President Rafael Caldera; the 1984 [[:es:Masacre de Tazón|Tazón massacre]], when National Guard soldiers shot at students from the same university; the 1986 [[:es:Masacre de Yumare|Yumare massacre]], during Jaime Lusinchi's government; the 1992 [[:es:Masacre del Retén de Catia|Retén de Catia massacre]], during Carlos Andrés Pérez's second term; and the [[:es:Incendio de Sabaneta de 1994|1994 Sabaneta fire]], the worst prison tragedy in Venezuelan history. I even created an article about a student from the University Simón Bolívar that was killed by the police in 1989, [https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Registro&amp;page=Gonzalo+Jaurena Gonzalo Jaurena], which at the end was ultimately deleted. At es.wiki I likewise used to patrol for vandalism in articles about government officials ([https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=122334298][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=122402239][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=124982674][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=124992363][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=128851475] and trust me, there were plenty) until it became too time consuming.<br /> <br /> :Given that we're discussing a general Latin American topic ban, it should also be useful to discuss other articles from the region. I have likewise edited about human right abuses by right-wing groups (or against left-wing followers) and I think it's important for them to be documented in Wikipedia: Argentina's [[Cecilia Cacabelos]], disappeared during the last military dictatorship; Mexico's [[Halcones (paramilitary group)|Halcones]], responsible for the [[Corpus Christi Massacre]] during the [[Mexican Dirty War|Dirty War]]; the [[1963 Dominican coup d'état]], where leftist President [[Juan Bosch (politician)|Juan Bosch]] was deposed; [[Chile truckers' strike]], supported by the CIA, and the [[2017–2018 Honduran protests]], after conservative [[Juan Orlando Hernández]] was declared elected among irregularities. In Spanish, I have also written about several cases about other countries in the Inter-American Commision of Human Rights: [[:es:Caso Artavia Murillo y otros vs. Costa Rica|1]], [[:es:Caso Barrios Altos c. Perú|2]], [[:es:Caso Bulacio vs. Argentina|3]], [[:es:Caso de la Masacre de Mapiripán vs. Colombia|4]], [[:es:Caso González y otras (Campo Algodonero) vs. México|5]], [[:es:Caso Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica|6]], [[:es:Caso Masacre de Santo Domingo vs. Colombia|7]], [[:es:Caso Masacre Plan de Sánchez vs. Guatemala|8]], [[:es:Caso Montero Aranguren y otros (Retén de Catia) vs. Venezuela|9]], [[:es:Caso Myrna Mack Chang vs. Guatemala|10]], [[:es:Operación Génesis vs. Colombia|11]].<br /> <br /> :I don't want to be defined by my worst moments or mistakes, or that the most recent editorial disputes. 2020, 2021, 2022 and early 2023 were relatively calm years overall. Regardless of the perceived POV, I'm knowledgable in general and I'm really looking forward improving articles. If there are issues in articles, including about neutrality (from human rights to corruption), it's something that can be discussed and I will probably have something to be able to help. Best wishes, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> <br /> ::Given that you are [[Wikipedia:Unblockables#What to expect|attempting to boomerang this back onto me]], as {{ping|JML1148}} mentioned this &quot;unblockable&quot; behavior, I will try to provide a short response.<br /> ::Yes, I may forget to include specific quotes and page numbers on occasion, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that you inaccurately designated content as &quot;failed verification&quot; and removed it inappropriately.<br /> ::You also failed to justify any removal based on &quot;failed verification&quot;:<br /> ::#The Posada information was based on the newspaper article, not the book.<br /> ::#You're attempting to deflect the information on Vecchio to Grayzone (who you personally and understandably have a beef with) instead of ''actually verifying the source itself''.<br /> ::#We can understand that this was an accident, yet this could have been easily verifiable doing an internet search for the article title.<br /> ::#Regarding CANVAS, you inappropriately said the information was from Wikileaks when this was not the case.<br /> ::#The &quot;shakedown&quot; appears up for debate, though looking at [[extortion]], it seems like protesters forcing disapproving people to give them belongs seems like a robbery to me.<br /> ::#The information about children was removed, period. You could have looked at the archived link to El Universal.<br /> ::#Finally, you use the excuse of not being knowledgeable of &quot;verify source&quot;, which seems like a cop out for a ten-year Wikipedia user.<br /> ::So, it still is clear to me that you are deflecting blame and making excuses for your inappropriate behavior on the Project instead of listening to the ''years'' of warnings from other users. I admit to not being a perfect user and [[Talk:Guarimba#Gara|you yourself have clarified things for me]], but I never went as far as being dishonesty. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 17:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I wrote a response towards your accusations. Nothing more, nothing less. You're accusing me of deliberately ignoring the content in the references, and the diffs I provide show this is clearly false. Your lack of URLs, pages and quotes has been the norm, not the exception.<br /> :::If we want to talk about dishonesty, it's probably best to ask: [[WP:IGNOREYOU|if for weeks I had asked for quotes or on what the changes were based]] ([[Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman)#CIA informant accusation]], [[Talk:National Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services#Luis Posada Carriles]], [[Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs]], [[Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia]] and [[Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor]]), why is it only now that you're providing them for the first time? You once said {{tq|it is becoming exhausting that we are arguing over the definition of a shake down now}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1198726221]. Do you find these questions annoying? That is something different and that you can say, but saying that I'm ignoring source content is deceptive. <br /> <br /> :::By providing the sources only now, it shows how easily and accessible it is for you, but here it looks not as an attempt to help with the content verifiability or address my behavior, but rather to sanction me. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :::&lt;small&gt;And talking about the &lt;nowiki&gt;{{verify source}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; tag, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. One thing is tagging, another thing is contesting and removing. I only said that I'll be looking using it more in the future. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Topic ban from Latin American political articles for NoonIcarus===<br /> '''Support topic ban:''' After reviewing the response from NoonIcarus, it appears that they will continue to deflect their misbehavior onto others and have not learned from the years of warnings they have encountered. Again, while I am admittedly not a perfect user myself, it does not justify their [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|dishonest editing]], frequent edit warring and their [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]] in apparent acts of [[WP:ACTIVIST|activism]].--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *No. Proposals are needed here but it's best if they come from uninvolved people.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 18:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Ah, agreed then. I was following [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213458134&amp;oldid=1213457340 the proposals already shared above], so no bad intentions here. Thanks for keeping this discussion in line! [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to WMrapids|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *[Later] This is complicated and hard to resolve. There have been previous reports by both parties and they've often been archived without result. That shouldn't happen again this time, and I've used {{tl|DNAU}} to make sure it doesn't.{{pb}}Aside from the conflict of views about Venezuela, there's an ongoing issue that reduces to citing sources with sufficient precision. NoonIcarus expects citations to be rather precise, and he tags citations he sees as vague. WMrapids' citations are less precise, and he objects to NoonIcarus' insistence. From WMrapids' point of view, NoonIcarus looks like he's [[griefing]]; while from NoonIcarus' point of view, WMrapids is adding material that isn't properly sourced. WMrapids expects NoonIcarus to fix imprecise citations when he finds them; while NoonIcarus wants to tag them for someone else to fix.{{pb}}I think part of what we need to do here is to define good sourcing practice and set expectations about how to deal with citations that have poor precision.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Well, I want to clear this up now. ''My'' point of view is that others shouldn't have to clean up after citations. Now, I get it, my citations weren't exactly the most detailed, but this is something that I can and will improve upon (this also could have all been solved on my talk page if there was actually a sincere concern). The issue I {{underline|''and'' others}} have is that NoonIcarus disingenuously marked content as &quot;failed verification&quot; and removed it, with most of this content being controversial towards the Venezuelan opposition. This is a clear behavioral pattern that NoonIcarus has continuously participated in, which is the true issue before us. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I have asked you countless times for content and sources when in doubt, and both SandyGeorgia and I have asked you to add links in your references previously. This is not a new issue. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 02:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::If editor X adds citations that are hard to verify and Y editor tags them, I'm not sure it's clearcut which editor is expecting others to clean up afterwards. Tagging seems to me the right approach, so the community can improve it. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I want to clarify that I don't mind fixing the references if I have the opportunity, it is something that I have done in the past: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lina_Ron&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1176734099][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Pitazo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1170068469][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Efecto_Cocuyo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1170066080][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Últimas_Noticias&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169968967] I just think this should not be the norm, or at least that the editor can help improving the format if possible. Too much precision probably isn't needed either. Just an URL should work in most cases, as it usually does, but if one isn't available, at least a quote and page. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|S Marshall}} Many thanks for the mediation, by the way. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> * '''Support topic ban on Latin American politics''' -- a wider TB to include politics in general might protect us from possible similar behavior in U.S. politics--especially those that might tangentially overlap with the interest this editor has in Latin American politics. I do think this ban should be extended to Spanish Wikipedia and WikiMedia files, but my understanding is that other languaged Wikipedia have their own judicial proceedings.<br /> :I don't think a site ban is necessary, as I don't think the editor has shown much interest in anything else, and maybe if s/he works on other subject matter might eventually understand just how problematic the behavior has been.<br /> :I agree with other editors that TL;DR is a real problem in this subject area. I think the reason for that has a lot to do with the fact that mainstream RS that is critical of [[United States involvement in regime change]] has been blacklisted on Wikipedia, by citing the mainstream U.S. sources that tend to parrot the U.S. State Department perspective (as I explain at [[WP:RS/N]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&amp;diff=1213759985&amp;oldid=1213754708 here]).<br /> :I remember {{u|NoonIcarus}}'s behavior under the former name {{u|Jamez42}}. In January 2020, s/he received a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions 1-year editing restriction] for behavior like the above. After the editing restriction expired, at some point the behavior returned. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1205311327&amp;oldid=1201962959 warned] him/her on 2/9/24 about repeated reverts of the same material, and s/he immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1205352399&amp;oldid=1205311327 deleted] it without archiving with the edit summary &quot;A single revert does not warrant this warning. Stop this harassment.&quot; --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to David Tornheim|indent=1.6em}}<br /> :*{{comment}} Linking this February thread between the filer and you, for context for the participants: [[User talk:WMrapids#Allegations against NoonIcarus]].<br /> ::I think it would also be helpful if you could specific ''which'' critical mainstream RS sources you're referring to. In {{RSP entry|The Grayzone|[[The Grayzone]]'s|d}} request for comment, you supported that it be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=933946722 categorized either under option 1 or 2], and I supported its deprecation (a decision I wholy stand by, by the way). [https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/ Grayzone's rant about the decision] and their attack against editors, including myself, was one of the reasons why I requested a change for my username. The RfC was also opened three weeks before you filed your own ANI against me four years ago. I really hope this decision of mine is not part of the reason why you're supporting a topic ban. Best wishes. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 23:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No. It's not because of a difference of opinion at a single RfC. It's the POV editing which has gone on for years, which I and numerous other editors have observed and expounded upon here and elsewhere: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoonIcarus&amp;oldid=1205311327#Edit-warring_on_President_of_Venezuela], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive_editing_by_NoonIcarus]. If the warnings were heeded, we would not be here, and I would not be advocating for a topic ban.<br /> :::<br /> :::To give an example of this POV-editing, and what prompted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoonIcarus&amp;oldid=1205311327#Edit-warring_on_President_of_Venezuela this warning]: NoonIcarus kept reverting to his/her preferred claim that the [[President of Venezuela|Presidency of Venezuela]] was disputed. This was no longer tenable ''after'' 30 December 2022, because &quot;Venezuela's opposition national assembly voted...to remove interim President Juan Guaido [and] dissolve his government...&quot; [https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-opposition-removes-interim-president-guaido-2022-12-31/]<br /> :::<br /> :::When at least four editors (one me) tried to remove the claim that the Presidency was still disputed (after 30 December 2022), NoonIcarus reverted, and kept citing an obsolete [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1213024450#RfC:_Is_the_presidency_of_Maduro_currently_disputed? RfC from 10 September 2021] and also despite [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Guaid%C3%B3/Archive_5#RfC:_Is_Juan_Guaido_still_interim_president_of_Venezuela? this RfC closed 3 December 2021] that determined &quot;There is a clear consensus that Juan Guaidó isn’t the interim president of Venezuela.&quot; (In the 3 December 2021 RfC, of the twelve !votes, NoonIcarus was one of only two editors claiming Guaido was still &quot;interim president&quot;.) It wasn't until I filed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1213024450#RfC:_Is_the_presidency_of_Maduro_currently_disputed? this RfC on 9 February 2024] that the matter was settled. It is not surprising that of the eight !votes, NoonIcarus was alone in claiming the Presidency is disputed. I don't consider that cooperative editing and the ability to judge the [[WP:RS]] with [[WP:NPOV]]. It's more like [[WP:OWN|ownership]] and advocacy for the opposition. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 08:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1205354029 A RfC that I suggested myself], about a change that had been disputed by at least two other editors: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=890150780][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131070148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131200793]. It's simply not as you're painting it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209480230 As I said in the RfC itself], if the community is clear on the position, I don't have any issues with the outcome.<br /> ::::I asked before you have been inactive for nearly four years, until WMrapids left a message in your talk page ([[User talk:David Tornheim#Operation Gideon (2020)]]). The actions you're describing are from 2020 and before (already dealt before in the specific ANI) and from this year, not a pattern that has continued over four years. <br /> ::::With that being said, I wonder once again why [[WP:RS/N]] was mentioned here to begin with. Regards, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 12:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You already provided those exact same three diffs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=890150780] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131070148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131200793]) on the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1214192465#Related_RfC here]. My reply included this text from the [[WP:LEDE]] of the [[President_of_Venezuela |article]]: ''&quot;The Venezuelan presidential crisis was a political crisis concerning the leadership and who holds the office remained disputed till 5 January 2023.” '' All three diffs are ''before'' 5 January 2023.<br /> :::::The last two diffs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131070148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131200793]) were from {{u|TEMPO156}} (fka {{u|25stargeneral}}) who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1158279306 reversed] saying “Consensus on the Maduro and Venezuela pages that this can no longer be considered current.” You were already shown that those diffs do not support your insistence—which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1214192465#RfC:_Is_the_presidency_of_Maduro_currently_disputed? no one else shares]—that the Presidency is ''still'' disputed. Yet, here you are showing those same three diffs again to defend your edit-warring ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1178536520&amp;oldid=1176760058 4-Oct-23], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1179611690&amp;oldid=1179610598 11-Oct-23], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1204670549&amp;oldid=1199503956 7-Feb-24], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1204947051&amp;oldid=1204734755 8-Feb-24]) post 5 January 2023 as acceptable. It’s more evidence of your inability to work collaboratively, listen to reasonable concerns, and objectively assess the RS. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::[[Talk:President of Venezuela#Should we stop claiming the status of the Venezuelan presidency is &quot;disputed&quot;?]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 21:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::{{ping|NoonIcarus}} Do you really feel that an RfC from 2021 takes precedence over the changing circumstances described by the [[WP:RS]] that I mention above? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]], your support of Grayzone, a deeply problematic media entity that has even gone after Wikipedia, is rather troubling here. Could you explain your position here? [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&lt;s&gt;i do not wish to become involved in this thread even in the slightest but David supported the ''deprecation'' of Grayzone; evidently he does not support the site itself.&lt;/s&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::He supported &quot;Option 1 or 2&quot;, which suggests we was in favor of keeping it as a source and furthermore says: &quot;Those raised eyebrows are the result of Blumenthal and his writers at Grayzone telling uncomfortable truths that need to be told.&quot; So I'm pretty sure he wasn't exactly supportive of the effort (unless I missed something somewhere else?) [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I misread the comment - {{self-trout}}. Ignore me! &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|David Tornheim}} While we're at it, I also recall that one time, when discussing images for [[Nicolás Maduro]]'s infobox, you described him as follows ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicolás_Maduro&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=933863374]): {{tq|The second image has none of those problems. He is evenly lighted and looks straight into the camera with a somewhat somber but friendly face ready to engage the reporter in an interview. He looks more humble and receptive.}}, and {{tq|Maduro consider[sic] himself to be a man of the people, including the working class, the poor, and the indigenous population, rather than a representative of the elites, as part of chavismo.}}, while also commenting: {{tq|This is problematic given that he is often characterized in the U.S. and Western media--and especially by U.S. officials--as a &quot;dictator&quot; to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives of regime change.}}<br /> :::You have already mentioned your concern about possible disruptive editing by me, but I want to clarify if your POV concerns are because it can differ from yours. Could you provide more insight into these comments? --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> * '''Support topic ban on Latin American politics''' Noonicarus' editing is, in large part, political activism. Noonicarus' is here purely to ensure that articles on Latin American topics have an anti-socialist bias in general, and an anti-Venezuelan-regime bias in particular. While these opinions are perfectly acceptable, in my view, their editing on this topic runs foul of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. All editors, including myself, have political biases, but I am 100% sure that Noonicarus views their contribution to wikipedia as part of the struggle against the Venezuelan regime. <br /> <br /> :They have explicitly declared that they believe &quot;mainstream news sources&quot; to be superior to academic scholarship, which is the opposite to our actual policy. For example, they [[Talk:Caracazo#POV_tag|recently]] spent a long time arguing against the inclusion in the text of the term &quot;massacre&quot; (used by many academic sources) to describe the killing of thousands of civilians by Venezuelan security forces in 1989. Their justification was that some Venezuelan news sources do not use the term. They have also dedicated a massive amount of time to attempting to enforce [[WP:VENRS]], which is an attempt to exclude any news sources from Venezuela which do not have a pro-opposition bias. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 20:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :&lt;small&gt;{{comment}} Boynamedsue is involved in the dispute from this discussion: [[Talk:Guarimba#Tags]] --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 08:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Boynamedsue|indent=1.6em}}<br /> ::I agree with ''all'' of your observations. Since resuming editing on 2/6/24, I have seen this troubling behavior in the articles you mention while it was happening (as well as back in 2019-2020), even if I did not comment on it.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Context here [[Talk:Caracazo#POV tag]] and here [[Talk:Caracazo#Sources]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 23:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] is well within his rights to enforce [[WP:VENRS]], it {{strikethrough|is a Wikipedia standard policy and}} should not be characterized as &quot;an attempt to exclude any news sources from Venezuela which do not have a pro-opposition bias.&quot; Frankly, I find that choice of characterization very concerning. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{Tq|it is a Wikipedia standard policy}}. [[WP:VENRS]] is not a [[WP:POLICY]]. It is just an essay documenting the WikiProject Venezuela local consensus on those sources. That is useful, and I think the fix there if the list is wrong is to talk it out on the VENRS talk page and then update VENRS. But let's be careful of the terminology we use. VENRS is definitely not a Wikipedia policy. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 19:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Commented [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215643191 below]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' I have many South American election articles on my watchlist and I have regularly seen NoonIcarus making POV edits over a period of several years, mostly to Venezuelan articles, but occasionally to other articles where there is a prominent leftist candidate/party. This has often involved selectively removing information that is inconvenient to their POV with somewhat dubious reasons (which is the original complaint here). Frankly I'm amazed they have lasted this long on Wikipedia given their long history of POV-pushing. [[User:Number 57|&lt;span style=&quot;color: orange;&quot;&gt;Number&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Number 57|&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;5&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;7&lt;/span&gt;]] 00:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN''' per my previous comments. It's very clear NoonIcarus needs something to restrain their blatant NPOV editing. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 05:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to JML1148|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:I assume you mean &quot;POV-pushing&quot; editing, because &quot;blatant NPOV&quot; editing would imply he was doing a blatantly good job. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support TBAN''' at the absolute minimum with the information provided by {{u|David Tornheim}}. There's [[WP:ROPE|no more rope]] here. – [[User:The Grid|&lt;span style=&quot;color:navy&quot;&gt;The Grid&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:The Grid|&lt;span style=&quot;color:navy&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 16:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' as target. WMrapids accused me of intentionally ignoring content. The diffs that I provided not only show my attention to the sources, but in many cases asking for even further information ([[Special:Diff/1208181859|1]] [[Special:Diff/1210109390|2]] [[Special:Diff/1211947657|3]] [[Special:Diff/1212414419|4]]). These charges against editors that have contested their changes aren't new ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#WikiLeaks edit|1]] [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#RfC: La_Patilla|2]] [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Take a break|3]] [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Ownership edits on Venezuelan topics?|4]] [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#User:Elelch|5]]), and the archived ANI complaints show this has been a long standing and unanswered issue ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS|1]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:WMrapids (blanking)|2]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids|3]]). WMrapids' bludgeoning has driven active participants from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela|Wikiproject Venezuela]] away ([[Special:Diff/1183391428|1]], [[Special:Diff/1185249115|2]], [[Special:Diff/1185571771|3]], of which I'm apparently the last one remaining) and the community shouldn't forget either about the excessive RfCs ([[Talk:La Patilla#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|1]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|2]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Source description dispute|3]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 415#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|4]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#WP:VENRS|5]]) that exhausted unrelated contributors ([[Special:Diff/1159504696|1]] [[Special:Diff/1159920143|2]] [[Special:Diff/1160230663|3]] [[Special:Diff/1159529215|4]]). A TBAN won't solve the underlying issues nor provide an answer to previous complaints. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to NoonIcarus|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:Responding to your claims of being a target, it is ridiculous as it is plain to see in the responses above that ''multiple'' users have had issues with your editing behavior across the project. It appears that your edits have a POV bias towards maintaining the positive image of the Venezuelan government following the signing of the [[Puntofijo Pact]] (while I have seen a similar description occasionally in sources, you frequently describe it as the &quot;democratic period&quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1211821592&amp;oldid=1211362450][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AHistory_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1211463049&amp;oldid=1208843652] or similar) and [[WP:BADPOV|discounting human rights abuses]] performed by the &quot;democratic&quot; government ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caracazo&amp;diff=1210485863&amp;oldid=1210441857], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enforced_disappearances_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1212418745&amp;oldid=1212418411], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_massacres_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1197735324&amp;oldid=1197689368], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caracazo&amp;diff=1206271251&amp;oldid=1203757558]) while overtly promoting a negative image of the government following the [[Bolivarian Revolution]]. This is even more clear with your repeated dismissal of academic sources, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APuntofijo_Pact&amp;diff=1213233281&amp;oldid=1204958950 minimizing them as &quot;opinions&quot; for the Puntofijo Pact article], something already mentioned above by {{ping|Boynamedsue}}.<br /> *:Further, while reviewing your edits some more, I even {{underline| found ''another'' &quot;failed verification&quot; edit from 2022 performed by you that was inaccurate}}; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1122685006&amp;oldid=1117054689 you removed] {{tq|&quot;President Maduro denied the allegations, saying torture had not occurred in Venezuela since Hugo Chávez became president&quot;}} when [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-protests-allegations-idUSBREA1P1AF20140226/ the Reuters article] ''clearly'' states {{tq|&quot;MADURO DENIES TORTURE ... The president says torture ended in Venezuela with the arrival of President Hugo Chavez, his socialist predecessor and mentor, in 1999. 'Commander Chavez never gave the order to torture anyone. We came from that school of thought,' Maduro said.&quot;}} Such repetitive behavior of participating in (using [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213308839 the description] of {{ping|JCW555}}) &quot;'failed verification' lies&quot; over ''years'' raises questions of whether an even more severe ban from editing is justified.<br /> *:Regarding the further [[Wikipedia:Unblockables#What to expect|boomerang attempts]], I learned from my mistakes with feedback from other users, which I have accepted, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1179130217&amp;oldid=1179019455 especially regarding RfCs] (which were mainly opened due to [[WP:STONEWALL|stonewalling]] from NoonIcarus). As for other users not participating, Venezuelan politics are ''very'' contentious and are obviously exhausting to edit about (I feel it, trust me), so of course users will come and go. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Members|Other WikiProject Venezuela members]] are still clearly active and choose not to participate in the articles that you are interested in, which is their own decision, but if there were an issue with my behavior in particular, they could have raised concerns on my talk page or on this very noticeboard. So, exaggerating and saying {{tq|&quot;I'm apparently the last one remaining&quot;}} shows how you view yourself as making some sort of last stand, which is further evidence that you are engaged in [[WP:ACTIVIST|activist]] edits to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|right great wrongs]] and clearly demonstrates that [[Wikipedia:NOTHERE|you are not here to build an encyclopedia]].<br /> *:After seeing the further deflection, your continued editing behavior that has not improved over years of warnings (especially after [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|the ANI]] raised by {{ping|David Tornheim}} in 2020) and the additional &quot;failed verification&quot; edit mentioned above that occurred years ago raises the question; '''is a {{underline|permanent ban for NoonIcarus}} more appropriate?''' [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 06:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213949723] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214571997] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209296860][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211821592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208764769], see response above). --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No, a permanent ban is certainly not appropriate, and even a topic ban is marginal. This whole things seems to be a rather roundabout way of you saying you disagree with NoonIcarus about what constitutes NPOV. The best thing to do would be to talk about your differences with respect to what you think NPOV is on these articles in some section of WikiProject Venezuela and come to an NPOV consensus there. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 04:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I see that once again, the sheer volume of text we've produced deters uninvolved people from reading it, and I hope that any further contributions from involved people are both (1) absolutely necessary and (2) very succinct indeed.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I have a question here. Would it be a good idea to call in other editors of [[WP:WikiProject Venezuela | WikiProject Venezuela]] to get a second opinion on these charges. I'd like to get people who know a lot about the subject to comment, and I feel we're missing a significant portion of the community here who might know a lot about the topic, but at the same time, I don't want to accidentally [[WP:CANVAS]]. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 14:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{re|Allan Nonymous}} NoonIcarus [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|did this in a former ANI]] and some saw that as inappropriate and borderline canvassing, so we should avoid doing this again. It is also better that we have users independent of the topic who can make their decision solely based on reviewing behavior and edits. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 20:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Probably nobody would answer, at any rate. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' I'm involved to the extent that I am a participant to an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venezuela and state-sponsored terrorism|open AfD discussion]] initiated by VMRapids on an article created by NoonIcarus, otherwise, to the best of my memory, prior to that AfD, I had not edited articles related to Venezuelan politics. &lt;small&gt;(Subsequent to participation in that AfD I made some edits [[InSight Crime|to a US thinktank]] cited in the discussion).&lt;/small&gt; The key question here is whether there is a pattern of POV editing favourable to the Venezuelan opposition being masked by claims over source veracity. As the Venezuelan government seeks to delegitimise the opposition because of its so-called &quot;foreigness&quot; or so-called &quot;terrorism&quot;, it is understandable that it will be contentious the extent to which the opposition is depicted as lacking endogeneity or engages in actions which may be deemed criminal. Nevertheless, with the evidence presented as it has been, the approriate response would not be to (a) throw accusations back at the filer and (b) to relitigate every edit, but rather to present evidence that one's editing is NPOV via a pattern of equal concern with the veracity of all sourcing in the subject area, not just the veractiy of sourcing which suits the editor's POV. Yet, the attempts to do this show a pattern of edits which reinforce negative aspects of the government or people associated with it and favourable aspects of the opposition. There is a consistent pattern of POV editing in the topic area. There does not appear to be any substantial reflection of a even a single mistake made or a point in time where the editor could have approached issues differently (reducing this to a &quot;technical&quot; issue of incorrect tagging avoids the core issue). FWIW, I think it is reasonable that the community draws VMRapids' attention to a lack of precision regarding their citations and a requirement for pinpoint referencing when possible (ie books, journal articles), especially given many elements of this are broadly wihtin a contentious topic area (post-1992 US politics). Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 23:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''', stonewalling, general combativeness, POV issues, etc. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 11:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''&lt;s&gt;STRONGLY&lt;/s&gt; Oppose topic ban''', while I personally agree that NoonIcarus seems to not have edited in the most consensus seeking way he could, it is clear that these are highly opinionated articles where the interpretation of sources is widely disputed. Hence, he seems to be following one interpretation, and WMrapids seems to be following another. As a result, I believe the best approach is for there to be a general discussion about the factual issues at hand and the sources somewhere to resolve this rather than using topic bans. --[[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous#top|talk]]) 21:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Allan Nonymous|indent=1.6em}}<br /> ::The problem is the consistent rejection of sources which disagree with them, to the point where they edit with an inverted hierarchy of sources: Noonicarus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGuarimba&amp;diff=1185626988&amp;oldid=1185457033 specifically states] that academic journals are inferior to Venezuelan news sources.<br /> <br /> ::They have also carefully curated a list of Venezuelan news ([[WP:VENRS]]) sources which excludes any source deemed to have pro-regime bias, but not sources containing pro-opposition bias, and frequently referred to it to support their arguments. They have shown no self-awareness or contrition here, no desire to change their editing style. Due to their prolific editing, they are, in effect, a one-user article-biasing machine.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :::This is not true. Unreliable anti-government listed in [[WP:VENRS]] include but are not limited to ''El American'', ''Factores de Poder'' and ''Periodista Digital''. You can see an example of me disputing said sources while citing WP:VENRS at [[Pablo Kleinman]], for instance: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Kleinman&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1068240983][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Kleinman&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1115210880][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Kleinman&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169647438] At any rate, WP:VENRS currently prioritizes descriptions from [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]], accepting the community's wider consensus. You can likewise see me recommending academic sources here: [[Talk:Caracazo#Sources]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::If you think that's an issue take that up with [[WP:VENRS]]. He's within his rights to enforce a Wikipedia policy. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 13:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::[[WP:VENRS]] is not a wikipedia policy, it is an essay written largely by Noonicarus.--[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 15:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Ah, I see. Well, in that case, an RfC concerning [[WP:VENRS]] might be a good idea. I think it would be greatly beneficial to get a consensus reliable sources list here given the issue. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 16:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{ping|Allan Nonymous}} Hi. WP:VENRS has had at least three RfCs (where some of the editors here have participated in), all started by WMrapids, of which the first two were withdrawn, in part due to the amount opened at the time and their broadness ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|RfC:WPVENRS]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#WP:VENRS|WP:RS/N#WP:VENRS]] and &quot;[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Source description dispute|Source description dispute]]&quot;). I don't want to speak on behalf of other participants, but from what I gather the consensus was that it was better to discuss the reliability of the sources in a case to case basis, if there were any doubts, which is what happened with {{RSP entry|''La Patilla''|[[La Patilla]]|nc}}. One of the points of contention was that I removed many state-owned sources from several articles and cited WP:VENRS as a justification, which is what Boynamedsue is probably referring to. I want to leave clear that I have never claimed that WP:VENRS should be applied as a policy, citing it instead as an example of [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] (just as the list of sources that other WikiProjects have), and since it is clear this has been controversial, I have not done this again since December and don't intend that to do it again. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::@[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]], Why did you ever think it appropriate to remove material and sources on the basis of an article which is clearly marked as &lt;b&gt;opinion&lt;/b&gt;? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::{{ping|TarnishedPath}} I'm not sure if I follow. Do you mean WP:VENRS or the sources themselves?<br /> ::::::::There were to main reasons for this. I mostly focused in references from the [[Bolivarian Communication and Information System]] state media conglomerate (but not limited to it; I also removed scores of references from [[EcuRed]] because its content is user generated, but I did open a thread at the RSN when there was opposition to it), including [[Venezolana de Televisión]], whose comments can be found here: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Bolivarian Communication and Information System|Talk:WP:VENRS#Bolivarian Communication and Information System]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#La Iguana|Talk:WP:VENRS#La Iguana]]. The first reason was [[WP:TELESUR]]'s deprecation at RS/P, because Telesur is part of the conglomerate and other of its outlets routinely cite it for fact.<br /> ::::::::The second reason are the sources individual histories with reliability, including {{ill|Alba Ciudad|es}} (discussion here: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Alba Ciudad|Talk:WP:VENRS#Alba Ciudad]]), besides the ones mentioned above. The sources lack editorial independence overall or fact checking.<br /> ::::::::I did not remove the sources merely because they are state-controlled or pro-government, but because of the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability principles]] and of their reliability track record, or in other words, per [[WP:GUNREL]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Boynamedsue and Novem Linguae clarified that it was an essay from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela|WikiProject Venezuela]] before I could. However, I'll link its talk page ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|Talk:WP:VENRS]]) and note that a rationale and a description are usually offered to justify the classifications, as it would happen in the RS noticeboard. The assesment is not capricious, and the description from [[WP:RS/P]] is always used first when available (which represents a wider community consensus). If anything, more people is invited to participate. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support tban''' as even the more &quot;defensible&quot; uses of failed Verification often seem a somewhat inappropriate and as it does seem like a pattern of POV pushing. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Simonm223|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:I think that NoonIcarus is largely editing in good faith here, and only about half (3/8, from sources cited as concerning by WMRapids) of his most troubling edits were deemed inappropriate. A warning and or 1RR for NoonIcarus seems more appropriate. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 14:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::FYI. I engaged in a brief discussion with {{u|Allan Nonymous}} about the numerous posts at this [[WP:AN/I]] [[User_talk:Allan_Nonymous#Comment_from_David_Tornheim|here]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Allan_Nonymous&amp;oldid=1215346160#Comment_from_David_Tornheim permalink]) --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 16:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks for adding this here! Is there a way you make sure to include the whole page in your link, just in case things things change there in the future? [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 16:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you, that provides additional context which reinforces my support for the tban as the most appropriate remedy. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support topic ban''': I guess I can't say I'm an uninvolved editor, as WMRapids cites me as the first one to bring to attention NoonIcarus' dubious removal of sourced content and NoonIcarus and I had many past debates over my bias concerns. It's been my long-held observation that NoonIcarus has been rewriting articles like [[2002 Venezuelan coup attempt]] to push an anti-government narrative using more subtle tactics like overweighting anti-government content/sources, using selective attribution to portray pro-government views as biased opinions (while anti-government views are portrayed as fact), as well as the at-issue tendency to challenge and remove ideologically-inconvenient sourcing and info on, to be generous, ''thin'' grounds. I'm not gonna lie though—it's been cleverly done and I burnt out trying to fight it, hence my lack of involvement in the current debates. I don't vote this way lightly, as NoonIcarus has always been cordial and willing to discuss things, and I certainly don't blame anyone for hating the Venezuelan government. But it seems I'm not the only one alarmed by NoonIcarus' ideological rewriting, and if it's spreading to articles across the entire topic of Latin American politics, I would say it's finally time to stop this. [[User:Mbinebri|Mbinebri]] ([[User talk:Mbinebri|talk]]) 16:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Mbinebri|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:This is a really compelling argument for a TBAN, and frankly, I share your concerns here. I think it's clear that NoonIcarus should consider making changes to his editing strategy, especially given that this has been raised as an issue before. For now, at least, I still feel that a TBAN is going too far, but these concerns will need to be addressed one way or another. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 16:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::You've made your vehement opposition to a tban very clear by now. But the thing is I remember run-ins with NoonIcarus under their prior handle going back years and it was, honestly, the exact same pattern. They should seriously consider finding some other area of the project to work on where they can operate more collaboratively and I doubt they will without some compulsion. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Personally, the arguments made here have, at least, reduced the intensity of my opposition here. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|Mbinebri}} This really chimes with me, Noonicarus is not here to annoy or troll anybody, and the origin of their bias is understandable. However, the volume of their edits and the lengths they go to in defending them means that very few users have the energy to confront them consistently. Overall this is leading to a bias problem spread throughout our Venezuelan politics articles.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 16:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::It seems that this describes [[WP:COMPETENCE]] more than disruptive editing. Still, I thank you for your comments. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I agree with you guys that the volume of the edits made and the aggressive reverts without seeking community consensus are a real concern. If anything this AN/I has taught me the importance of seeking consensus. NoonIcarus, is clearly falling short here often, and I feel a bit of understandable sympathy here (you should see the numbers I used to pull on old articles when I was younger, not my proudest work). At the same time, it is my opinion that NPOV is reached by taking the collective voices and perspectives of a wide variety of editors. My concern with a TBAN is, if NoonIcarus leaves, as a major contributor, could lead to a disproportionate under representation of his views among those who edit Venezuelan articles, leading to a worse [[WP:BALANCE]] overall, even if less edits are made disruptively by the remaining members. If there is evidence this will not be issue, I am more than willing to further reduce my opposition to a TBAN (as I have already done to some degree). This, I think cuts to the core of my concern here. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 17:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{re|Allan Nonymous}} I respect your sentiment and thought the same thing during my initial edits with NoonIcarus. They are fairly knowledgeable about such topics, but it depends on ''how'' you use such knowledge. It is important for us all to recognize that [[Wikipedia:YANI|we are not irreplaceable]] and our misbehavior on the project does have consequences. I've sincerely tried many things to avoid conflict with NoonIcarus ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1209395892&amp;oldid=1209308986 including this recommendation], though it returned to edit warring), but as you can see from other users, NoonIcarus' editing behavior has been a repetitive problem. While NoonIcarus portrays themself as {{tq|&quot;the last one remaining&quot;}}, I have shown that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214797142 WikiProject Venezuela members are still active] and others in this discussion (including myself) have shared their own unsympathetic feelings towards the Venezuelan government ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215354288&amp;oldid=1215353940], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215347521&amp;oldid=1215347383]). So rest assured, such topics will be okay, and I'm glad that you are using this opportunity to reflect on your own editing as well. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Links to some of the own olive branches I have extended to WMrapids in the past:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169157951][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1191955462], and linking full last talk page exchange: [[User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 10#Future collaboration recommendations]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|Mbinebri}} While I naturally disagree with your topic ban support, I want to thank you for your comments about our exchanges being cordial. Stay safe. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> :::::Here's what I feel might be a good compromise? '''Article Ban on Latam Politics''', with a possibility for review at some point. This allows NoonIcarus to participate in the topic through talk page discussions (i.e. to suggest changes in policy/flag sources he may find problematic) without disrupting the articles or leading to edit warring. This might allow NoonIcarus to participate, so long as he remains within consensus as other editors can take up his suggestions. If he shows signs of working well on talk pages, then he can be allowed back on the articles. So far, I have seen him work well in discussions. In addition to this, as a show of good faith, I would hope NoonIcarus would open an RfC with respect to [[WP:VENRS]] so that we could make it more clear which were good and bad sources,as well a more general policy with regards to academic versus media sources (in particular, we should be careful when the academic sources about current political events). This would help reduce a lot of future lack of clarity on vague sources and what sources we should be using which has been a major contributor to this. Let me know your thoughts on this people. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Allan Nonymous' article ban suggestion|indent=1.6em}}<br /> ::::::{{re|Allan Nonymous}} [[Wikipedia:AAB|Users can request to be unblocked on their own talk page]]. I might have seen custom restrictions before where administrators suggest against blocked users from making a block appeal for a certain period of time (For example: ''User banned from Latin American political topics: May appeal in one year''), but not too sure on this. Wanted to make sure that you know that not all blocks have to be permanent. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 01:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::I am aware here, but my hope is that this will prevent another case of &quot;this user gets TBAN unblocked after a year/two/three&quot; and goes right back to what didn't work before. This sort of approach would might help him and other people find a way to productively work together, instead of just creating a cycle. That's my thought, at least. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 02:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::That's why a topic ban is the right solution and your &quot;compromise&quot; won't work--the behavior extends to talk pages and the disruption would continue there. If NoonIcarus is going to learn proper editing behavior, they need to steer clear of politics.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::It is clear that the primary concern here are edits made to mainspace articles, and the vast majority of concerning edits are made there. I am disappointed to see that you seem to treating this as a punitive response given the general consensus that topic bans are not punitive. I am making an effort here to seek consensus, so I hope you are willing to do so as well. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 12:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::This is a misinterpretation of what has been said. Your continued response to every editor is verging on [[WP:IDHT]] and I would gently suggest your opinion has been heard and it would be wise to step back and allow a consensus to emerge. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::I'm a little confused by your concerns of [[WP:IDHT]] here? I agree that at the beginning of this discussion, I responded to a lot of different editors (this is my first AN/I so I didn't fully understand the discussion protocol and I apologize for that) but this was a response with regards to a consensus seeking solution and is is to an editor I have engaged with multiple times, as part of a discussion largely regarding an effort to &quot;step back and allow a consensus to emerge&quot;. If you could clarify a little more your concerns (maybe on a different page, as this may be off topic to the discussion), I would be more than happy to attempt to address them. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 18:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::Effectively half of this discussion consists of you replying to every other post to argue your case. You've been cautioned about [[WP:BLUDGEON]] once already. You don't need to reply to every post here. Doing so will do nothing more than raise questions about why you are so passionately defending NoonIcarus. So you should really stop. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::I apologize that at the beginning of this AN/I I replied over enthusiastically, this is my first AN/I so mistakes are bound to happen. At the same time, this section of the AN/I is mostly me asking [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] about my concerns about any action taken, and I was glad so see here that he mostly addressed those concerns. Hence '''I have significantly reduced my opposition to a TBAN'''. Furthermore, I did ask and still have actively raised serious concerns about [[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] citing [[WP:VENRS]] which I have continued to raise and hope he can make a good faith effort to address. I, personally, don't feel my recent efforts fit very well into a case of [[WP:BLUDGEON]] or [[WP:IDHT]], but I do appreciate your feedback here. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 14:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::@[[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]], I have been watching this thread and your replies have been coming up in my notices a lot. You should listen to Simon. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Notifying {{ping|Allan Nonymous}}, since it's their comment after all: do you agree that your comments in these responses to Mbinebri are collapsed? If so, do you have a preference if they are displayed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215867046 this way] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215873477 this way] (the current one)? --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> <br /> ===Indefinite block for NoonIcarus===<br /> *'''Support indef''' - per WMRapids’ opening statements and the statements of [[User:JML1148|JML1148]], [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]], [[User:Number 57]] and others here. This is a clear [[WP:SPA]] account with numerous examples of bad faith editing, resulting in a previous one year editing restriction. Now this. Enough is enough, I’m calling for an indefinite block. [[User:Jusdafax|Jusdafax]] ([[User talk:Jusdafax|talk]]) 23:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===TLDR===<br /> <br /> Disclaimer: I personally am not an &quot;involved party&quot; in the case however, I have interacted with several of the editors in other cases. My position on the topic ban proposed is &quot;STRONGLY oppose&quot;.<br /> <br /> This is an effort to provide a brief summary of the events leading up to and the part of the vast, wall-of-text dispute titled &quot;NoonIcarus and 'Failed verification'&quot; in an attempt to make it easier for other users whose eyes may glaze over at the sight of so many words, inspired by the suggestion of [[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]].<br /> <br /> The dispute here starts with a complaint from [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] concerning [[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] removing a variety of citations and associated text using the tag &quot;failed verification&quot;. Of these, NoonIcarus is a confirmed Spanish speaker and member of Wikimedia Venezuela, WMrapids is a member of English Wikipedia's Peru project. This notable here as the articles the two seem to primarlily edit concern latin american history, mostly, Venezuela. After consulting with members of the Wikipedia discord concernin the best editing practices, it is clear that this is generally considered acceptable within the confines of Wikipedia. Furthermore, in articles for controversial topics, it is considered standard practice (better to say nothing than something controversial). However, it quickly became clear that issue involved was not merely the use of &quot;failed verification&quot; efforts but whether these efforts systematically contributed to a POV. Some of the edits appeared more than defensible, others were significantly more dubious and it may have been possible NoonIcarus was removing sources that were in fact verifiable. From there, debate escalated to a wider debate around whether NoonIcarus' editing approach was approrpiate for the topic, particular concerns were raised about edit warring. A possible mitigating factor was raised that, if WMrapids was making unsourced edits, these may have been partially justifiable. There was no general total community consensus about the veracity of the allegations, but it does seem that at least some of the edits were to actually verifiable content. After this, NoonIcarus was given an opportunity to respond to the complaint. '''[This is Part 1 of a Multi-Part series, more to follow.]''' [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :NoonIcarus provided a report responding to the allegations made. The report was not directly responded to, but discussions on the original complaint did continue afterwards. Soon after, WMrapids, immediately made a request for a topic ban on NoonIcarus concerning Latin American political articles. This was immediately good-faith rejected (and the request was later voluntarily withdrawn) on the grounds that a complaint filer cannot be the one to initiate such action. Another user made supported the request which was then considered the initial request. Tensions at this point were high. NoonIcarus' response to this topic ban attacked WMrapids, claiming the user was a toxic influence on the English language Wikipedia's Venezuela project, and that additionally, a series of aggressive rolling RfCs he had made against existing policies on articles was &quot;exhausting and demoralizing&quot; members of the Wikipedia Venezuela project, as part of an effort to support his agenda. WMrapids and some other involved editors countered these claims with claims he was selectively ignoring evidence that went counter to positions amenable to his own agenda. '''[This is Part 2 of a Multi-Part series, more to follow.]''' [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{comment}} Just to mention that I'd be happy to answer any related questions. I don't want to cram this thread any further, but it could really benefit from clarification to non-involved editors, so they could be broken into sections or collapsed. WMrapids should be given the same courtesy as an involved user, as they probably and understandably will disagree with some of my replies. I'll provide an answer to the POV pushing accusations as a collapsed hatnote below my first response &lt;ins&gt;(added '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215919160 here]''')&lt;/ins&gt;. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 00:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Moved prior comment to correct section. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:Wrong place to put this, this is for discussion and summary, if you want to stake your position on the TBAN, post in that section. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 13:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::I really need to stop using the mobile interface. I intended to post there. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Can we close this?===<br /> Honestly I think this discussion has progressed as far as it is going to. I'd ask for an admin to review and determine appropriate consensus. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I provided one last response regarding POV '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215919160 here]'''. New participants can drop the last thoughts before closure. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 22:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I agree with {{u|Simonm223}}. Having those who have already commented continue to edit this thread and add more diffs and never-ending argument/counter-argument is tiresome for readers. I can suggest one admin who has already shown a willingness to review one of these lengthy discussions (about this topic) and make a final ruling. If another admin believes it is acceptable to ping them and ask for their help here, please advise.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It might be better, now that a request has been made (and given the fact that this is at the top of AN/I) for you not to ping admins, and for one to naturally come around and close this. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 03:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> '''SEND TO ARBCOM'''. I am not surprised to see a citation tagging incident escalating to a show of blatant and shameless partisan participation at ANI while I have been on a mostly-break since early December when two of my closest friends died coincidentally on the same day, and I knew that I could not reasonably deal with serious grieving and WMRapids' editing at the same time. Editing around WMRapids since I first looked in to these recurring issues in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids_and_WP:ASPERSIONS Aug 2023] and found few admins or independent editors willing to engage (for example, zero feedback at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_106#Nelson_Bocaranda NPOV noticeboard], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive352#Nelson_Bocaranda BLP noticeboard], and much more in other places) has required CONSTANT citation cleanup, correction of failed verification and flagging the use of non-reliable sources and much more, complicated by WMRapids' failure to engage collaboratively on talk, as documented in three full archives of one article only at least. {{pb}} When I engaged initially, I had hoped that the [[J. K. Rowling]] experience could repeat, via a combination of patience and demonstrating collaborative editing to yield good results, but that was not to be the case. {{pb}} When I had to also deal with serious real life loss and grief, I gave up and left Wikipedia almost entirely, because the situation has such a long history of diffs and behaviors and hounding and aspersions that have gone ignored at noticeboards, that it really belongs at ARBCOM where it can receive a dispassionate and non-partisan examination of long-standing behavioral issues and polite POV pushing, and I just have not been in an emotional place to be able to face the work required. There is plenty detailed in the talk archives of Operation Gideon ([[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5]], [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 6]] and [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7]]) and plenty at WMRapids' user talk, (samples, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;oldid=1180799100#Bludgeoning,_personalization,_and_multiple_faulty_RFCs] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;oldid=1180799100#Copyright_and_copying_within]) but I see (again) few people taking the time to understand the full situation.<br /> <br /> I found this thread because I received an email ping this week from Tornheim [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)&amp;oldid=1215578894#Do_we_still_need_the_POV_tag?_If_so,_why? here], on a page where Tornheim admits not reading the talk page, did not examine even the most recent edits, and the POV tag was clearly reinstated by WMRapids,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Gideon_(2020)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209503834] which is easily apparent in recent edits and detailed on talk. It is not surprising that anyone would give up in the environment I experienced in trying to edit around WMRapids, and simply tag their edits as failing verification, as they usually do, as seen in three archives on that talk page, because after months and months of dealing with similar editing behaviors, one tires of having to do all of the EXTENSIVE cleanup required from their style of editing. I am not yet ready to face situations like this again on Wikipedia, but I do have months worth of diffs showing recurring POV and failure to use and cite adequate sources (see the three pages of talk archives mentioned above, but there is much more and in more places). Should anyone take the time to send this situation to ArbCom where it belongs, I could eventually provide diffs including those showing why the community has not been able to deal with this, but I am now on an extended vacation visiting my children and have a long drive home next week. This thread is a fine example of using ANI to eliminate one editor with whom others disagree over something fairly minor in comparison to the other behaviors seen in several articles by other editors. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I wanted to propose this, but I'm unfamiliar with the requirements to start a case there. It will definitely help handling such a complex issue. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :When multiple users, who even state that they hold a similar POV to NoonIcarus (not being sympathetic to the government), say that there is a severe and consistent POV issue, that is not something &quot;fairly minor.&quot;--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I agree that this needs escalating to Arbcom. I think there's detectable brigading going on in this AN/I and that's why no uninvolved sysop has stepped up to deal with it.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 11:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't agree with your &quot;[[Wikipedia:Tag team|brigading]]&quot; assessment as it appears that the majority of these users have not been involved with one another. Being transparent, David did mention to me on how to correctly present an ANI somewhere before possibly, but this ANI seems clearly appropriate given that NoonIcarus disingenuously applied the &quot;failed verification&quot; tag and removed material.<br /> *::&lt;s&gt;That's not true, though. I've had editorial disputes with the majority of users that support a topic ban against me, which is understandable given how controversial the topic is. I haven't brought it up to not sidetrack the discussion, but I'd be happy to comment more about it if needed.&lt;/s&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::&lt;small&gt;Striking since I misread. Apologies. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *:SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus do have a history of collaborating together for years, however, which makes it interesting that SandyGeorgia began editing again at the same time this ANI was opened and became involved after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandyGeorgia&amp;diff=1213952863&amp;oldid=1213117743 NoonIcarus contacted them in their talk page.] Allan Nonymous' mention of discussing this ANI on Discord was something new to me, too.<br /> *:As for Arbcom, I'm open for whatever may aid with settling disputes, but there seems to be a solid consensus of users supporting a topic ban for NoonIcarus. MoneyTrees, who is a member of Arbcom, was involved earlier on in this discussion. Would it be appropriate to ping them and ask their opinion? [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 13:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I think the reason this hasn't been closed is because you're right. There does ''seem'' to be a solid consensus. People qualified to close this might be a bit wary of it, though. I very much doubt if MoneyTrees would oppose an escalation to Arbcom in the circumstances, but if you'd like to ask them, you're welcome to do so. SandyGeorgia edits widely in controversial areas and it's not at all unusual for her edits to intersect with someone else's, but if you have concerns or suspicions about her, feel free to raise them at Arbcom when I open the case, or here now, or in any other appropriate place of you choice. Sandy won't be angry or defensive if you do, but she might be amused.{{pb}}To be quite frank, the only reason I didn't open an Arbcom case this morning is because Sandy wants to be involved and this isn't the best time for her. So I'm holding fire.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 14:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I would appreciate feedback from at least one admin about whether they feel it necessary to escalate this incident to Arbcom before we just decide to supersede the obvious consensus here. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::We don't need an admin's consent to escalate to Arbcom, because Arbcom's where you go when uninvolved admins ''aren't'' stepping up to deak with the problem.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 15:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Then I trust, when you've created this arbcom case, it will accurately reflect that the core subject is NoonIcarus' edit history and will notify all editors involved in the AN/I discussion. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::That is one of the core subjects, yes, although I hope to persuade Arbcom to accept a case whose scope is ''Conduct in articles about the current politics and recent history of Venezuela.'' I certainly don't intend to make ''everyone'' who's posted here a party to the case, and it's not needful to notify non-parties. I'll notify parties to the case on their talk pages, and in the interests of transparency I'll also place notices here in this thread and on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela]].—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Butting in here; some three months ago, I was on the verge of taking these disputes to ARBCOM, because the conduct and content issues are inextricably linked, and there's experienced editors shielding disruptive editors on both &quot;sides&quot; of this dispute. I desisted largely because I wouldn't be able to participate in the evidence phase of such a case. It's been increasingly clear to me that that was a mistake, and I was waiting for the expected non-resolution of this thread - despite the numerous NPOV violations documented from multiple parties - to file a case. If nobody else does so, I intend to do so soon. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I've been caught up in some of the side discussions in this areas with multiple RFCs, or attempted RFCs, happening at RSN, and have thought that it might all end up at Arbcom. -- &lt;small&gt;LCU&lt;/small&gt; '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A&lt;small&gt;ctively&lt;/small&gt;D&lt;small&gt;isinterested&lt;/small&gt;]]''' &lt;small&gt;''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''&lt;/small&gt; 15:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{u|S Marshall}} thank you for that consideration, but frankly, there will be no optimal time for me. The vacation has somewhat helped me regain my bearings post-grief, but when I return home, I am scheduled for hand surgery for a pre-cancerous growth that needs to be excised, so I don't know what typing ability I will have. Growin' old ain't for sissies, but we all know the arbs are heaving a huge sigh of relief to hear that my typing might be affected, and my typical verbosity might be curtailed, but I will have timing issues regardless. The reasoning for opening the case is well summarized to the one sentence in this thread by Moneytrees; finding the extreme list of previous dispute resolution will be more time consuming, and unfortunately I have most of that back at home. The behaviors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard should also be within the scope of the conduct, and one can easily see in all of those threads who the other parties are. {{pb}} {{u|Dustfreeworld}}, thank you for the concern (I haven't actually read the majority of my talk page yet-- as I said, I came to this thread by looking in to an email ping from Tornheim when I was settled in at my son's house and able to review my email), but in the interest of length, the new casting of aspersions and failure to assume good faith re when or why I returned to editing are better explored with the facts and diffs in the arbcase, as they demonstrate a pattern. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::{{heart}} --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{re|S Marshall}} I'll trust your judgement on this then, though I do want to get the opinion {{ping|Moneytrees}} as well. I've always advocated for more involvement in these disputes, so the more the merrier in this case. I'm just glad that these issues are getting some attention. Thanks for guiding us through this. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 16:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Hi there, as an uninvolved editor, may I ask {{highlight|what’s the problem with a user (Noonlcarus) replying to my message expressing [[WP:Wikilove]] to a [[WP:Missing Wikipedian]]?|lightgreen}} Sandy already said that she had lost two close friends recently in the same day. May I also draw your attention to [[WP:Kindness campaign]] and [[WP:Editor retention]] as well? [[WP:ABF|Thanks]]. --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 14:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::There's nothing wrong with this, but the timing is curious to post something to a talk page which will be usually emailed. I don't know Sandy's personal background, so of course condolences to them, but I am more concerned about NoonIcarus' gamey behavior due to their history of unconventional canvassing. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 16:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I did email her months before all of this happened, because it's not the first time and she mentions she has gone through a difficult time. I found the WikiLove after looking for diffs to add to this case, and I'll remind that this is not the first time that you accuse me of canvassing for questionable reasons ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: VENRS|Talk:WP:VENRS#RfC: VENRS]], hence why the aspersions casting is also an important issue in all of this). I'll ask you again to not throw stone in a glass house after your own potential canvassing in previous and related move discussions. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::@[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]]. Thank you for the reply. I know nothing about your/Noonlcarus’s background either. I don’t know what do you mean by “usually emailed”. If user’s talk page can’t be used to express [[WP:Wikilove]], what is it used for? Used for arguing or [[WP:ABF|assuming bad faith]]? At least 10 users have replied to that [[User talk:SandyGeorgia|post]] of mine with messages such as “stay safe” already. What does that mean?<br /> *::::1. It’s not “usually emailed” as you said. 2. Sandy is a well-respected and much-loved user. {{pb}} &lt;small&gt;Aside, just curious, have you ever sent any Wikilove to other users on their talk page?&lt;/small&gt; --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 16:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::&lt;small&gt;Just for the record, I'll link once again the Wikilove I left for WMrapids in Christmas: [[User talk:WMrapids#Season's greetings]].&lt;/small&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::{{u|Dustfreeworld}}, just an FYI ... because of my dislike of the pingie-thingie, I have my preferences set so that I see pings only via email; that way, they don't disrupt my concentration when I'm in the midst of complex edits. For most of late December, and until early March, I wasn't up to even checking my email. I did see the Tornheim ping via email because it was the most recent when checking in after I arrived at my son's house for Holy Week, and I was finally feeling ready to see if the Venezuelan editing situation had improved during my absence. As this situation has long needed to go to ArbCom, now seemed to be the time to say so. I'm sorry I won't be able to help out at my typical rate for medical content for at least the near future; after a long absence, catching up can be daunting, and I'm not sure I'm ready, as I also see [[J. K. Rowling]] descending into non-collaborative editing, which is discouraging. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::{{u|SandyGeorgia|Sandy}}, no worries, RL is more important. I hope things will get better soon. People like you,[https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&amp;platform=all-access&amp;agent=user&amp;redirects=0&amp;start=2024-03-28&amp;end=2024-03-28&amp;pages=User_talk:SandyGeorgia%7CUser_talk:Jimbo_Wales] so please, be well and take good care of yourself. {{heart}} {{smiley|:-)}} --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC); edited 02:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{re|SandyGeorgia}} I know you have a lot going on, but I have to respectively ask since you have become involved; why haven’t you commented on NoonIcarus' behavior (either in support or opposition) and have instead focused on users who have had to deal with their POV editing? <br /> <br /> Now, I also have to respond to your accusations about my citing and copying within Wikipedia. Regarding the citations, your &quot;sample&quot; is from about ''6 months ago'' when I first was getting involved in controversial articles (I now know about exceptional claims needing exceptional sources, etc.) and we discussed above how I could be more specific when creating citations. Understandable. As for attribution, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_91#Attribution_edits I have already discussed this with a patroller and they said my edits have improved]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Rosales&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215951085 In a recent edit], I even made sure to attribute when it was my ''own'' original edit.<br /> <br /> So while you have tried to make the point that I am some sort of troublesome user, there is direct evidence that I have responded to the feedback and have improved my editing. This isn't the case for NoonIcarus, however, so that is why I have to ask, Sandy, why have you decided not to comment on their misbehavior? Why haven't you discussed on how they are removing information while making false &quot;failed verification&quot; edit summary claims? Again, my sincerest condolences for all that you’re going through, but this is something that needs to be discussed as well.--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 20:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Tornheim pinged me to an immediate question for which the answer is obvious, and that is what brought me to this ANI. You reinstated a POV tag that had been resolved, as you re-added UNDUE material that had been many times discussed, without engaging talk,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Gideon_(2020)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209503834] and that is the (immediate) pattern of editing behavior I've observed over the long haul, which hasn't improved. You take long absences, then don't engage talk at all or ignore requests and questions, and then come in to edit as you please regardless of what has been discussed on talk, sometimes having found sub-standard sourcing or sources that either don't verify content or conflict with higher quality sources, ([[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7#Use of scholarly sources]]) and then leave the citations and other cleanup to others until the next lather-rinse-repeat cycle, and don't appear at times to have read or digested what is written on the page (eg the most recent aspersion in this thread). And you can be extremely polite when under a microscope of scrutiny, but less so with the constant casting of aspersions in talk discussions, which derails productive discussion. {{pb}} As to whether your editing has improved, I haven't had time to check for good faith engagement on talk, but I see the same casting of aspersions as always in this very thread; you seek out obscure journal sources to back your POV (aka cherrypicking via apparently google searching on terms eg [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7#Use of scholarly sources]] rather than relying on a preponderance of higher quality sources); you leave the burden of discussion on others while the content you edit war in stands for months as others won't edit-war it out again; and the finger-pointing and the aspersions are persistent (see above), as is the tendency to not see that you do everything (and more) that you accuse NoonIcarus of doing.{{pb}} Beyond the immediate instance that brought me here, I haven't taken time to look at anyone's recent editing, because a) I am visiting my son, b) all of these matters should be examined before ArbCom, not here, c) the issues with NoonIcarus in this instance are already beaten to death, and d) discussions with you (as with me) tend towards verbosity that will simply exhaust other readers. I am well aware that at times NoonIcarus's editing is also sub-par in several ways, but he has a full command of the sources, context and history, and a full and fair airing of a complex situation is unlikely with an ANI pile-on. The aim of my posts here is only as is appropriate to outline why an Arbcase is called for and context for the immediate issue here (failed verification tags as cleaning up after your edits can be exhausting and it is difficult to get you to engage talk). And I note that, unlike you, NoonIcarus is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to his command of English and being able to explain himself (eg, the misunderstanding about his objection to how some scholarly sources are frequently misused in Venezuelan content, and he is not the only editor to have noticed that). There is no need to fill up this ANI with further analysis of NoonIcarus's editing; what was not represented here at all was both sides of a complex situation in which users with less command of the sources frequently show up. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::ArbCom. --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 22:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Now at Arbcom===<br /> Please see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Venezuelan_politics]].—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 10:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' - Please do not close this thread while ArbCom is considering whether to open a case. If ArbCom accepts the case, they will of course have the final say about NoonIcarus. If ArbCom declines the case, the community should take action, so that dummy edits will be useful to prevent this thread from being archived without action. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Follow up from [[WP:VPM#A personal analysis and proposal|VPM]] ==<br /> {{mbox<br /> | type = style<br /> | image = [[Image:Emblem-WikiVote.svg|50px|Not a vote]]<br /> | text = If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is '''[[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|not a majority vote]]''', but instead a ''discussion'' among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]] regarding the encyclopedia's content, and '''[[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]''' (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, ''not'' by counting votes.<br /> <br /> However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] on the part of others and to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]] on this page by adding &lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt; at the end.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;'''Note:''' Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|single-purpose accounts]]: &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:spa|spa]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt;, suspected [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] users: &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:canvassed|canvassed]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt;, accounts blocked for [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry|sockpuppetry]]: &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:csm|csm]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:csp|csp]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/small&gt;<br /> }}&lt;!-- This is the Not a ballot template --&gt;<br /> === Topic ban proposal for Rachel Helps ===<br /> <br /> :{{userlinks|Rachel Helps (BYU)}}<br /> :{{userlinks|Rwelean}}<br /> :[[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal]]<br /> <br /> Per the evidence I outlined at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal|this VPM discussion]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;oldid=1213522218#A_personal_analysis_and_proposal permanent diff]), Rachel Helps, the Wikipedian-in-Residence at [[Brigham Young University]] and operator of the above two accounts, has for years engaged in extensive undisclosed [[WP:COI]] editing on Wikipedia in collaboration with her employees and professional colleagues. This misconduct falls well short of what is expected of any editor, let alone a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence, and as I have been informed that en.wp has no ability to revoke said position, I propose that '''Rachel Helps be topic-banned from LDS Church-related topics, broadly construed''', which should achieve the same result. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Don't know if this is of any importance, but this sandbox page showed up just recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlomorrIDTech/sandbox Seems to have something to do with BYU, not sure if it's important [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 21:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Original page deleted, archive [https://web.archive.org/web/20240317214235/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlomorrIDTech/sandbox here] [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 23:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> &lt;small&gt;Pinging editors who participated in the prior discussions per [[WP:APPNOTE]]: {{ping|ජපස|WhatamIdoing|Horse Eye's Back|Rosguill|JoelleJay|Bon courage|Aquillion|Hydrangeans|BilledMammal|FyzixFighter|Levivich|Primefac|Vghfr|David Fuchs|Pigsonthewing|BoyNamedTzu|Fram|Certes|Naraht|Guerillero|Awilley}}&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> * How anyone can read Rachel Helps (BYU)'s user page (even before recent edits) and say her CoI is &quot;undisclosed &quot; beggars belief. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **Please take the time to reread the above post and the linked discussion. If you feel that everything outlined in that analysis is perfectly above-board, may I ask if you have performed comparable edits while a WiR? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **For example, taking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rwelean&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213525368 this recent diff into consideration], have you ever created a page for a friend while a WiR, and subsequently edited it after you had co-authored an article together and/or one of you had begun to supervise the other's education programme? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***Now try addressing what I said, rather than some other imagining. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *** And '''don't''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213531040 edit my comments]. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 17:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ****My sincerest apologies, I think that was an edit conflict (you added it in a separate edit presumably while I was replying to you). [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *****NP, I've also just had an EC with no notification. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. There seems to be some idea (such as advanced by Andy above) that merely disclosing ''a'' COI absolves you of any possible infractions; that is not the case, as the evidence at the VPM discussion amply demonstrates. There's apparent evidence of off-wiki coordination that obfuscates COI editing. I see the concern that there are much ''worse'' offenders here, and Helps' self-identification makes picking out the COI edits that much easier... but that doesn't materially change the problem, discussed at length [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Wikipedia_in_Residence:_is_this_a_way_around_conflict_of_interest_rules? in the wider VPM thread], that Helps and similar editors have materially distorted and overemphasized coverage of LDS topics in ways that are not keeping with due weight. This is probably an issue with a ''lot'' of GLAM/WIR stuff, so I'm not surprised Andy is circling the wagons, but this is a pretty egregious example. [[User:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **First you misattribute a view I do not hold to me, then you impugn my integrity. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Overwhelming Support.''' WP:COI editing is bad enough, but considering that WiR is involved and that the COI violations are related to religion (which is already a subject that requires great care to maintain NPOV), Helps should absolutely be topic banned from LDS articles. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:* And to further comment on this, these violations seem to be contrary to the purpose of WiR, which is for an existing editor to &quot;''accept a placement with an institution to facilitate Wikipedia entries related to that institution,''&quot; ''' ''not'' ''' to have an person with existing ties to the institution to &quot;facilitate&quot; Wikipedia articles on their institution<br /> *:[[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 16:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''', the disregard and disrespect this paid editor has for our COI expectations is staggering. The attitude is not that they should follow best practices, its that anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted and permitted in infinite quantities. An example of this attitude: &quot;Also, if something is &quot;strongly discouraged,&quot; it sounds like it's actually still allowed. A rule that can't be enforced is not really a rule.&quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zeniff&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213375632] So lets do what we have to do and enforce our community expectations, otherwise people will continue to ignore and disrespect &quot;A rule that can't be enforced&quot; [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''' I do see violations of COI policies but they are not an end in themselves and exist to protect the reliability of our content. So, can I get some examples of shoddy content being injected into our articles by Rachel Helps? Thanks, [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 16:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:jps wrote in the linked discussion, {{talkquote| I continue to find poor writing, sourcing, and editorial approaches on page after page dedicated. The cleanup that will be required to recover from this is tremendous ...}}Some diffs are in order? [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 17:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I listed diffs in that thread. Happy to list them again, but it may be a bit repetitive. Also, you can check my article space edit history from today as I’ve begun the long process of dealing with the fallout and that history may be illustrative. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose'''. Apparently Airship was posting this while I was posting my disagreement with the evidence presented in the other thread. Yes, she seems to have written an article about an (apparently notable) co-author. More than half the evidence presented is about other editors (how dare she help newbies?). There have been previous discussions about her editing, and they've agreed that [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board]] applies. She has [[User_talk:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)/Archive_6#c-Rachel_Helps_(BYU)-2020-12-03T17:38:00.000Z-SlimVirgin-2020-12-02T23:11:00.000Z|confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things]]. More generally, I think that much of this is based on fear of religious editors. For example: She is accused of – over the course of 18 years and nearly 10,000 edits – writing two (2) articles that some editors (including me) think she might be too close to the subject to do so independently, and that it would have been more appropriate to send through [[WP:AFC]]. That's 4% of her article creations. Banning someone for a procedural error in 4% of contributions is not a proportional response. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You know it should be 100% through AfC right? &quot;you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;&quot; Thats incredibly damning. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No, I don't agree that articles she needed to send articles such as [[Stretch Armstrong (ska band)]] and [[List of inmates of Topaz War Relocation Center]] and [[Anarchism and Esperanto]] and [[Hidden Figures (picture book)]] through AFC. Can you think of any reason why, e.g., she should consider herself to have a conflict of interest with a Japanese interment camp that was closed before she was born, then do please explain that. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Because she was paid to make them. Thats a direct financial COI. I didn't say she needed to send the articles to AfC, I said she should have sent the articles to AfC. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 01:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{u|WhatamIdoing}}, a couple of things: the co-author is also a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rwelean&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213525368 Master's thesis supervisor], which isn't great; as there is precisely one &quot;newbie&quot; named in my analysis (the others being employees, editors with [[User talk:Thmazing|extensive COI history]], and a bureaucraat currently at ArbCom for a CoI issue), I would ask you to consider your words more carefully. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{redacted}}. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::A large proportion of our articles on universities and their staff are probably heavily edited by external relations offices and staff of the organisation, but they generally do it very professionally, under the radar. If we nobble this editor, we need, in fairness, to do the same to all those others too. But the articles are often accurate and well-written (because they've been written by someone who actually knows what they're talking about). Apply COI rules with caution lest you end up with an encyclopaedia written entirely by clueless people using out-of-date sources. Remember, most academic/institutional COI editing won't be reported because the person who knows (a) that the University of Somewhere's article is edited mostly by JSomeone, and (b) that the public relations officer happens to be called John Someone, can't actually do anything about it without outing themselves as another staff-member, and DOXing Dr Someone. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 18:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Isn't this argument the equivalent of saying &quot;If the cops don't have the knowledge and resources to give every single speeder a speeding ticket then nobody should get a speeding ticket&quot;? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::No, it's like saying that if ''absolutely everyone'' is speeding down a particular bit of road, then maybe something's wrong with the speed-limit (or the overall approach to its enforcement) and issuing one ticket won't solve the problem. Our COI policy is wildly naive, and particularly good at punishing those who admit their COI rather than those who just deny everything. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 20:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::But your argument isn't that everyone is speeding, your argument is that most roads have been sped on. Do you really think that &quot;absolutely everyone&quot; is doing egregious undisclosed COI editing? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::If you happen to see any other paid contributors, grandly titled &quot;Wikipedians-in-Residence&quot; and promoted by the WMF as an example of Wikimedia-public relations, who undermine COI to this extent, give me a ping and I'll certainly !vote to &quot;nobble&quot; them. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 18:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Nobble is actually a word, huh. Also, another day, another {{u|Primefac}} LDSuppression — when will it end? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::In fairness he's also been taking action to resolve these COI issues off-wiki, see discussion on his talk page. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 21:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|She has confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things.}}{{pb}}Contrast this with her COI declarations:{{pb}}{{tq|However, curators and other librarians sometimes request that I work on certain pages.}} ...&lt;br&gt;{{tq|One of my students created the page for James Goldberg at the request of a curator, in conjunction with the library acquiring his personal papers. I assigned this to one of my students rather than myself because I know James personally.}} ...&lt;br&gt;{{tq|When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work. When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work.}} ... &lt;br&gt;{{tq|At the request of one of my curator colleagues, I improved the page for Glen Nelson.}} ...{{pb}}{{tq|I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon. I participate in this community of Mormon artists. Their shows have featured work by artists whose pages I have worked on for work, for example, Matt Page (artist), whose page I created when our 21st-century curator requested that I work on his page after acquiring some of his personal papers.}} [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::People make suggestions for topics; sometimes she agrees. So? People ask me to make edits, too; sometimes I grant their requests, too. I'd bet that if people in your life know you edit Wikipedia, that you also get such requests. That's not a conflict of interest.<br /> :::I'd also like you to think about what {{xt|I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon}} means. It means she gives money to them, not the other way around. Shall we ban Wikipedia editors who donate to the WMF or one of the affiliates from editing anything in [[:Category:Wikipedia]]? Shall we tell editors that if they buy Girl Scout cookies, they can't edit [[Girl Scouts of the USA]]? Kick all the devs out of the open-source articles? Merely being a minor donor or a minor customer is not automatically a conflict of interest. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Are you just...willfully ignoring all context now? Because this is starting to look like bikesheddy obstructionist nitpicking for the sake of...who knows?{{pb}}Here we have an ''employer'' requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer, because Helps is officially employed in a WP liaison capacity with that employer. Helps says she fulfills some of these requests. All of this is above-board PAID (but not necessarily COI) editing and is utterly different from your hypothetical of some random person suggesting you write about some topic neither of you has a COI with. It also happens to contradict your claim that Helps says BYU doesn't choose topics for her to write about, which wouldn't actually even be a problem if those topics weren't connected to her or BYU (and I'm not alleging they are!).{{pb}}Your second paragraph is somehow even more of a strawman. Nowhere in the comment above did I allege Helps has a COI with any of those examples of employer-requested editing, and certainly nowhere did I suggest editors can't edit on things they've ever spent any amount of money on. It's almost like you are replying to some synthesis of my comments in this thread, but I know that can't be true because if you had actually read my one other substantive comment in this ANI discussion you wouldn't have made that ridiculous comparison to Girl Scout Cookies in the first place when it's abundantly clear Helps' COI with ARCH-HIVE goes way beyond simply donating to them on Patreon. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 22:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{u|JoelleJay}} my editing experience with {{u|WhatamIdoing}} has been {{mdash}} their Wikipedia editing style comes across as inexplicably argumentative or contrarian on most any topic. I don't recall if they eventually come around or change their mind, such as after somehow ferreting out a truth during a particular confrontation or argument. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 21:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::{{xt|Here we have an ''employer'' requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer}}:<br /> ::::::No, we don't. Here we have ''colleagues with no authority over her whatsoever'', often from unrelated departments, who think they've identified a cool subject for Wikipedia, chosen for their relevance to ''the colleagues' own interests and activities'', and an employer who thinks Wikipedia is cool enough that they let her spend part of her work time making that information freely available to the world. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Are you really suggesting someone whose position is &quot;Coordinator of Wikipedia Initiatives at the Harold B. Lee Library&quot; is being paid to edit in whatever topic areas they want with no expectation from the university that this work ever ought to benefit the university or further the interests of its owner? Or that a BYU employee requesting an article on a former BYU professor after the employee helped procure some of that professor's own works for BYU's collection, might be making this request on behalf of BYU as part of their ''job''?{{pb}}Do you think, in the above example, that someone serving in an official, Wikipedia-supported expert editing instructor position would believe COI from their extensive personal relationship with the subject is eliminated by assigning that article creation request to their own BYU employees? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 00:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''' in response to ping: frankly, I haven't read the mountain of evidence in enough detail to !vote, but I don't think this problem is limited to a single editor. We may need to take a more holistic approach rather than hoping that removing one person will make everything right. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 17:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' and agree with Certes above that this is only part of the problem. I became aware of the BYU walled garden of sources, awards, and editors through the Nihonjoe ANI discussion and subsequent Arbcom case. Looking at their edits, I first noticed the problematic editing and undisclosed COI of [[User:Thmazing]], who will warrant an ANI section on their own. But other names which kept popping up where &lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;[[User:Hydrangeans]]&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt;, who keeps denying the obvious COI issues, and Rachel Helps (and her other account) and her large number of paid BYU students (who list her as their employer). <br /> :When I look at an article like [[Second Nephi]], completely rewritten by these editors over the last few months[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=1212916834&amp;oldid=1166026852] (apart from [Hydrangeans] and Rachel Helps, I count 3 other paid BYU editors there): the page is expanded, but hardly improved. Claims like &quot;J.N. Washburn, an independent scholar, cites that 199 of 433 verses from Isaiah appear with the same wording and proposes that Joseph Smith used the King James Bible version whenever it was close enough to the original meaning of the plates he was said to be translating and used the new translation when meaning differed&quot; not only treat the &quot;he find some old plates he translated&quot; as truth, but try to claim that &quot;independent&quot; scholars support this, even though Jesse Nile Washburn was a LDS missionary who had studied at BYU before he published his books on Mormonism, so no idea what's &quot;independent&quot; about him. The whole article, just like most articles rewritten by Rachel Helps and her employees, are written from a distinctly in-universe, uncritical perspective. <br /> :For some reason she is very reluctant to note her COI on the talk page of these articles, insisting that the declaration on her user page is sufficient. She also takes it upon herself to remove critical tags from the pages, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Noah&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1202040173 here] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Omni&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213185725 here], or to remove correct[https://books.google.be/books?id=QDsALaUZapUC&amp;pg=PA150&amp;dq=%22Brian+Thomas+Kershisnik%22&amp;hl=en&amp;newbks=1&amp;newbks_redir=0&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiwr7-i7PGEAxVhdqQEHZOOANkQ6AF6BAgOEAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Brian%20Thomas%20Kershisnik%22&amp;f=false][https://www.smofa.org/uploads/files/219/LA-StoryboardBuilding-a-Movie.pdf] but unsourced info and revert to equally unsourced info for unclear reasons[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Kershisnik&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196164460]. A typical edit is something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tree_of_life_vision&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1195021060 this], supposedy &quot;more detail for the naturalistic explanation section&quot; but in reality removing two of the four sources and changing the more general claim about the non-religious origin of some Mormon belief to a much more LDS-friendly version. Just some examples from her 100 most recent mainspace edits... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> &lt;s&gt;*'''Support''' per Fram's evidence and others. I should note the above mentioned [[Second Nephi]] refers to another &quot;independent scholar&quot; (Matthew Nickerson) and then cites an article that appeared in a journal published by BYU. I would also hope that if a ban is enacted, it explicitly covers the [[Association for Mormon Letters]] and related topics, including fellow members, per the information provided in the Village Pump thread. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 18:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/s&gt;<br /> ::I'm striking my support for this topic ban (you can call me neutral I guess) though I still support the one for Thmazing below. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 23:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support''', not because Rachel Helps has undisclosed COI (she discloses BYU and AML on her userpage), but because she helped other editors with undisclosed COI (e.g. BYU, AML) make undisclosed COI edits, and did things like nominate their articles to DYK, or move their articles to mainspace. The diffs are at [[WP:VPM]]. I also agree with Certes that this problem is broader and includes the editors who have/had undisclosed COIs, but that doesn't absolve Ms. Helps of her role in what now seems to be an actual conspiracy of AML people to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, their work, and by extension their religion, by using a combination of undisclosed accounts and paid BYU editors. The unfortunate thing is that if everybody affiliated with AML had just disclosed it, there wouldn't really have been a problem... except they would have had to wait for editors without COI to do things like approve drafts, but I don't get why that would have been a problem. Undisclosed COI editing is a problem even if it's ''good'' undisclosed COI editing because it undermines trust. It's really quite dangerous to the mission of an encyclopedia anyone can edit: the whole venture rests on the belief that editors will follow &quot;the honor system&quot; and either avoid or be transparent about their COIs. Finally, '''a note to anyone commenting''': If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::One of the reasons I still support a full TBAN and not a lesser sanction is that Rachel Helps has been editing longer than I have. And unlike me, she was paid to do it. If she cannot learn in eight years of paid editing what I learned in five years of volunteer editing in my spare time, then I'm not sure there is much hope here. She's not new at this, and this isn't the first time these problems have come up. I'd have more sympathy if she had less experience or if this wasn't a repeat issue. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 15:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::On one hand, I'd support a topic ban on the paid student employees. Certainly going forward that's what I think is best (''employees'' of the BYU WiR should not edit articles related to Mormonism... let them do that on their own time), but then TBANing the WiR should be sufficient to prevent problems with student employees in the future (and per her note below, she is already reassigning them to other topics).<br /> ::On the other hand, I don't like the idea of sanctioning any of the student employees because they were &quot;just following orders,&quot; and if their orders were different, they'd have followed the different orders, so I don't view the student employees as being culpable or even being able to act independently of their supervisor (the WiR), I see them as proxies/meatpuppet accounts except they understandably would think their proxying was OK because it was directed and supervised by a WiR. So I think I come down on the side of giving students a pass for past policy/guideline violations as long as there are clear guardrails for the future. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :'''Support with regret'''. I really wish this could be done differently, but I think things have come to a head now and there may be no way to fix it without this kind of drastic approach. I tried to have a conversation yesterday with Rachel about improving her sourcing guideline, and I think that she is likely trying her best to act in good faith, but she is well past being able to collaborate with those who are going to question the [[WP:FRINGE]] nature of the claims that many apologists for the Mormon religion continue to make about their holy books. I could handle that (indeed, we see that sort of issue a lot here) if it was not also coupled with institutional support from Wikipedia as well as BYU in a way that I think was never done properly. If we are going to pay students to edit Wikipedia, they ought to be allowed to edit it freely. BYU students are at a risk in being active here. If I saw one of them make an edit that looked like apostasy, I could report them to their stake or bishop or the school itself and they could be found in violation of the strict honor code and expelled. I don't think we have thought clearly about what that means given the openness of this website and the unusual closed-ness of the BYU system. For the benefit of all involved, it is probably best that this partnership be ended with a clean break. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. Rachel Helps has now disclosed a massive amount of COI on her user page. Given how extensive and egregious it is, as well as her repeated emphasizing that she uses her personal account to publish articles she feels would be in violation of PAID if published from her BYU account, I get the impression that she still does not understand what it means to have a COI and how that should impact her editing. Initially this put her actions in a slightly better light to me, since it seemed many of these violations were done in mostly good faith and simply weren't recognized by her to be COI (or at least not ''that'' big of a COI, which is more of an institutional problem), rather than intentional concealment of edits she knew weren't kosher. I would have been satisfied with a promise to avoid editing or directing others to edit articles where there is even a whiff of apparent COI and an agreement to limit LDS-universe sourcing. However, reading this [[Special:Permalink/1213529782#The_ARCH-HIVE_moved_to_draftspace|dissembling exchange]] she had on her personal account talkpage with an NPPer regarding COI and blatant PROMO for ARCH-HIVE, I have a hard time believing no deceit has occurred: {{tq2|Hi Celestina007, first you said that you draftified it because of sourcing issues and notability issues, but now because of promo and possible COI? A little consistency would be nice. I thought about what you said about the page having too much promotional language, and I removed most of the background section. I have an interest in the page (otherwise I wouldn't have written it), but I don't think it's a COI. I don't make any money from the ARCH-HIVE's success, and I have not been paid to write the page.}} This was in Feb 2022, well after she had started writing blog [https://www.arch-hive.net/post/in-praise-of-funeral-potatoes posts] and [https://www.arch-hive.net/post/the-arch-hive-holiday-gift-guide-2020 participating] in exhibitions for the group, and well after she [https://www.associationmormonletters.org/2020/05/rachel-helps-reviews-2019s-mormon-novels/ served] on an AML judging committee the same year ARCH-HIVE won an award. This led me to look into some other potential COI edits involving authors she has reviewed for the AML: [[Dean Hughes]], whose wiki page has been edited extensively by Helps' student Skyes(BYU) (66 major [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Skyes%28BYU%29/0/Dean_Hughes edits], 8000+ bytes added, including bibliography entry for the book Helps reviewed); [[D. J. Butler]], to whose bibliography Helps [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._J._Butler&amp;oldid=952515895 added] the book she judged, sourced to an AML announcement by her colleague, and to which Skyes(BYU) [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Skyes%28BYU%29/0/D._J._Butler added] 11 major edits; and [[Steven L. Peck]], 85% of whose page was [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Steven_L._Peck written] by Helps between 2017 and 2023. I'm sure I could go on. Incidentally, pretty much all of these pages have also been edited by Thmazing (AML president) and NihonJoe (ArbCom case)...{{pb}}All of this goes well beyond what we could reasonably expect even a novice editor to understand are COI edits, let alone someone in a ''paid'' position of authority who is mentoring other ''paid'' employees of BYU on how to edit wikipedia articles! Honestly I think ArbCom might be the next place to go given the amount of promotion of minor Mormon contemporary authors by what seems to be a heavily interconnected group of BYU-associated editors with un- or under-declared COIs. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''' I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI. The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground. This will happen as long as anonymous editing is allowed on Wikipedia. But what I think is far more important for determining a possible topic ban for myself and my team is the quality of my edits in the topics the ban is aimed at covering. I believe an underlying assumption is that since I work for the BYU Library, I wouldn't say bad things about Mormonism (broadly construed), the LDS Church, or BYU. I have edited on many pages in these topics and many have changed the way I think about the LDS Church and BYU, and not in a good way. Some examples are [[Battle at Fort Utah]], a page I expanded about a one-sided attack on Timpanogos families supported by Brigham Young that lies at the heart of the city of Provo's founding. What about [[Seventh East Press]], a page for an independent student newspaper at BYU, which was banned from being sold on BYU campus primarily because of an interview with Sterling McMurrin where he said that he didn't believe the Book of Mormon to be literally true (which I promoted on DYK)? The fact that [[Lucinda Lee Dalton]] requested her sealing to her husband be cancelled and it was revoked posthumously? [[Ernest L. Wilkinson]]'s spy ring controversy? Dallin H. Oaks's negative evaluation of [[Nothing Very Important and Other Stories]]? My own students have said things like &quot;I've summarized stuff I disagree with&quot; (and they have published it as part of their job). Some people have expressed shock that as a professional writer, I'm messing up all the time. Guess what. There's no degree in Wikipedia editing! If you examine my considerable edit history, you are going to find errors! But I believe that on the whole, the work I and my students have done has improved Wikipedia. We have added so much accurate information, cited in-line, to reliable sources. We have helped to make more sources discoverable by summarizing and citing them. Is it that surprising that my years of editing Wikipedia in Mormon Studies have led me to gain some expertise in my field and made me want to study Mormon literature professionally? I've attempted to list all the possible COIs I could think of on my user page, and I stand by the NPOV of all of my edits. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment'''. Yes, I'm a paid student editor who works on LDS topics. But that doesn't mean that I have been out to present a construed vision of Mormonism. When people have pointed out a lack of neutral point of view (which was wholly unintentional on my part and consisted of a few words) I have made an effort to fix it and invited them to help me. Other than that, I'm not seeing where there is a lack of this neutral point of view. Is summarizing what other people say about Mormon topics considered a violation of NPOV? Because I didn't think it was. If you're worried about the Mormon authors, keep in mind I have also used sources from Elizabeth Fenton (not a Mormon), John Christopher Thomas (a man who follows the Pentecostal tradition), and Fatimah Salleh (a reverend). [[User:Heidi Pusey BYU|Heidi Pusey BYU]] ([[User talk:Heidi Pusey BYU|talk]]) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{Hat|reason=Getting a bit off-topic. ජපස seems OK with hatting this. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 01:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> *:The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here. You may feel that you run no risk of falling out of favor with your bishop, but if that happened because of your attempt to include content that was critical of your church, ‘’you could be expelled’’. This is what your school says in its policies. Now, maybe they don’t enforce those policies anymore, but I can only go by what I read of BYU’s rules. And according to those rules, it’s not really safe for you to try to accommodate the radically open ideology of this website as you work for and are enrolled in a school which has an entirely different ideological commitment. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Have you seen anything in my edits that is harmful to the LDS Church or to anyone else? [[User:Heidi Pusey BYU|Heidi Pusey BYU]] ([[User talk:Heidi Pusey BYU|talk]]) 22:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You don’t seem to be understanding my point. It doesn’t matter what I have or haven’t seen in your edits. You are free at this website inasmuch it is an Open Culture Movement website to explore, edit, study, and expand your horizons to whatever extent you would like. We encourage that on principle. Normally, I would welcome such engagement. But here is the thing: you are employed by BYU to write here. You are also a student. My commitment to radical openness then is now necessarily tempered by my greater concern for your well-being as a student and student worker because, frankly, that is far more important than the openness of this website. And if your school had a commitment to academic freedom, free speech, and so forth, there would be no tension there. But the fact remains that BYU has really strict policies. To be clear: You aren’t doing anything wrong! But we can’t stop your school from mistreating you on the basis of what I would considered normal activity at this website. If you came out tomorrow as a promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist (and I’m not saying you will… just go with the hypothetical) then while we would welcome you, suddenly you find yourself without support from the institution you rely on. And so we’re stuck. I think we can’t operate according to our own community rules because doing so puts you at risk and we need to figure out how to fix that. Having you contribute to article space is almost certainly not the right answer. If you had a sandbox where you could offer quotes from sources or apologetics or what have you that would help maintain your ecclesiastical endorsement, then there would be less of a problem. But you are duty bound to maintain a fealty to your church and your faith which this website should not be challenging because it can cause you problems. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Acknowledging my [[user:Hydrangeans|disclosed past connection to BYU]], I can't help but think it's a little disingenuous, howsoever inadvertently, to frame this as humanitarian concern for Heidi Pusey (BYU) and kind of paternalistic to insist that she can't assess for herself what her situation at BYU is like and whether there's any {{tq|risk of falling out of favor with your bishop}}, to use your words. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 00:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::The concern is not whether she made the correct or incorrect assessment. I trust that she knows what she is doing. ''I'm assessing the entirety of the situation for myself as a member of this community.'' My goal generally (it has nothing to do with this user specifically) is to make sure that all people are taken care of as best they can be. I see the following situation: (1) BYU has rules (2) this website has rules (3) those rules are by my reading at fundamental odds. I think that the ''best thing we can do'' given that, as a website community, and given that I have absolutely zero sway over BYU, is to prevent a situation where students acting as compelled editors (that's part of what getting paid to edit does, as fun as I find it to be since I do it for free) edit content that is directly relevant to those rules. It's that simple. Because let's say ''there is no risk'' of her running afoul of such. Then that is equally a problem in my mind. This stamps out the very radical openness we are trying to promote and makes me worried that the BYU student who is in the closet about their scholarship that identifies problems with the Book of Mormon would not and ''should not'' take this job. This can of worms is ugly and it gets worse the more you look at it. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 00:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::1. I am not in the closet about my scholarship and do not appreciate such an assumption. <br /> *::::::2. I do not appreciate you attacking my identity and saying I could hypothetically become a &quot;promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist.&quot; Such an assumption is unfounded and unacceptable. I will not tolerate it.<br /> *::::::3. I will no longer reply in this thread. [[User:Heidi Pusey BYU|Heidi Pusey BYU]] ([[User talk:Heidi Pusey BYU|talk]]) 00:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::Y'all don't see the problem here? This is an editor who can't follow a hypothetical and she's being ''paid'' to write about Mormon exegesis. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here.}} I do not think it is our place to try to sanction or remove adult editors from our community because we as a third party judge they are taking on too much risk by editing here. I think this argument is very weak. This is an ANI thread about sanctions. We should stick to discussing and sanctioning actual, demonstrable misconduct. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 00:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::They are at a risk ''because of our toleration of the situation of paid editing through this program''. Shut the program down and it is no longer a risk. The misconduct was done by her boss. I support sanctioning the boss. I'm not sure what to do about the student, so sure, close this whole commentary as off-topic. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{Hab}}<br /> *'''Support''' The evidence seems to be quite clear. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 22:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' based on Rachel Helps' own defense above. {{tq|The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground}} is not a good reason to allow blatant COI editing. I'm okay with driving it even further underground. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 02:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': The COI editing stuff was not my main concern (I'm far more worried about the paid editing junket), but I just thought I'd let the watchers here know that I tagged an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Austin_%28writer%29&amp;diff=1213610933&amp;oldid=1213479191] just now. It's a puff-piece pure and simple and the evidence for COI is pretty straightforward if y'all have been paying attention to these posts. I agree, this needs to be stopped. I'm pretty close to striking my &quot;with regret&quot; which gives me regret. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Honestly, this entire situation shows that we need to take a step back and take a look at possibly changing policy to prevent this from happening again. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::This may need to be kicked to Arbcom. It involves at my last count at least 5 editors not even counting the students. Oh dear. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 02:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': I worry we're conflating separate issues. <br /> ::1) Rachel Helps' involvement with articles about AML, ARCH-HIVE, and Michael Austin strikes me as a clear COI issue and a breach of community trust.<br /> ::2) There's a broader question around how to interpret COI when it comes to BYU and the LDS church. I think the COI argument here is plausible, but much less clear cut than #1. I do worry about creating a chilling effect for e.g. an Oxford professor citing a colleague who was published by Oxford University Press, or a math teacher at a Catholic school editing a page on the Trinity. If we do need to consider this COI, I think we should take our time and define the problem narrowly and precisely.<br /> ::3) There are NPOV and sourcing concerns around some Book of Mormon articles. I'm skeptical that a topic ban will improve this, or that the articles are worse for BYU editors' involvement. [[Second Nephi]] and [[Ammonihah]] are in much better shape than, say, [[Jason]], a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid. The BYU team seems to take these concerns seriously and make good faith efforts to include non-LDS sources. If individual articles aren't notable, we can delete them. <br /> ::4) Finally, there's a concern about implicitly endorsing BYU policies and potential risks to BYU's editors. I agree with [Hydrangeans] that this feels paternalistic, and I don't think this standard is workable. Even if we assume the worst of BYU, should we shut down any attempts to engage editors in China, in case someone writes something that upsets the CCP?<br /> <br /> :I would support a sanction that's more narrowly tailored, e.g. blocking Rachel Helps from edits around AML and BYU faculty, while still letting her write about scripture and history. It seems excessive to block her from absolutely anything LDS related (e.g. [[Battle at Fort Utah]]) or to shut the program down.<br /> <br /> :(In case there are any concerns: I've never met any of the editors involved, I've never attended, worked for, or even visited BYU, I learned what AML was earlier this afternoon, and I've never been a member of the church). [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 03:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Courtesy Break (1)====<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose''' Topic bans should not be punitive and are reserved for editors that engage in [[WP:TE|disruptive]] behavior within that topic area. I just don't see the hallmarks of disruptive editing that I've encountered in other situations, particularly in physics-related topics, that did result in topic bans. I do see very poor judgement when editing with both disclosed and undisclosed COI and operating with the gray zone caused by inconsistence guidance in the COI guidelines (Gray zone example, in one part COI editor should identify in all three places, in another it says that editors may due it in one of three places - an editor who tried to push the former with regards to Rachel was told by multiple admins that their interpretation was more expansive the intended COI guideline). I do find her response to HEB regarding this gray zone very troubling, but not disruptive. This should have been raised at COIN, prior to being elevated to ANI. I would note that Rachel editing and her WiR function have been brought up there before which did not end with sanctions, so it seems like bringing the dispute here has the appearance of forum shopping - might not be given new information since that discussion. I also disagree with the insinuation that because her COI is with BYU, she is incapable of editing in an NPOV manner when it comes to the LDS Church under some kind of threat, spoken or unspoken, from the religious leaders and therefore inherently disruptive if she edits in that topic. BYU teaches evolution in its biology classes, teaches the standard 4.5 billion year age for the earth in its geology classes, teaches a human history/prehistory that does not kowtow to Biblical or Book of Mormon teachings in its anthropology and archaeology classes, and so on - so the argument that the BYU employment means she has to edit inline with church doctrine is based on faulty assumptions and extrapolations. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 03:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:If Microsoft hired people to create articles about its products, and these editors disclosed they were paid editors but in some cases promoted some of these products while working with other Microsoft employees who edited with undisclosed COI, Wikipedia would siteban all of them with little discussion. It doesn't matter if Microsoft doesn't tell the editors exactly what to edit, or tells them explicitly to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if the articles about Microsoft products are totally NPOV and policy-compliant. Advertisement is advertisement, and this is advertisement. It doesn't matter if it's the LDS Church or Microsoft, it doesn't matter if it's articles about characters in the Book of Mormon or articles about characters in Microsoft video games. In both cases, it's just paying people to raise the profile of their products and their brand on Wikipedia. A TBAN from promoting the product seems actually lenient to me, like the minimum preventative measure Wikipedia should take in this situation, not punitive at all. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 04:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|It doesn't matter if the articles about Microsoft products are totally NPOV and policy-compliant.}} Sounds like you're saying that it doesn't matter the quality of the edits, if the motivation for making the edits is wrong. Is this correct? Some might disagree with that statement, preferring to accept high quality edits regardless of motivation. Although maybe we should discuss this more at [[WT:COI]] rather than here. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::No, not the ''motivation'' for making the edits, and no, this is the right place, this is about whether this proposed TBAN is preventative or not. I'm saying &quot;it doesn't matter&quot; in several different ways, but the motivation of the editor isn't one of them, who knows or cares about people's motivations, since we have no way of determining an editor's motivations.<br /> *:::If an edit violates one rule, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate another rule. If an edit violates COI or PAID, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate V or NPOV. If an edit violates NPOV, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate V or COI or PAID. If V or NPOV editing excused COI or PAID editing then we can just mark those pages historical, what's the point of even reading them?<br /> *:::It also doesn't matter because a policy-compliant, high-quality Wikipedia article is good advertising. A TFA is the highest-quality level of article that Wikipedia offers, and also the highest-quality advertising placement. If someone is trying to promote themselves or something on Wikipedia, a high-quality article is going to be better than a low-quality one, and while a puffery article might be the best, an NPOV article is still better than no article. Companies/people/churches/other orgs will pay to have policy-compliant articles created about themselves or their products because it's good advertising, it's good for their reputation, which is good for business and the bottom line. It's about $$$.<br /> *:::And just to belabor that point a little bit, think about it: how much are they paying per article? Hundreds of dollars? A thousand or a few thousand? Where else can you get guaranteed top-of-Google SEO placement for ''any'' search term for that cheap? And it's a one-time cost when they pay a paid editor to put it on Wikipedia, whereas ordinarily SEO of that quality is a monthly payment not a one-time. I think paid editors are like 90% cheaper than traditional SEO. Damn, I should advertise :-P<br /> *:::But if you step back, by piggybacking on volunteer labor, organizations can use paid editing to save themselves a ''ton'' of money on internet advertising while breaking ''no'' Wikipedia rules (if done properly). If we were smart we'd bypass paid editing and the WMF and just set up an actual job board on Wikipedia and have some kind of group Patreon account. Instead of making donations to the WMF, buyers could just pay for articles about whatever they want, and editors can get paid for writing articles, like $50 for a stub, maybe $500 for a GA, $1000 for an FA. Channel it all into an official channel and kinda kill two birds with one stone, I say. (And I'd be happy to administer it all for a reasonable management fee.)<br /> *:::So anyone who wants to invest their marketing $ in paid editing is actually free to do that, as long as the editors disclose and otherwise abide by the rules. But in ''this'' case, we have undisclosed COI and PAID editing by a number of people, and in the situation where an organization's marketing $'s are going not just to policy-compliant editing, but also to non-policy-compliant editing, then it seems like barring the non-policy-compliant editors from editing about the organization, broadly construed, is appropriate.<br /> *:::As an aside, it also bothers me that paid undergraduates are involved. Teaching the wrong lesson here. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Do you have these concerns about GLAM in general? Suppose the British Museum pays me to write about obscure parts of their collection. This will be great SEO and may encourage people to visit, and even though the museum is free, many visitors will probably make a donation. If I use the best available scholarship and teach millions of people for free, and the museum gets donations, would you object? [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 07:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::GLAM walks a fine line, no question. That's why it's extra important that people who participate in that sort of program as leaders be extra careful to keep their noses clean and think very carefully about the implications of their actions and activities, as far as I'm concerned. The alternative can easily devolve into this mess. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *:::::@[[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]]: I don't know much about GLAM, but yes, same concerns, no reason to treat galleries, libraries, archives, and museums, as any different from other organizations (companies, non-profits, churches). In your hypothetical, you'd still be hired to promote the museum's product (their collection), no different from Microsoft paying someone to promote one of their products. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::The problem with COI-tainted editing is that it given us an encyclopedia (and community) different to what we would have with if unconflicted editors were at work. It skews the process. It is &quot;dirt in the gauge&quot; as [[WP:COI]] used to mention. In practical terms we seem to have ended up with Wikipedia giving disproportionate/undue and often credulous coverage to this religion. The argument that &quot;COI doesn't matter if the edits are good&quot; would justify lifting restrictions on [[WP:PAID]] editing (and is often delpoyed by paid editors). [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 05:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::If it truly is a prescriptive ban, intended to enforce adherence to COI guidelines, then the TBAN should be narrowly applied to where she has actual COI, as defined by those COI guidelines. In this case, the COI is BYU and AML. I am not convinced that it extends to the LDS Church or LDS topics generally. She is a BYU employee, not an LDS Church employee. BYU employees can and do say things that contradicts the church, and the same is true for Rachel - some examples that immediately come to mind are her edits that do make look the church look good (see her list above) and even her use of &quot;LDS Church&quot;, which indicate the arguments that her terms of employment affect LDS-related topics generally are easily disproven. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 12:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::That's like saying an [[Altria]] employee only has a narrow COI to the company, and is free to write about the [[Health effects of tobacco]]! If you're paid to write a load of stuff about Mormons, the COI problem resides in doing just that. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 13:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::{{tq|She is a BYU employee, not an LDS Church employee. BYU employees can and do say things that contradicts the church}}{{pb}}This is completely false, as BYU is ''owned'' by the LDS Church and its honor code (literally the Church Education System Honor Code, sponsored by the LDS Church) expressly prohibits actions that go against church doctrine:{{tq2|As faculty, administration, staff, and students voluntarily commit to conduct their lives in accordance with the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ, they strive to maintain the highest standards in their personal conduct regarding honor, integrity, morality, and consideration of others. By accepting appointment, continuing in employment, being admitted, or continuing enrollment, each member of the campus communities personally commits to observe the CES Honor Code approved by the Board of Trustees: &lt;br&gt;Maintain an Ecclesiastical Endorsement, including striving to deepen faith and maintain gospel standards}}{{pb}}Multiple ''BYU professors'' have been fired for supporting--off-campus and strictly in a personal, sometimes even private, capacity--things the LDS church considers against-doctrine[https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4969940&amp;itype=NGPSID][https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2006/10/27/fired-byu-professors-speak-out/][https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2006/10/27/fired-byu-professors-speak-out/][https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/19/mormon-university-instructor-fired-after-facebook-post-supporting-lgbt-rights-she-says/][https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2022/02/16/byu-professor-says-she-was-let-go-lgbtq-advocacy], so there is absolutely reason to believe they would fire a mere student employee for expressing such opinions. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 13:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::It is an extrapolation beyond the stated honor code that you quoted to say &quot;principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ&quot; equals &quot;church doctrine&quot;. If that were true then all members of the faculty and employees would have to be members of the LDS Church (they aren't), not teach evolution (they do), not teach the big bang (they do), not teach a completely non-theistic abiogenesis and creation of the earth (they do), not teach that human civilization extends way past 4000BC with no mention of Nephites, Lamanites, or Noah's ark (they do), or not use &quot;LDS Church&quot; (they do). Again, it's demonstrably false the claimed level of control over BYU employees in general and specifically in this case. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Please read the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal|original thread]], this is discussed in great detail. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 13:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::You are conflating the acceptability of BYU profs lecturing on ''what is the mainstream, secular perspective on those topics, outside the context of the church'', and BYU profs opining on what is &quot;true&quot; about those topics ''in relation to church doctrine''. The former is endorsed by BYU, the latter can lead to threat of excommunication.[https://www.chronicle.com/article/mormon-scholar-facing-excommunication-for-research-gets-a-reprieve/] ({{tq|A professor at a Washington State community college who expected to be excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over an article he wrote regarding the Book of Mormon has had his disciplinary hearing postponed indefinitely. &lt;br&gt;Thomas W. Murphy, chairman of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, came under scrutiny for an article he wrote for American Apocrypha, an anthology published in 2002 by Signature Books. In the article, he reviews genetic data to refute the Mormon assertion that American Indians are descended from ancient Israelites. ...}}) [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-feb-16-me-mormon16-story.html][https://www.smh.com.au/world/mormons-excommunicate-australian-author-20050805-gdltir.html] ({{tq|An Australian author who wrote that DNA evidence fails to support the ancestral claims outlined in the Book of Mormon has been excommunicated by The Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints.}}) This is also blatantly obvious from the examples I gave above of BYU lecturers' personal opinions on homosexuality and feminism directly leading to their termination of employment. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::All BYU employees are directly employed by the LDS Church, there is no separation between the two. I'm surprised that someone who primarily edits in the LDS topic area wouldn't know that. Its also a bit odd that you're holding up evolution, age of the earth, Big Bang etc up as ways in which BYU contradicts church teachings when the LDS Church doesn't take a position on evolution and doesn't take a position on the age of the earth or how it/the universe was created beyond a rather wishy washy one. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 14:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *::::Note: a query to {{noping|FyzixFighter}} about any potential COI elicited this strange response.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FyzixFighter&amp;curid=2607466&amp;diff=1213843417&amp;oldid=1213808563] [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 13:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Thats not terribly surprising, at this point it looks like all of the editors besides FyzixFighter who were harassing anyone who question Rachel Helps (BYU) have disclosed COIs. Its a shame they have chosen to retire rather than face the music but thats their choice. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' If you aren't allowed to be neutral on this topic per terms of employment, you shouldn't be able to edit. Wikipedia has a lot of stuff not related to this to edit. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood|talk]]) 04:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose broad topic ban''' Oh no, don't ban my second-favorite wiki-gnome! Seriously, though, it saddens me to see someone who is so clearly a net-positive getting hauled off to AN/I like this. Though I don't recall collaborating directly with Rachel Helps, we've crossed paths many times over the past several years, and I've always been impressed by her approach to editing and interacting with others here. I've found her to be polite, intelligent, and honest, if perhaps a bit naive. I remember being confused the first time she crossed my watchlist...my knee-jerk reaction was &quot;why is an official BYU employee/representative editing articles about Mormonism&quot;? Then I looked at the substance of her edits...adding sources here, reverting vandalism there, removing copyvios, expanding articles about Mormon women, and refusing to take a stance on controversial issues where she thought she might be influenced by bias. Whenever there was a consensus on something, she would follow that consensus. If she wasn't sure about something, she would ask. I think I remember seeing her report herself to a noticeboard somewhere when another editor continued challenging her on something where she thought she was right but wanted to make sure the broader community thought so too. Look at her response to this. She's not digging in—she's trying to understand and comply with the community's expectations. If you look at her recent edits to [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)#Conflict of Interest statements]] you'll see that she's gone waaay overboard on trying to declare every possible conflict of interest. She's openly admitting fault where she was wrong, and is clearly committed to doing better. I hope the people !voting here and the closing admin will take that into consideration. Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 04:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't get the impression she is trying to understand me or anyone else who is concerned about the sum total of the mess that is Book of Mormon articles. There is absolutely no engagement with the issues at hand and when I tried to explain [[WP:FRINGE]] sourcing, the answer came back &quot;yes, we disagree.&quot; That's fine, but one of us is being paid to be here and has a ready paid group of students who look to her for editorial guidance, right? You haven't been in conflict with her. If you end up in conflict, do you think the wider context would be a problem? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 11:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I don't know that I'd call it &quot;conflict&quot; but I can recall instances where I've disagreed with edits I saw her making. In each case, she immediately stopped what she was doing and listened to my objections. If she wasn't convinced by my argument, she sought a wider consensus. I've never seen her edit against a consensus. <br /> *::A few years ago there was a big influx of newbie editors trying to scrub the words &quot;Mormon&quot; and &quot;Mormonism&quot; from the encyclopedia because of recent remarks from the correct LDS president/prophet saying that use of the term was offensive to God and a victory for Satan. (The LDS church has had a long on-again-off-again relationship with the word.) I personally thought it was best to continue using the word on Wikipedia, both to be true to how reliable sources talk about Mormonism, and to be accessible to readers who are only familiar with the common name. But I suddenly found myself in the minority in opposing the changes. I suspect that personally Rachel Helps wanted to follow the command of the LDS president and that her colleagues and possibly employers at BYU were hoping that she could make Wikipedia comply with the church's new style guide. But she didn't. She participated in some discussions about the disagreement, but she didn't push hard for any particular outcome, and she (afaict) has continued to this day to respect and enforce Wikipedia's own style guide that still explicitly allows calling people Mormons, probably to the chagrin of church leadership. <br /> *::Anyway, my point is that as far as disagreements go, Rachel Helps is one of the more pleasant people I've ever disagreed with. I wish more Wikipedians were like her in that respect. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 15:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I don't think pleasantness is an issue. There is a common misconception on Wikipedia that COIs are inherently somehow &quot;bad&quot;, but in reality the more you do in life the more COIs you accrue. It's only people who sit in their basement all day who don't have any COIs. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You didn't really answer my question. Here's where I am as of two days ago. This user has stated ''point blank'' that she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources. In the last two days, after going through hundreds of edits at dozens of articles I notice that this is the ''primary'' kind of sourcing that her students are inserting into articlespace and they are still active. I get the distinct impression that she will not be directing her students to re-evaluate their sourcing guidelines or engage with me in discussion about this topic. Now, if I had a bunch of students I could employ to check up on all this, maybe that would be an equal footing dispute. But I don't think the idea here is to start a paid editing arms race, is it? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Sorry, I definitely wasn't trying to dodge a question. I guess my point is that I think Rachel Helps is the kind of person who would voluntarily direct her students to follow whatever policy, guideline, or consensus you pointed her to. I think she could also be convinced by logic alone, but I can't say for sure...people like that seem to be rare these days. I wouldn't be surprised if, to comply with a consensus, she asked her students to nominate their own articles for deletion. That said, I am not really clear on what you mean by religious sources that have been noticed by other religious sources. Are you talking in general about religious academic sources citing each other, or specifically about Mormon academics citing other Mormon academics but without getting cited by non-Mormon religious scholars? (There are probably better forums than AN/I for that discussion.) &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 16:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::If you're interested, this discussion that ground to a halt is still on her user talkpage. Feel free to check it out. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::So this whole long thing arose out of a dispute over whether religious sources could be reliable? She wouldn't agree that reliable religious sources needed to be validated by reliable secular sources, or that verifiable information should be omitted entirely when nobody could find a reliable secular source on the subject, so you started a COI discussion at VPM and now we have a topic ban proposal?<br /> *::::::Why didn't you start an RFC over whether information only available in religious sources should be excluded wholesale from all of Wikipedia, instead of trying to get rid of one editor who disagreed with you? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::That is ''not'' what this arose out of. ''That'' dispute arose because I asked if she would consider hitting pause on her program and she came back with a set of sourcing guidelines that I found problematic. I asked her to hit pause on the program because I saw widespread issues that I am still working my way through and then noticed that all these students were being organized by one coordinator with what essentially amounted to the blessings of the GLAM/WIR system. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I want to offer an addendum that since I wrote this comment, Rachel Helps has begun engaging with me on her talkpage. I find this encouraging. I still think on the balance having her and her students move away from LDS topics is a good idea, but there is discussion happening and as long as that is happening there is hope. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Reply|Awilley}} did you see Levivich's request &quot;If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it.&quot;? We know you're involved and not a neutral admin, but do you have any conflicts of interest you should be disclosing? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 14:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::That's kind of a weird litmus test for participating in an AN/I thread. I'd like to think that people should be judged based on the strength of their arguments rather than assumptions about their motivation. But if you insist, I attended BYU from about 2006-2012. I would have no idea what AML was if I hadn't just read the thread on village pump. To my knowledge I don't know and have never met any of the people in this or the other thread IRL, though it's possible we crossed paths without my realizing it. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::: Its not weird if its an AN/I thread about undisclosed BYU related editing... Ok, I'm planning to open a new subsection about canvassing in a minute. Specifically regarding you and BoyNamedTzu. Is there anything you can tell me which would suggest that I should only open a discussion about BoyNamedTzu? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Eh, what? I don't know who BoyNamedTzu is. I logged in yesterday after getting a ping to the VP thread because I had participated in an older thread about you and Rachel Helps. Then I got another ping here because I had participated in the thread yesterday. I don't know what you're looking for, but since I've got your attention, I'd appreciate it if you could clue me in on what the invisible game of baseball is you mentioned on the VP thread. Because your response here seems a bit disproportionate. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Yes, it is your sudden and inexplicable participation in that older thread about Rachel Helps and I which forms the basis for the canvassing concerns. I believe I said it was a game of inside baseball with an invisible ball... Unfortunately I can't provide any of that information due to WP:OUTING concerns, but it has been provided to ARBCON. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose broad topic ban'''. If we banned people who had any formal association with a Christian church or worship group from editing articles about Christianity, and the same for all religions and sects, we would have nobody left to edit the articles about those important topics, except maybe culture warriors from opposing beliefs, and who wants that? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 07:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I think you have misunderstood Rachel Helps relationship; it goes beyond a &quot;formal association&quot; - she is an employee, and one who is paid to edit. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Do you think it's ok for a BYU employee, who is paid and pays others to edit Wikipedia, to publish a puffy {{diff2|1073250079|article}} about a Mormon organization she was actively writing pieces for; whose citations toward notability are an interview with one sentence of secondary independent coverage of the org, a piece on an exhibition organized by/featuring org members that also has only one sentence of secondary coverage of the org, and an award from another Mormon company for which this employee served as an awards judge the same year? Is it ok for this employee to initially deny COI with the claim she's merely &quot;interested in the page&quot;? And then, even after concerns about COI have been raised and seemingly acknowledged by her, and after the article was first draftified and then declined at AfC, to still recreate it? {{pb}}Is it ok for her to direct her employees to write articles on subjects ''because she can't write them herself due to COI&quot;? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 12:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', per above. I also believe we should be considering topic bans for the other involved BYU editors. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose such a ban'''. Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page, for example January 2023[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)&amp;oldid=1131332465] at a location allowed by [[WP:DISCLOSE]]. In brief, [[WP:COI]] says &quot;There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs) — Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations ...&quot; ([[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board]]) though there is considerable further nuance which requires careful consideration. Different people may legitimately have different understandings. The status of Wikipedians in Residence has for long been a contentious matter and the problems should not be visited on particular individuals. My own experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 12:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **What has your &quot;experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive.&quot; to do with a proposal to ban her specifically from BYU editing where evidence shows that it is not &quot;extremely positive&quot; as in neutral, but has too often a clear pro-BYU stance, reducing the emphasis on scientific positions and increasing the emphasis on non-scientific, partisan positions? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': I just added COI tags on ''&lt;s&gt;ten&lt;/s&gt;twelve more articles'' that are connected directly to the COI campaign to promote the [[Association of Mormon Letters]]. Friends, this is really gigantic problem. It's been going on for years. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''': Not being paid by Microsoft is not an excuse for being paid by another lobby group while acting against our trustworthiness guidelines. [[User:Pldx1|Pldx1]] ([[User talk:Pldx1|talk]]) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Courtesy Break (2) ====<br /> <br /> *'''Question''' - Is this a situation that could be resolved with some careful voluntary commitments? The primary issue, it seems to me, is about COI/PAID and not otherwise about competency or a pattern of violating NPOV (I understand there are side conversations about NPOV/RS, but it doesn't seem to be the primacy concern). A topic ban from LDS would not, then, address COI matters to do with any other topic and ''would'' prevent her from working on articles with no COI (unless we say belonging to a religion means you have a COI for articles about that religion and anyone else who happens to belong).&lt;br/&gt;What about a voluntary commitment to (a) maintain a list on her userpage of articles edited with a conflict of interest, erring on the side of inclusion; (b) adding a notice to the talk page of any article edited in connection with her job (there's another parallel discussion about templates/categories which could accomplish this); (c) specifically noting if an edit is made at the request of an employer? That, combined with the knowledge that her edits will receive additional scrutiny due to this thread, seems like it would resolve this without a topic ban, no? &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 13:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Can you explain how it would be possible for a paid edit not to come with a COI? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 14:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't think I understand your question. If an edit falls under [[WP:PE]], there is a COI. The trouble in this case, I think, is in the line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and paid editors. That's a big, messy question. Ditto the relationship between Mormon subjects broadly, BYU, LDS, etc. (not whether there is one, but how we should think about COI). &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Wikimedian in Residence is a type of paid editor, there is no line between the two. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm not sure what point you're making, but for clarity I will edit my words above: {{tq|line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and ^how we treat other^ paid editors}}. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::So if every edit that falls under PE has a COI... And every edit made by a wikipedian in residence falls under PE... How can a wikipedian in residence work on an article with which they don't have a COI? Any article they work on is one they have a COI with. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::This has not generally been how the community chooses to interact with Wikimedians in Residence. We expect them to take a &quot;warts and all&quot; approach to editing, and to be cautious, but we also do not expect or AFAICT want them to spam {{tl|edit COI}} on most of their contributions. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::And the Wikimedian in Residence in question here has met neither of those expectations. They have not taken a &quot;warts and all&quot; approach to editing and have been about as far away from cautious as its possible to be. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Note that they were first cautioned about this back in 2016 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amgisseman(BYU)/Archive_1&amp;oldid=854327236#COI] and yet the issue there &quot;main concern is breach of our terms of use and COI&quot; is the same issue here because they did not heed the caution. At some points Helps must have wondered why dozens of editors she didn't know were raising issues with her edits and why the people defending her were almost all people she knew personally. She's not a stupid person, she pretty clearly knew that what she was doing wasn't kosher from at least 2016 onwards. She continued to do it anyway. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I would like to understand how this would prevent, for example, the coordinated editing from the Church of Scientology that we banned. We don't enforce disciplinary measures against people on the basis of their religious adherence. But here we have a group is being paid by an institution which is directly involved in the promulgation of said religion. When that happened with the Church of Scientology, we ''blocked the associated IP addresses'' on the argument that there basically was no way they could contribute to the encyclopedia ''at all''. And to be sure, a lot of those accounts did good work other than being part of that coordinated effort. How is this different ''at all''? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The Scientology case began with extensive NPOV violations achieved through sock/meatpuppetry/coordination. We didn't ban them because they were scientologists writing about scientology; we banned them because they were scientologists writing about scientology ''contrary to our policies''. Such evidence hasn't been presented here as far as I've seen. Some level of coordination, yes, which should be disclosed, but not to game the system. That's a fundamental difference that makes the scientology comparison misleading. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Did you read the VPM thread? I document a few of the diffs there and it's basically a litany of the same. Here we have a group of editors who are adding prose that basically takes the Book of Mormon ''on its own terms'' as a text. When called out on it, the ringleader declared that she fundamentally disagrees with people who object to that behavior. It's exactly the same kind of thing the scientologists were doing. And, I mean, I was there for that one and saw it happening. Do me a favor and look at ''any'' of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group. Or look at all the pages I just tagged with COI and see how many of them were connected to Rachel. This is a complete clusterfuck. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Scanned it, but apparently I have more to look at. Will check it out before !voting here. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 16:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I could use a pointer to the evidence you're referring to. I see diffs about COI, but not diffs of edits made my Rachel which violate our policies. The content-related diffs I do see (e.g. in your 17:06, 12 March 2024 comment) were made by others, who aren't the subject of this section. {{tq|Do me a favor and look at ''any'' of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group.}} Is this an argument about over-coverage (in which case I'd rather see evidence of lots of deleted pages created by Rachel rather than focused efforts to cover a subject -- I'd argue we have overcoverage of a lot of religious subjects, including Mormonism, and a whole lot of editors focus on specific subjects), or is it an argument about use of inappropriate sources? Regardless, this isn't a topic ban for a group, it's a topic ban for one person so we'd need evidence that Rachel is editing in a non-neutral or otherwise problematic way (not just COI, which seems like something that can be resolved with transparency/assurances). It seems to me there's a bigger conversation that needs to happen regarding use of sources published in connection to a religion and/or by members of that religion. I don't think I peruse religious articles as much as you or many others, but it seems to me like most of them rely on such &quot;in-universe&quot; sources. I don't think that's ideal, but I'm wary of singling one out. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Hmm... are you saying that you don't think that she should be accountable for the edits that she paid her students to make? I can give you some examples of edits that she made if that's more to your liking, but I'm somewhat surprised that you are so dismissive of student edits which she has later defended on talkpages (but it's possible you aren't looking at larger context due to time). [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::How does a tban for RH prevent her students from doing anything at all? How would it prevent anything that happens off-wiki? As with any student program, if a student is persistently making bad edits, sanction them like you would any other user. If an instructor displays a pattern of disregard for our policies such that their students are a consistent net negative, that's a different kind of sanction (and I don't think there's enough evidence for that here, either, though that doesn't mean there haven't been problems). What I would expect for a tban on an individual is a pattern of harmful edits made to that topic area. That case hasn't been made sufficiently. The case that has been made, insofar as I've seen, is that there have been some clear COI problems and a difference of opinion when it comes to sourcing religious topics. On the latter, I think you and I are probably on the same page, but I don't see it as an entirely resolved policy issue. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Wouldn't a TBAN mean paying her students for making any particular edits in that area would be sanctionable for both her and the students? So any edit made in LDS topics by the (BYU) student accounts would be a TBAN violation, but they would be free to edit in that area on their personal accounts. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::The students would be stopped by [[WP:MEAT]] because they receive assignments from RH. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::The relationships are a little confusing to me. We're talking, I think, about effectively interns/research assistant/student ''workers'' on one hand and students being students on the other hand. If RH were to be tbanned, that would make any students hired/directed to make specific edits by RH fall somewhere between MEAT and PROXYING, yes, which is a bad place to be. I don't think a general instruction to &quot;edit Wikipedia&quot; would be prevented, though. Nor would students hired by someone else and merely supported by RH. And a tban wouldn't prevent RH from what I suspect is the more common scenario: helping students, faculty, staff, and others to edit according to their ''own'' interests (i.e. not directed but supported). And that's IMO a good thing, not just because that attempts to reach too far off-wiki with on-wiki sanctions, but also because while the COI stuff should definitely be avoided, RH is better equipped than a typical student (or even faculty) editor to provide best practices/instruction, etc. I'd say that's probably more rather than less true after this thread. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 14:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::The way RH has set up the projects is that she guides the students ''very carefully'' in what they do. This is actually one positive thing she does that does not happen with other similar programs I have seen, so good on her for that. The upshot is that I would not want this kind of guidance on her part to end if this paid editing program continues, so her students would ''effectively be TBanned'' as well. If we started to see lots of edits the way they have been editing, that would, in my mind, constitute a topic ban violation. I cannot speak for RH, but I suspect that she would have them move away from Mormonism topics if she were TBanned which would be ''the best possible outcome'', as far as I'm concerned.<br /> ::::::::::And, no, I am not convinced that things are going to get better just because of this discussion. There seems to have been an enculturation over the last few years which has provoked a kind of perfect storm of bad editing practices that I have been digging into over the last few days and it is not going to be easy to figure out what to do about all this. There seems to be an over-focus on treating the Book of Mormon as literature which is the main thrust behind RH's favored approach and that of others conflicted with the [[Association of Mormon Letters]]. Right now, we have lots of articles on weird little topics within the book of Mormon which treat the thing as though it were literature like Tolkien or Dickens I guess as a way to sidestep questions related to the religious beliefs that surround these things. The students she has coached seem to have adopted this approach in part while also maintaining delightfully matter-of-fact retellings of the mythology as though it were fact. It's a mess.<br /> ::::::::::But the students aren't really to blame here. They're being led by a much-lauded (by enablers you can see in this very thread) Wiki[p|m]edian in Residence who has been scrupulously trying to follow the rules and no one bothered to tell her that maybe editing about a religion as controversial as Mormonism ('''to which she belongs and is employed by the religious authorities of that religion through their in-house institution of higher education with strict rules on what she can and cannot do vis-a-vis that religion''') maybe is not going to sit well with some in the Wikipedia community that takes things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:FRINGE]] seriously.<br /> ::::::::::So here we are. Your idea to get her to clean things up means unlearning years of training that she invented without input from the community. I look forward to seeing what kind of program you might be able to invent that could address that. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Voluntary commitments, really? No I wouldn't support that because a number of the editors involved have previously lied about not having COIs when asked. Also because this is years of undisclosed COI editing happening here. So, no, it'd be crazy of us to trust any voluntary commitments from people who have actively deceived us for such a long time and up until so recently. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]], and similar action against other COI editors should be considered, per [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]. This is an area where WP should take a hardline stance. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per [[User:Vghfr]], [[User:Fram]] and others. But I think we have a wider issue with LSD-related articles here that a few topic bans will not solve it. I agree with [[User:JoelleJay]]'s comment in the other discussion about the lack of NPOV in &quot;topics that are only discussed in publications by LDS members and thus exclusively reflect LDS-endorsed teaching on the topic&quot;. We have a massive walled garden of hundreds if not thousands of these obscure, otherwise NN topics sourced only to LSD-related publications which could pass the surface of GNG and easily [[WP:GAME|game]] the notability rules. --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Our articles on Catholicism mostly reflect Catholic sources. Our articles on Judaism mostly reflect Jewish sources. That is natural and only to be expected. Why is it suddenly a problem when the same thing occurs in our articles on LDS? The people one would expect to be interested in and write about LDS are...LDS people. That is the nature of the sources. It is not a conflict of interest to use the mainstream sources that are available. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::While [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]], that has ''not'' been my experience as I edited those topics. In fact, many of our Catholic articles have sources which are explicitly critical of the Catholic Church nearly to the point of vitriol. By contrast, Judaism is so irreverent and delightfully self-critical that I am at a loss for why you think the comparison to those pages is at all apt. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Yes – if and when those other sources exist, are reliable, are relevant, etc. <br /> *:::But from your comment above that {{xt|she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources}}, it sounds like the complaint you have here is that some content is being added from LDS-related sources when no non-religious source has ever disagreed with the LDS-related source. <br /> *:::I have not seen any disputes in which someone adds information about a Catholic or Jewish religious idea, from a reliable source written by a religious organization, and someone else demands that the reliable source be removed on the grounds that non-religious sources haven't published anything on that subject. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Then you haven't been looking at disputes over the [[Shroud of Turin]]. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Why would we even need specific examples from Catholic or Jewish editors when we had a whole arbcom case surrounding exactly this behavior from Scientology adherents? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Because a new religious group with something on the order of 10 thousand members is not the same as a 200-year religion with 17 million members. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::LDS is a [[new religious movement]] the same as Scientology. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::What does the number of years a religion has been around or number of members of a religion have to do with anything? The only thing I can think of is that there are probably more sources if there is more time and people involved, which is true. But on the substance these things are the same. I mean, Mormonism and Scientology are actually ''very'' comparable. There are a great many excellent sources which show that. In fact, that was at one time one of the articles on my list of articles to write. The funny thing is that neither the Mormons nor the Scientologists like the comparison. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that ''actually might have happened'' and so are of interest to secular historians, enough primary interpretations of scripture to engage dozens of generations of academics, and far broader and more significant impact on human culture in general, permitting even more opportunities for interdisciplinary scholarship. We should not be treating every religious movement as if they're each equally likely to have the depth and independence of sourcing needed to support pages on minor aspects of their faith. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Well, some new religions too. For example, the foundational sacred texts of the [[Nation of Islam]] has some fascinating description of what life was like in the African American community of Detroit in the 1930s. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Re &quot;Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that actually might have happened&quot;: this reads as straight-up prejudice to me (and I have zero connection with LDS). You might just as well say have a much greater likelihood that those older religions' texts contain fabulations, misreadings, and other material we wouldn't want to take as literally true, simply because they've had so much longer to accumulate that sort of material. But we are not basing our content on the content of the Book of Mormon; we are basing it on the accounts of their historians. I would tend to imagine that, while biased, those accounts are maybe more likely to be accurate, because they are from a more recent time with better records, while the writings of the early Christian church historians have the same tendency to their own bias. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 00:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::Yes, the older religions generally do have much more fabulist text, as well as a lot more material that has taken on mythical aspects or been reported by apologists (e.g. miracles) over hundreds or thousands of years. But that's irrelevant to what I am saying, which is that it's far more likely texts recounting religious narratives that we can accurately date to c. 300 AD will also have some bits of real history and info on life at the time that can't be found anywhere else, and would thus be of intense interest to modern scholars in many fields, than scripture written more recently (as contemporaneous writings become more numerous, the preciousness of any single one as a major primary source across multiple disciplines outside religion decreases) or scripture that wholly fabricates ancient history and is virtually useless to anyone actually studying its purported time period. {{pb}}There are extensive secondary analyses of secondary analyses etc. of scholarship on Jewish or Catholic scriptural and metaphysical questions, and new external sources or theories on the cultural/geopolitical/philosophical climate of a time continue to be discovered and incorporated into what we know about a spiritual topic ''beyond'' exegesis of scripture. We don't need to rely on unreliable primary or old secondary sources to do this because we generally have plenty of modern secondary sources, often in multiple nonsecular fields, to use in writing a comprehensive and neutral article on a subject. We ''don't'' have this for LDS topics because the furthest back historians can go from BoM et al scripture is 200 years ago. But LDS historians are still analyzing their scriptures in the sincere belief that they recount actual events from thousands of years ago, making the same kinds of extrapolations and interpolations from their holy books to reconstruct that past that any other historian would do with genuine ancient text, except ''none of it corresponds to real history''. No questions in anthropology or archaeology or history are being answered in any way that is meaningful outside of LDS faith, and so no secular researchers in those disciplines have any reason to publish academic commentary on the LDS scholars' theories. The result is that we have hundreds of pages on minor characters and events from BoM where the only sources are from adherents collaboratively building what amounts to a fictional literary universe &lt;small&gt;(or, perhaps as a more fitting analogy, a new, Hardy-hard branch of pure math)&lt;/small&gt;, except it's dressed up in the same historiographic structure as we'd have on a topic with thousands of years of history. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 02:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::It's my view, not necessarely agreeable, but if an LSD topic has no sources outside LSD sources it is likely unnotable, and writing a balanced article about it is impossible. Also, I am not necessarely referring to strictly religious topics, eg., we have obscure, semi-amateur and poorly released films only sourced from ''[[Journal of Religion and Film]]'', byu.edu and similar, same with books and other products. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 19:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I think this is a sensible rule. However, I worry about defining &quot;LDS source&quot; too broadly. ''Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction'' is written by a Mormon, but it's published by Oxford University Press and targeted at a non-LDS audience. Oxford also publishes an annotated Book of Mormon. I think we need to narrowly define what falls into this category, and have that conversation in a less heated atmosphere than ANI. [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I agree with Cavarrone about notability, but I think the solution there is not to announce that only a secular source could possibly be acceptable for explaining the symbolism of the story, and that if no secular source ever wrote about the symbolism, then symbolism can't be mentioned in Wikipedia, but to take the article to AFD.<br /> *::::When we're talking about a notable subject, though, I think our usual rules work perfectly well for this subject. We don't require independent sources for everything that gets mentioned in an article, and that's true whether you're writing about how many employees Microsoft has, or what the symbolism of the story is, or why the artist chose to put a colorful blanket behind the cow's skull. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Let me give a concrete example to help focus the conversation. On multiple articles I found years given for events described in the Book of Mormon. Some of those years were laughably specific. Some of those years are repeated by many, many Mormon sources. Now, I would love for there to be an article in Wikipedia about [[Ascribing dates to the stories in the Book of Mormon]] or something like that to explain exactly the weird calculus that Mormon apologists go through in arriving at these dates and why certain dates are more popular with certain Mormons than others, but the fact of the matter is that this has been so little noticed by independent sources that in many cases it ''has not even occurred to the authors of our own articles'' that putting in years might be a problem. The easiest solution I think is to excise them, but sure, it's not the only possible solution. But the solution cannot be, &quot;let's just put those dates in the articles and call it a day.&quot; which was, as far as I can tell, the standard operating procedure. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::No, but the solution ''could'' be &quot;Let's put the dates in with [[WP:INTEXT]] attribution&quot;.<br /> *::::::The main point of this sub-thread, though, is to talk about whether we're treating all religions equally. Have you seen a similar thing in, say, Catholic articles, in which someone adds some papal pronouncement, and other editors say, &quot;Oh, no, you can't add that unless you have a secular source, too&quot;? I haven't. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::Absolutely! As I pointed out above, when there are clear fabrications (as in, for example, the case of [[Marian apparitions]]), we do the same thing. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::By the way, these students got the memo about [[WP:INTEXT]]. The problem is that that often goes like this, &quot;According to [PERSON'S NAME THAT IS UNMENTIONED EXCEPT FOR RIGHT HERE], this story is all about...&quot; Or, worse, &quot;According to historian [HISTORIAN]...&quot; and you research the historian and come to find that they are a professor of history at BYU who wrote the book, &quot;How I KNOW the Book of Mormon is true&quot; or whatever. So, no, [[WP:INTEXT]] isn't cure-all. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Neutral'''Yes, things are not okay. But I have serious trouble with the fact that a topic ban can cost her her job. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px&quot;&gt;[[User:The Banner|&lt;span style=&quot;color:green&quot;&gt;The&amp;nbsp;Banner&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|&lt;i style=&quot;color:maroon&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/i&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:If this ban will cause loss of employment as a Wikipedian in Residence, wouldn't this be seen as a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] as this is threatening the editor's livelihood? Furthermore, wouldn't the effort to have editors who have any affiliation with [[Brigham Young University]] in relation to [[Mormanism]] cause a [[chilling effect]] and diminish the improvement of articles around that topic? [[User:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B22234&quot;&gt;'''Right'''Cow&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background-color: #C2B280; color:#3C3B6E&quot;&gt;'''LeftCoast'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;Moo&lt;/span&gt;]]) 23:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Surely you could ask these questions about any analogous remedy addressing a WiR or systematic COI. Surely these positions aren't immune from scrutiny; we're concerned about people being paid by BYU to edit Wikipedia, not every individual affiliated with them in any way. If you're making some other point, I am not able to tell what it is. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 23:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Strong oppose'''. Rachel Helps has been a consistent positive contributor to an essential area of religious discourse. She is professionally talented, responsive to community, an active participant on multiple open networks of movement organizers, and an ambitious trainer and supervisor for others. There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed and aims to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion. There are plenty of COI battles to fight; this isn't one of them. [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]&lt;sup&gt; [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]&amp;#124;[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:To clarify, are you opposing the topic ban for Thmazing (not Rachel Helps)? [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 20:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I've moved it to the correct section. Apologies and thanks for the tip! [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]&lt;sup&gt; [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]&amp;#124;[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **{{u|Ocaasi}}, you appear to have a) !voted in the wrong section and b) failed to read anything more than the section heading, as then you would know that the issue is that their work has not been &quot;disclosed&quot; or &quot;rigorous&quot; on subjects they were professionally connected to. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 20:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't think &quot;aiming to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion&quot; is necessarily good enough. Otherwise [[WP:CIR]] bans/blocks wouldn't be a thing. Now, maybe you oppose those bans/blocks too, but I am ''deep'' in the weeds right now of seeing how Rachel Helps's students were treating material relevant to their religion and... hooboy... even if their hearts were in the right place they are doing us no favors in articlespace. I am very, very happy she has finally told her students to work in sandboxes which, if that had been happening all along I probably wouldn't be involved in this, but the conversation I'm having with her right now is one the &quot;Open Networks of Movement Organizers&quot; should have had with her ''years'' ago about her programming. Y'all did her dirty and I'm actually angrier at her enablers than I am at her. She honestly did not know this was coming and by running defense this whole time after multiple people have sounded alarms (just look through her usertalkpage archive), you did not give her the support she would have needed to actually make something like this work (or choose to not do it at all in case, as I suspect, it would be impossible to make this stuff work). [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Point of order: she knew this was coming for the last four years at least[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Brigham_Young_University]. Thats what makes the refusal to improve and meet the standards/practices outlined by the community so bad. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Thanks for bringing that up. You neglrct to mention that there was no administrative acton resulting from that discussion, and no community admonishment or sancation. Indeed, even the person raising the issue noted {{Tq|1=&quot;They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable.&quot;}} and, later, {{Tq|1=&quot;I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions.&quot;}} &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *::::Well yeah, that discussion got mobbed by people we now know had major undisclosed COIs. You're selectively cherrypicking in a way that seems misleading at best, especially considering the things you say in that discussion. We have the same thing happening there as here, Rachel Helps is informed about best practices and rejects them saying for example &quot;In my opinion, best practices should be defined by the people doing the job.&quot; [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{tq|They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable.}} I don't really have time to go back into the history of four years ago to check if that was true then, but it is ''absolutely not the case right now''. I have been going through dozens of Book of Mormon articles that were being edited by this crew and with ''very few exceptions'' they are not NPOV nor well-sourced -- many are either [[WP:PROFRINGE]] or written in something like [[WP:INUNIVERSE]] with bizarre assumptions, turns of phrase, etc. I am finding all kinds of sources being used that have 0 citations according to Google Scholar! [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmmonihah&amp;diff=1213862128&amp;oldid=1213852106 Rachel Helps (BYU) is defending this practice of keeping such shoddy sources in these articles] much to my disappointment. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Ping|Ocaasi}} Are you also an active participant in those open networks of movement organizers? Any conflicts you should be disclosing? Pardon the question but we seem to be having an issue with undisclosed COIs on a number of levels in this discussion. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Strong support''' per Rachel Helps: &quot;{{brown|I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI.}}&quot; I am unable to trust this user in this topic area any longer. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 01:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **I believe the above admission I highlighted contrasts with several opposers' rationale, and I quote from each of them: (1) {{tq|How anyone can ... say her CoI is &quot;undisclosed&quot;}} (2) {{tq|Banning someone for a procedural error}}, (3) {{tq|Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page}}, (4) {{tq|There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed}}. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***Please don't quote me (and others) out of context; even if you do neglect to give attrbution when doing so. What I wrote and what I was replying to when I did so is avaialble for anyone to see, at the top of this thread. What you quote Rachel saying does not negate my comment. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ****{{re|Pigsonthewing}} - you defended Rachel indicating that she disclosed COI on the (BYU) account. But, she admitted undisclosed COI on the other, personal account. The same person is behind both accounts, so I am afraid she didn’t handle COI properly. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 00:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Hesitant oppose''', because I'm a little worried we're conflating some related but separate issues here. It is quite clear that Rachel Helps did a poor job of disclosing her COIs, and lost perspective when editing some topics on which she had a COI. It is clear that many BYU-affiliated editors have been writing poor content. And it is clear that many pages related to Mormonism have too much material from uncritical sources (but this isn't limited to Mormonism by any means). But I don't see this topic-ban addressing any of those issues, and indeed I think it might worsen them, because Rachel is better placed than many editors to help fix these issues. I do think her ''students'' need to be moved away from LDS-related topics: whether because they're being paid, or the rules of BYU, or their upbringing, or some combination thereof, there seems to be a recurring pattern of poor content that others need to fix. But at this moment I don't see how this TBAN would achieve much besides being a punishment. It wouldn't even fix the COI issue, because as best as I can tell religion is sort of incidental to those COI issues; it's just Rachel editing about things she's involved with in RL, which is a problem to be sure, but isn't limited to Mormonism. It seems to me Rachel is taking the concerns expressed here seriously, and we'd do better to focus on the problematic content other editors, including her students, may have introduced. For the record, I consider myself quite firmly in favor of avoiding apologetic sources and in-universe sources for religious subjects, and have argued for this position in numerous cases involving most major religions. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 03:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Okay, this is a convincing (to me) oppose. Only reason I stay supporting the ban is that I see a topic ban from LDS would probably encourage a lot of the best-case scenario stuff to happen anyway and it might get accomplished and probably more quickly. Yes, she is well-placed to fix issues and I'm sure she wants to fix them, but maybe it would be better if she and her students focused on other things that could be done at that library. The flora and fauna of the Great Basin, for example. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 05:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future (minor, because major ones receive editorial scrutiny and attention from critical sources; it's the ones that don't that seem to be the focus of the problem). [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::In that case, why not topic ban just to make it clear? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Because there's a big difference between &quot;shouldn't add substantive content to these pages going forward&quot; and &quot;isn't permitted to discuss these topics in any way shape or form&quot;. I stand by what I said above that Rachel herself is best placed to help us clean up some of this mess. Not to mention that TBANNing her when she still has active students would be quite silly; those would then be completely unsupervised. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Why would that be silly? We're all completely unsupervised and these are adult in college, not children in middle or high school. They should be entirely capable of editing wikipedia on their own, we all do. Also note that while these are student employees they are not her students in the sense that they are enrolled in a class where she is their instructor. She is an employer/manager not a teacher or professor to these editors. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::So you're describing a TBAN from articlespace? I agree that this is where most of the damage is happening--discussion spaces are much less problematic. As for your &quot;unsupervised active student&quot; argument, I don't understand it even a little bit. You already said &quot;I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future.&quot; RH would still be able to supervise them to edit articles on the flora and fauna of the Great Basin. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Very simply, those students are a net-positive largely because of Rachel's supervision, and as such I oppose any TBAN on those grounds until we simultaneously apply it to all students she is responsible for. She may technically be able to supervise them on non-LDS topics, but that's quite unworkable in practice. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' Even though the COI is greater than Mormonism this would at least serve as a warning that Helps' COI editing is causing concern. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 12:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **&quot;serve as a warning &quot; You think this thread doesn't do that? &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:Some warnings may need to be more forcefully made than others. I sympathize with the idea that Rachel Helps (BYU) probably thought everything was fine and that the complaints that had been leveled against her over the years were nothingburgers. Unfortunately, those complaints were serving as warnings that obviously went unheeded. And, to be frank, I think people like you are to blame for enabling her and not being honest with her that this was coming. Now, maybe you didn't know this was coming, but ''someone'' in your group of WMF/GLAM/WIR in-person conference/wiknic attendees should have noticed and taken her aside and given her the advice that right now is coming down like a pile of bricks. But it didn't happen. Years went by and here we are. That's right, I am much angrier at ''you'' (and the position you are representing right now) than I am at her. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' per Vanamonde93. While there are some issues, they don't amount to the kind of egregious problem that would warrant such dracionian action; and there is no previous sanction, let alone one wilfuly disregarded. I might suport some lesser remedy, such as mentiorship. or a probationary period after which we can reviist the matter if issues persist. But I believe Rachel's work has been shown to be - and wil contnue to be - a net benefit to this project. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 14:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Reply|Pigsonthewing}} I see this isn't your first rodeo[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Brigham_Young_University]. Can I ask how opinion has changed since the first time you commented on this issue four years ago? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Maybe we should start asking the harder question whether involvement in WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest. Because I see wagon circling. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::There's no question it does, the only question is whether its enough of a COI to be an issue (signs point to yes BTW given the wagon circling). [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::{{tq|WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest}} - ''Does'' WMF fund this WiR? Most WiR positions these days (AFAIK) are funded by the hiring institutions. I would be shocked if the WMF were funding this one just based on the fact that it involves on-wiki editing, which has been a line for the WMF, historically. Likewise most GLAM projects have nothing to do with the WMF. If you go to a museum and say &quot;can I tell you about Wikipedia&quot; or &quot;want to upload some photos to Commons&quot; or &quot;want to host an edit-a-thon&quot; then you're involved with a GLAM project, regardless of who funds it or whether it involves any funding at all. The extent to which the WMF is involved with most edit-a-thons is to fund an affiliate, who then e.g. buys a couple pizzas for attendees. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 16:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I don't think that sponsored and funded are synonyms there... Anything under the banner or that is allowed to use the branding is sponsored even if there is no funding provided. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *:::::Agreed. While more-or-less radically open to anyone, someone (the community) ultimately does have to agree that GLAM is appropriately attached to something so that it can be called that. This is usually pro forma, but it still ends up supported. If &quot;sponsored&quot; is the troubling word, choose another synonym that means the same without necessarily monetary support. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' - I started typing this yesterday, and find that Vanamonde has articulated some similar reasons, so partially &quot;per Vanamonde&quot;. I see evidence of insufficiently disclosed COIs, evidence that RH is working to address those problems, evidence of years of good faith engagement with the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community, evidence of problematic edits made by ''other'' people, a big thorny question about independence of sourcing in religious articles that's better addressed elsewhere, and not nearly enough diffs showing violations of our content policies by RH to justify a tban.&lt;br/&gt;That said, I would strongly urge RH to set some boundaries in the WiR role and to articulate those boundaries on their user page. Our COI guideline is messy and applied inconsistently, and often with a rhetorical flourish that tries to combine the negative connotations with ''close'' COIs and the technical definition of COI that includes ''distant'' COIs we don't actually view as a problem. All of this makes things challenging for anyone who does any editing with a close or [moderate?, for lack of a better word] COI, since you have to be able to judge how much COI is going to be too much, and be prepared for that scale to slide based on other factors (as in this case, the role of money and the role of other affiliated editors). Being transparent goes a long way, but my own $0.02 is that you should absolutely abstain from editing or assigning anyone to edit an article on any subject you've received money from, that you're on the board for, that you have a nontrivial personal relationship with, etc. That's what {{tl|Edit COI}} is for. The COI guideline doesn't ''require'' you stay away, but editing those articles while being paid is a recipe for disaster. I worry that it erodes the thin line between &quot;the kind of paid editing we like&quot; and &quot;the kind of paid editing we don't like&quot; such that the life of future WiRs will be more difficult. Enwiki's view of COI seems like it will only become more volatile.&lt;br/&gt;All in all, I think having a highly experienced Wikipedian on staff is very much a good thing. RH has the ability to translate the complicated and ever-evolving PAGs (and their interpretations) for a large community. As long as most of the problematic ''content'' edits are other people's, it would be good to have RH available to help. Besides, as I started off saying, the evidence just isn't here to justify a tban. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Mostly I agree with you, however I do assign greater accountability to RH for what you're calling &quot;other people's&quot; edits. In these cases she is both acting as the supervisor of, and ''paying'', these other people to make those problematic edits, which I think elevates her responsibility quite a bit. Especially given several of the articles she assigned to students were assigned because she felt she had too much of a COI to write them herself... [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Yes, if you have a COI and assign/pay someone to edit it, that doesn't negate the COI. It just creates another level of PAID and/or a [[WP:MEAT]]/proxy-based COI, which is probably going to be regarded as worse insofar as it obscures the COI. Along the lines of voluntary commitments and clear articulations of boundaries that I've been talking about, I'd hope something acknowledging as much would be in there, if she hasn't addressed it already. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 19:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::The best I can say is that she is asking her students to sandbox. That's the full extent of it that I've seen. She will be stepping away for a few days, but maybe you could ask her when she gets back to implement something that would make you comfortable? I'm kinda of the opinion that the more ways we try to solve this the better. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 21:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Courtesy Break (3) ====<br /> <br /> * &lt;u&gt;'''Support''' per {{u|Aquillion}}&lt;/u&gt; &lt;s&gt;'''Oppose''' per {{u|Awilley}}, {{u|Rhododendrites}}, {{u|Vanamonde93}}, {{u|FyzixFighter}} [&lt;/s&gt;I admit that the comment pointed out by {{u|Starship.paint}} is troubling.&lt;s&gt;], but at minimum a strong warning and possibly some edit-restrictions and proposals like agreements by {{u|Rhododendrites}}.&lt;/s&gt; I did &lt;s&gt;not&lt;/s&gt; see evidence of a strong warning for the behavior when it was discovered followed by a recalcitrant refusal to comply and/or apology with repeating the behavior. (If that was the case, I would reconsider.&lt;u&gt;It was per {{u|Levivich}} (thank you for providing this link: [[WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University]]), and I have hence changed my !vote&lt;/u&gt;) It appears her editing is not so much a problem as the failure to disclose the COI and paid-editing, e.g. {{u|Awilley}}’s comments. As for her students' editing as described by {{u|Vanamonde93}}, that is another matter&lt;u&gt;. I explain my position on that below in response to jps and Grandpallama&lt;/u&gt;&lt;s&gt;--I'm not sure how best to handle that. I'm not in favor of a topic ban for all of them--but consquences for those that have problematic behavior, were warned, and continued. Would support this done on case-by-case basis. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the two examples kindly provided below to see if such mass action is best.&lt;/s&gt;<br /> :&lt;s&gt;As much as I am opposed to paid editing, unfortunately, we allow it, so--unless I have misunderstood [[WP:PAID]] (and [[WP:PEW]])--our greatest concern by allowing compensation for edit (or COI) is on their ability to follow [[WP:NPOV]]. If they can’t follow [[WP:NPOV]], then the COI and paid-editing are aggravating factors favoring restriction or prohibition of editing in that area. And although non-disclosure is certainly a problem and must have consequences and accountability, it’s not clear to me there was an intent to deceive or other behavior so severe that we can’t seek an alternative accountability measures than a topic-ban.&lt;/s&gt;<br /> :I don’t know what typically happens when a failed disclosure is revealed. Has it *always* been the case that such discovery resulted in a topic ban from the subject area, site ban, or similar? Is it true as {{u|Levivich}} opined {{tq|If Microsoft hired people to create articles about its products, and these editors disclosed they were paid editors but in some cases promoted some of these products while working with other Microsoft employees who edited with undisclosed COI, Wikipedia would siteban all of them with little discussion.}} Are there such examples?<br /> :&lt;s&gt;I believe we warn the editor, give them another chance with a short leash, and bring them right back here if it continues.&lt;/s&gt; --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;small&gt;[revised 05:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC); 06:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> ::Scientology is the obvious example. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 01:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Editing around Falun Gong has also had similar problems. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 17:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{ping|ජපස|Grandpallama}} Thank you for the examples. Would you mind giving me a link or two for the mass action?<br /> ::::I do ultimately think what is done with the students might best be adjudicated separately with evidence for each student involved--if that was done sufficiently already here and I glossed over it, my apologies. I was focussed on the incorrect assumption that Rachel Helps had ''not'' been warned. That really changes everthing about my thinking about both her and how it impacted the students behavior.<br /> ::::Any that we know conclusively were paid and didn't disclose it, I would support a topic or site ban. I don't care if she said it was okay not to disclose.<br /> ::::For any that are unpaid, it is likely she misled and incorrectly advised them about proper behavior here. So, the key question, did WE advise them about proper behavior -and- did we warn them when they crossed a line? Any student who crossed the line after OUR sufficient warning--regardless of what she might have told them to the contrary--I would support an indefinite TB for students falling into that case. Those students might realize they were duped, apologize, and come clean. I do see this as a &quot;teachable moment&quot;, and I would hope we can retain some of the students who really are interested in following the rules and helping to build an encyclopedia that is NPOV. They may actually gain respect for us for holding her accountable.<br /> ::::Any in this second category that are allowed to stay here, I'd say we give each an immediate stern warning about the result of what happened to her and why, about COI and POV-editing and the consequences for their instructor for such inappropriate behavior. Let them know they will be under scrutiny moving forward and that they are on a short leash in that topic area.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 05:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> :::::I guess let [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology]] be your light reading today. There is a lot here and I'm not sure I can help wade through it all. RH and her students ''have'' disclosed that they were paid. I am not sure there are any unpaid volunteers or not, but that would be good to clarify. The warnings about COI were thwarted in the past through certain COIN discussions that were closed with &quot;no action&quot;. This was definitely unfortunate because here we are back today. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 10:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I agree with SCI (which was almost entirely about a situation like this), not so much with COFS (which was more about [[User:Shutterbug|User:COFS]]). I think [[WP:Requests for arbitration/Hunger|THP]] or [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors|MrW]] is better reading here than COFS. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 23:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thanks for the links. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{ping|ජපස}} Thanks for the links. I started to continue to write about what I thought should happen with the students given the fact that they are all paid, but the more time I spent trying to articulate a fair position, the more I realized it would be better to give space to those like yourself who know what typically happens in these cases and the policy involved. From first reading about this, I was inclined towards {{u|Levivich}}'s position of not holding the students unduly responsible for poor supervision, but my concern about paid editing is closer to {{u|Aquillion}}. I'm stepping back.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''2020 COIN''' - [[WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University]] - just want to make sure everyone is aware of the time this issue was discussed in 2020. Among the people claiming there was no COI editing at that time was Nihonjoe. We now know that the concerns raised then were real, some of the people defending it had undisclosed COI, and the discussion did not lead to improvement in how COI was handled by Rachel Helps. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Oh dear. From that thread: {{tq|Hi, I disagree with the idea that all pages I edit are COI. My job doesn't depend on showing people in a positive light.}} What she fails to say that if she started showing [[Russell M. Nelson|certain people]] in a negative light, she absolutely runs the risk of running afoul with her employer. I had a discussion with her about this on her talkpage and she said that she was worried about that when she started and her supervisor assured her that her students could write whatever ''as long as it was attributed to sources''. So if a student wrote, &quot;The Book of Mormon contains anachronisms&quot; as a statement of fact without attribution, I am not sure they would be protected by that. But more to the point, the BYU authorities themselves are not bound by this agreement. The social control that is exerted over people who are in the employ of BYU is ''absolutely real''. There is a reason that only a mere 5% of faculty at that college are not members of the LDS church. Y'all, there are lots of reliable sources that identify Mormonism's cult-like behaviors. It is on display here ''loud and clear''. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Using a term like “cult-like” is prolly not helpful here. A lack of academic freedom regarding theologically sensitive topics is pretty normal for unambiguously sectarian universities. If [[Al-Azhar University]] had a WiR, how do you think that would go down?<br /> *::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 18:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', since just asking nicely in 2020 ([[WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University|COIN]]) did not have any positive effect. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 15:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It is worth noting that, per [[WP:PROXY]], this topic ban would effectively ban any student/employee to edit under the supervision of Helps in any way that bypasses the terms of the main topic ban. So it might make sense to formally extend the sanction to any and all BYU programs. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 19:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * For Detective Levivich of the COI Bureau: While I have never had any affiliation with BYU, the LDS movement, or anything adjacent, I know more people who go/went to BYU than I can count on two hands. Which means that I know not to click on [[Soaking (sexual practice)|soaking]] in the LDS template footer, I already knew that the second item in the [[Church Educational System Honor Code]] is &quot;be honest&quot;, and I can see the irony in the editors of [[Second Nephi]] engaging in small deceptions (28:8, c'mon!). On-wiki, I spent a great deal of time about five years ago in grinding arguments at AfD over articles about non-notable LDS subjects sourced mostly to official LDS sources, church-owned media, and LDS-focused blogs. So I also have a sense of how much valuable editor time can be burned up bringing that sort of content back in line with English Wikipedia policies/guidelines.{{pb}}Rachel Helps has breached community trust while modeling behavior for students under her supervision. And it looks like we've got some content issues around assuming that stuff that's important within the LDS movement is important outside of it as well. Both of those things are bad. But a lot of the edits are good. So for us here at English Wikipedia, I think it's a matter of finding a way to rebuild trust while keeping the good parts of the BYU WiR project going.{{pb}}I '''support''' a topic ban on the WiR and all student workers, because it will clarify an important difference between 1) the BYU WiR project's main goal is to improve this encyclopedia, and 2) the BYU WiR project's main goal is to legitimize/normalize the LDS movement and institutions, and to spread its doctrines and lore by getting as much LDS-related content as possible into the highest-visibility website that still allows people to sign in and add stuff. Sometimes those goals align, but clearly there have been some problems when they don't. So for me a topic ban is not punishment, but rather a chance to recalibrate the relationship and rebuild trust. If BYU will still pay the WiR and (BYU) editors to contribute to English Wikipedia on the approximately millions of other topics, and they do that, great, let's have another conversation about lifting the topic ban once that trust is regained. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 18:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;small&gt;*chomping cigar* All right, boys, this one checks out, let 'em through. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *:I appreciate your rational approach here. I'm not the expert, but I think the role of the BYU WiR is quite a bit more narrow than just 1) improving the encyclopedia and sideways from 2) legitimizing and spreading Mormonism. Rachel would be a better person to clarify, but I understood her role more along the lines of facilitating access to and improving content related to some of the more unique collections owned by the BYU library. Most of those collections will probably have some connection to Mormonism. <br /> *:One of the things I've appreciated most about Rachel's editing is the nitty gritty source work that she does. For example: many editors are somewhat sloppy with sources... They'll take a sourced statement and modify it a bit without changing the meaning too much and move the source somewhere, maybe to the end of a sentence or clause or paragraph. Then someone else will come along a year later and do something similar. Eventually you end up with sources that are completely disconnected from the statement they were meant to support, or that original statement may be gone altogether. I've seen Rachel fixing long term problems like that, as well as immediately cleaning up after other editors when they move soures around in a sloppy way. I've also seen her cleaning up copyvios, circular references, wrong page numbers, random {{cn}} templates, and other tedious gnomish work that so many of us avoid, ignore, or take for granted. I would love to see her be able to continue this kind of work in the topic area where she has expertise.<br /> *:I think it's clear from the above that the community agrees that Rachel fell short in disclosing COI when editing and creating articles about people and organizations close to her. I personally think those shortcomings were exacerbated by scope creep, unclarity, and even contradictions in our own guidelines and expectations, but let's set that aside. There are also a lot of people who see problems in the work of her student editors, which I'm not familiar with myself, so I'll take that at face value. That suggests a lack of training, supervision, etc. on Rachel's part. I have not, though, seen significant criticisms of Rachel's own edits. <br /> *:So my question to you is: would you support some kind of narrower sanction that directly addresses the above problems but still allows Rachel to do her job as WiR and make the kind of helpful edits I mentioned above? That might include a ban on directly creating articles and a ban on editing articles where she has a (well-defined) COI. Or maybe even a ban on editing articles outside of citation management. And likely more strict restrictions on her students. I don't know what would work best, and some workshopping with Rachel would probably be helpful when she comes back from break. Thoughts? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 21:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{ping|Rhododendrites}} Okay, I'm not going to let this excuse that &quot;it was all her students&quot; slide anymore. RH has made some absolutely atrocious edits over the last few months. Fram, above, documented the result in the actual article of [[Second Nephi]], but here they are the diffs ''from her'':<br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210504480]<br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210463754] <br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207877166] <br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204248142] <br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204242867] <br /> *::These diffs are all inclusive of an extreme amount of unduly weighted apologetics content from obscure Mormon Theologians. This also, infruriatingly, includes apologias for the abject and abhorrent racism in the text. That’s right, RH is trying to apologia away the racism in her faith’s scripture. Lest that not be enough evidence for you:<br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204666111] Here she is whitewashing away the fact that Joseph Smith instituted racist dogma.<br /> *::I'm sure she saw nothing wrong with that. It's the frog in the boiling pot of water. In the LDS Church, this kind of game-playing is what happens as a matter of course. We are not the LDS church. We have a standard that is not apologetics. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::@jps: The first 5 diffs you cite are not apologetics, they're analyzing how different themes/ideas in the Book of Mormon &quot;Second Nephi&quot; have been interpreted and have influenced LDS thought and belief over time. As far as I can tell her citations are to secondary reliable sources from reputable publishers. In the 6th diff she is reverting a blatantly POV IP edit and attempting to make a clarification along the way. The original sentence, before the IP's edit, incorrectly stated/implied that Smith taught that dark skin was a curse for &quot;premortal unrighteousness&quot;. That's false, and you can verify that by scrolling down to the body of the article and doing a Ctrl+F for &quot;1844&quot;. Apparently Rachel had missed that the sentence could be read in a different way: that Smith had taught it was a curse, and that LDS leaders after Smith had taught that the curse was for &quot;premortal unrighteousness&quot;. Fortunately 2 days later, editor Pastelitodepapa (the article's original author) came along and removed all ambiguity. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1204666111] This is a normal interaction on Wikipedia. People write ambiguous sentences. People misinterpret those sentences and make mistakes. People fix the mistakes. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 06:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::@Awilley They ''absolutely are apologetics''. What they are doing is trying to recast/reframe a discussion of this book in a way to encourage understanding the text ''as though it really happened'' and offer apologia for the ways in which it clearly runs into anachronism and error. Reliability is always contextual and the context here is that these sources are being used to support preaching and proselytization (that's their raison d'etre). The claim that the IP edit was &quot;blatantly POV&quot; as absurd. The IP edit is correct. Joseph Smith supported the racism of the Mormon church as you even show ''was confirmed later on''. RH reverting that edit was acting in accordance with her faith and not in accordance with the facts. Whether intentional or not, the whole point is that this is a paid editor gatekeeping at Book of Mormon articles, paid by a Mormon faith-based institution to edit our encyclopedia. She needs to be held to a higher standard. This is faith-based POV pushing. [[WP:Civil POV-pushing]], but POV pushing all the same. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 12:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::@jps, You've got it backwards. Take a closer look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204467979 the IP edit]. It most certainly is incorrect and POV. Read the edit summary. Note the phrase &quot;...in the church we believe...&quot; Rachel was not the one trying to whitewash in that interaction, she was reverting a Mormon IP who was erasing a big part of the racist history (premortal sin theory) and pushing the modern LDS POV. Feel free to hat this as &quot;extended discussion&quot; so it doesn't bog down the AN/I. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::AH! You are right that the IP edit was bad... but now RH's edit ''is even worse''. She ''removed'' the mention of Joseph Smith, I guess in deference to the sensibilities. This is also a misleading edit summary. This is not just a revert. This is an introduction of a whitewash of RH's own making! And you're still defending her? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::No, she most likely read the sentence as &quot;...Joseph Smith taught that dark skin was a sign of God's curse for premortal unrighteousness&quot; and tried to correct that. Joseph Smith never taught that. It was after Smith's death that people came up with the &quot;premortal unrighteousness&quot; garbage. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::No, Smith did it too: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/43200880]. I know it's popular to give him a pass. The LDS apologetic line. But, again, Wikipedia is ''not for apologetics''. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::The earliest mention I can find of that rationale is from Orson Hyde in 1844 or 1845. I just looked up the reference in the paper you linked. The reference was to Brodie's ''No Man Knows My History'' page 173-4, which I happen to have on my shelf. Brodie does indeed suggest that the idea originated with Smith, but she doesn't provide any evidence to back that up. Her only citation for that is to a 1845 speech/pamphlet by Orson Hyde. This may be part of why Brodie now has a reputation for going beyond what the actual evidence supports, and why her book is listed as &quot;additional considerations&quot; on the project page instead of &quot;generally reliable&quot;. Or maybe I'm missing something. Either way, Rachel Help's edit summary said she was summarizing the article, and that is indeed what the article says. If you think the article is incorrect, a discussion on the talk page would be the logical next step. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 23:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::::Are you really unable to see the issue here? &quot;Oh, the person who claims that Smith taught about this curse doesn't back it up because it was only found in a pamphlet by Orson Hyde.&quot; Forget it. At this point, you're running interference. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic-ban''' - This smacks to me of the same type of COI editing that led to the creation of [[WP:GS/CRYPTO]] and [[WP:ARBSCI|the SCI contentious topic]], and I get the sense that the scope of this will lead to [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management|COI]] including a CTOP of some sort. The long-term deception and obvious lack of clue as to what best-practices for a COI entails are both extremely problematic, and either on their own would have justified a topic-ban with or without a CTOP designation. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose'''. I am an atheist with a long-time interest in world religions who wrote a Good Article about the [[Laie Hawaii Temple]] in 2008. In the intervening years, I have never once encountered a problem from other LDS members on Wikipedia, only my fellow non-theists and atheists, one of which, [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Black]], destroyed my work and has now made it eligible for delisting.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;diff=1118395610&amp;oldid=1105336403] [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:?? That diff shows HEB removed the citations to one dubiously-reliable apologist source, he didn't even remove any content; saying he &quot;destroyed&quot; your work is a pretty groundless aspersion. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 03:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::He removed a reference to an older version of the material because he failed to look at the date of the source, thereby making it unsourced and eligible for delisting. Furthermore, he removed links that others had added, non-controversial links to BYU computer scientist Rick Satterfield, who had spent years collecting and formulating a database for LDS. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::It doesn't matter what version of the material was being cited when the underlying source for all versions is unreliable. Even if the author was a &quot;BYU computer scientist&quot;, which he obviously isn't, that would be irrelevant since exemptions to SPS require recognized academic subject-matter expertise. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 05:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I disagree. In 2004, when user Gerald Farinas originally added the external link to the article,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;oldid=4512140] it was in wide use in LDS articles. When I arrived to the article in 2007 and tagged the source as unreliable (at the time referred to synonymously as &quot;verify credibility&quot;, whose history has beeen now lost)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;diff=167113393&amp;oldid=166990503], another user started a discussion on the talk page in response to my tagging. They assured me that the source was reliable. I looked at it, and found that the &quot;about page&quot; said that Rick Satterfield created the site as a project for his computer science classes before getting his computer science degree in 2001. In the ensuing years it had become a go-to hobbyist site for statistics about LDS architecture, which is exactly how it was used in the article. It was not used to make religious claims, it was not used to make political claims, it was used only to make factual statements about architecture. In this regard, and per the discussion, I acknowledged that it met the exemption (this was 2007) and compromised by removing the tag, a tag that I originally added. So, to recap, I was the one who originally questioned the reliability, I was the one who discussed it on the talk page with another user who argued for its use, and I was the one who engaged in the art of compromise to allow the source to be used in a specific, narrow way. I was not, however, a drive-by editor like HEB, who just arrived to the article one day and removed the source and the content on a whim because I didn't like the words in the URL. Keep in mind, in the ensuing years at some point, long after I had left the article, the URL had changed from the neutral-titled &quot;ldschurchtemples.com&quot; to &quot;churchofjesuschristtemples.org&quot;. And I continue to maintain that the underlying source for all versions was ''not'' unreliable. And it's not irrelevant that Satterfield collected the data for his computer science classes. BYU has numerous, front-facing student sites today that are and continue to be reliable sources for Wikipedia. Like ldschurchtemples.com, which provided a unique resource in the past for obscure archeological data, I continue to draw upon research from [[Brigham Young University]] for articles I write. For example, I recently wrote [[Flathead Lake Biological Station]], which cites writer Abbey Buckham of Northern Arizona University, who wrote the most comprehensive history of the station that is currently online. Her work was published by the [[Charles Redd Center for Western Studies]] which is part of [[BYU Research Institutes]]. So no, I don't agree with you, and I will continue to draw upon BYU students, graduates, and their research for my articles. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::You seem to be ignoring my entreaties on your usertalkpage, so maybe I have to respond here.<br /> *:::::I think, as others are trying to explain to you, you are making a [[strawman argument]]. There is sincere and strong evidence that this group has been skewing dozens of pages on the Book of Mormon in a very particular way that is going to take a lot of work to clean up.<br /> *:::::This proposal for a TBAN is not an attempt to ban everything coming out of BYU. We aren't even asking to end the WiR/GLAM/Paid Editing program. In fact, what you ask at the end about Flathead Lake Biological Station is exactly the sort of thing I would hope that RH's students would have been working on instead of the sloppy and over-detailed exegesis they've been focusing on for the last months. Not everything that comes out of BYU is about LDS. <br /> *:::::Yeah, with a TBAN you're not going to get RH or her students to help you write about LDS temples. Sorry. But given the streams of awful I've been wading through in the past few days trying to make sense of what is going on at Book of Mormon pages, I think that this sort of collateral damage is likely more than worth it, sorry to say. Your happy editing on one article does not excuse the 100s of articles that are absolute messes. That said, this TBAN would make it ''more likely'' that you could benefit from BYU student editors on articles like Flathead Lake Biological Station. This is likely to be a win for you since those are far and away the more common articles I see you working on than the LDS temples. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::{{ping|ජපස}} If RH and the students were TBanned, would the students really be more likely to edit in other topic areas?<br /> *::::::[[User:Heidi Pusey BYU]]'s conflict of interest statement on her user page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Heidi_Pusey_BYU&amp;oldid=1210501729 currently reads] (emphases added):<br /> *:::::::{{tq|I am employed and '''paid''' by the Harold B. Lee Library to edit Wikipedia pages '''about the Book of Mormon ''on behalf of Brigham Young University.''''' I am a student employee of [[user:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] and '''I specialize in research for early Book of Mormon studies''' as well as literary studies of the book. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I am extensively familiar with the Book of Mormon but seek to edit with a neutral viewpoint.}}<br /> *::::::Heidi's employment appears to be specific to Book of Mormon pages. It is on behalf of BYU, which makes me wonder about the academic freedom questions raised elsewhere. Isn't this declaration inconsistent with Wikipedia goals like NPOV writing without an agenda? Further, if Heidi's specialty is in this topic area, would she be interested in paid non-Book of Mormon editing... and would BYU be interested in paying for it?<br /> *::::::I wonder whether a TBAN will actually produce the outcome you describe? [[Special:Contributions/1.141.198.161|1.141.198.161]] ([[User talk:1.141.198.161|talk]]) 00:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::From what I understand in brief discussion with RH, this was set by her in discussion with RH. This topic focus could be changed. But good to confirm with RH that this really is the case, for sure. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 10:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Hi. I am currently in the process of changing my students' pages they are editing to pages that are unrelated to the LDS church or BYU. I will be changing Heidi's assignment when I see her later today. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::{{ping|Rachel Helps (BYU)}} Thanks for that information, that sounds like a wise decision in the circumstances. Heidi has commented at her user talk page that she did not intend the phrase &quot;on behalf of Brigham Young University&quot; to be taken literally, which is good to hear / know. I can see how this phrase might be chosen by an employee without considering the implications, and Heidi has acted to change the wording. I suggest that you check for any similar phrasings because, in an environment of heightened attention and scrutiny, they can create an impression that is unhelpful. In fact, I encourage you to reflect carefully on how your subordinates' words on user pages might be interpreted by outsiders. I doubt that BYU would be entirely comfortable with a statement that every action of a student editor was made on its behalf, no matter how well intentioned the student or the statements. In my various positions working for Universities, I would not have presented my every action as on their behalf, and I suspect that you would not present yourself that way either.&lt;p&gt;On Heidi's comment that her employment was specific to Book of Mormon topics, is her position (prior to the changes you are about to implement) actually tied to working on that specific topic area? If so, did focus on a narrow (compared to the scope of your library and WP broadly) that is squarely within the area of COI not raise any concerns for you or anyone connected with WiR, etc? I ask because, in charting a course forwards, it can be helpful to understand what has happened to now and how it happened. From your perspective, were any concerns raised and adequately (or inadequately, in retrospect) addressed? What might have been done differently by WiR or WP or others to have avoided the present situation?&lt;P&gt;I'm willing to assume that there were good intentions throughout this process, but can't avoid feeling that something (or multiple things) should have brought these issues into focus long ago. It looks to me like a systemic problem, made worse by some instinctive / reactive responses where considered reflection was needed. Does this seem accurate / inaccurate / partially accurate, from your perspective? Any other thoughts? Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/1.141.198.161|1.141.198.161]] ([[User talk:1.141.198.161|talk]]) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::: Heidi's job title is Student Wikipedia Editor. When I hired this batch of students last fall, I did tell them that I wanted to start a project to work on Book of Mormon pages (an initiative started by me). However, I hired my students based on their writing experience, not based on any specific experience with Book of Mormon topics. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, so please ping me again if you have a follow-up question. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 22:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Satterfield does not have subject matter expertise as recognized by strong citations by academics in academic publications. Therefore his SPS ''is not reliable''. Everything else you've said is irrelevant, though I'll note that student projects simply hosted by the university are ''also'' never reliable as published academic work and I would hope you haven't been adding them as sources. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Just because you've never encountered any issues before doesn't mean Helps is innocent. Have you read anything in this thread and the corresponding thread?? [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 03:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:What does that have anything to do with the sanction being proposed here or the user it's being proposed against? I see virtually nothing in that !vote rationale that actually addresses such matters; the only thing that ''might'' come anywhere close is the vague anecdotal claim {{tq|I have never once encountered a problem from other LDS members on Wikipedia}}. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:First of all how do you know that I am a &quot;fellow non-theists and atheists&quot;? Second that source may look legitimate but its actually a non-expert self published source unaffiliated with the LDS Church, the LDS editors actually agreed that it was a source that should be removed/improved. I didn't destroy anything or change its eligibility, looking at other articles you've significantly authored (for example [[Claude AnShin Thomas]]) it looks like the issue may be with your sourcing practices and not mine. I apologize for causing you distress but I also have no idea what that would do with your vote unless you're voting in an AN/I discussion based solely on spiting another editor. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 03:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::You're mistaken again. My sourcing is entirely reliable, and is accurately reflected in the final GA review.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;oldid=231936007] As can be seen in that link, the sources you removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;diff=1118395610&amp;oldid=1105336403] were not the versions of the sources I originally added,[https://search.worldcat.org/title/367548072] however both sources support the same, accurate information. You neglected to actually ''read'' the article you edited, because if you had you would have noticed that the citation you removed said &quot;Retrieved 2007-07-17&quot;, which refers only [https://web.archive.org/web/20070308044728/http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/laie/ to this version supporting the material]. You removed the newer version instead, which had been revised. You then left a citation needed tag in its place. As of today, there is a more current database listing on the revised site.[https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/statistics/features/] You couldn't be bothered with any of this, of course. One wonders if your poor judgment here is reflective of your other baseless criticism, such as that over at Claude AnShin Thomas, which has no known problems either. One wonders how much this kind of bias infects the rest of this discussion. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::But churchofjesuschristtemples.com/&lt;wbr&gt;churchofjesuschristtemples.org is a non-expert self published source. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Opinions differ, and policies and guidelines dynamically change over time. When the article was written, those sources were acceptable, and the author was a computer scientist at BYU who had created the only site on the internet that collected and maintained statistical data about the temples. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::I don't think they ever were a computer scientist at BYU... I see a bachelor's degree in computer science from BYU but no teaching or research position. Today that source is not acceptable and I don't think that it was when the article was written either. Looking at the talk page it looks like the reliability was actually challenged all the way back in 2007 ([[Talk:Laie Hawaii Temple/Archive 1#Credibility of source]]). [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Yes, questioned by ''me''. Did you read the discussion? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 05:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::I did... Didn't see a consensus that the source was reliable. I'm actually confused as to how that source remained in the article after that discussion. I also double checked and he was never a computer scientist at BYU (and even if he was I don't see how that would contribute to him being a subject matter expert in this context). And again none of this explains your vote here, even if everything you say is completely true your vote makes no sense. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Yes, you are confused. '''I am the one who questioned the source in the first place and originally tagged it'''. As that discussion indicates, another editor arrived to discuss it, and I removed the tag. Should I have disagreed with myself? That seems to be what you are saying here. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::I must be confused, because this none of this substantiates &quot;destroyed my work and has now made it eligible for delisting&quot; nor does it substantiate that the author was a a computer scientist at BYU nor does it explain what any of this has to do with the larger discussion (besides possibly the author's BYU connection?). [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::::You are free to see my new comments up above that address your confusion. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::[[Ignoratio elenchi]]. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 17:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Saying that every problem you've encountered on Wikipedia has come from non-theists and atheists is quite a remarkable statement. How are you able to determine the religious affiliation of your fellow editors? And even in the unlikely event that it is true, what relevance does it have for this issue? The question at hand is about one particular editor, not all LDS members or all atheists. [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 05:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Ping|Viriditas}} woah, I just noticed that you're referring to me as &quot;Horse Eye's '''Black'''&quot; in both of the original comments here. What is that supposed to mean? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::It means my keyboard is broken [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::How does a broken keyboard result in [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Black]]? Its not a misspelling, its a pipe. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Looks like a copy and paste from a typo. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 19:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Ok sure. Thank you. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 19:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::You probably need to take a step back from this discussion if you're looking this hard for implied slights. [[User:Parabolist|Parabolist]] ([[User talk:Parabolist|talk]]) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' I would have suggested a warning, but in light of the extensive COIN discussion from 2020 that appears to have not resolved this issue, I think we'd just be back here sooner or later for another rodeo.[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 05:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Exactly, its not a new phenomena. They were warned in 2020, clearly warned by admin. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 13:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose.''' Generally concur with the comments by Awilley, Ocaasi, Pigsonthewing, Vanamonde93, and FyzixFighter. I do not see anything presented that rises to the level of requiring a topic ban, and I see plenty of evidence of the positive contributions this editor has made to Wikipedia. [[User:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;Gamaliel&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/small&gt; 13:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' - I find the general oppose reasonings to be particularly uncompelling and that it does not adequately address the evidence presented in this and the prior discussion. The attempt to present this discussion as a referendum on theist vs. non-theist editors completely misses the point of the evidence provided. The only oppose rationale thus far that strikes me as valid at all is Vanamond93's comment, but I ultimately agree more with jps's rejoinder to Vanamonde93's perspective. &lt;sub&gt;signed, &lt;/sub&gt;[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' However much good faith (no pun intended) can be ascribed, this a situation which needs to be addressed directly. Treating this as a generalised COI issue to be addressed via a review of policy/guidelines elsewhere will not address the specific instutional arrangement which is engendering systemic failures with regard to core tenets - neutrality, due, fringe and reliable, independent sourcing. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Strong support'''. The opposes all miss the point entirely; paid editing that directly touches mainspace is basically never acceptable. This is not a case where &quot;positive contributions&quot; matter, not at all. Even if done with the best of intentions, it completely distorts our processes; the fact always remains that someone whose paycheck is dependent on an organization is not going to make edits that might get them fired. Even the absolute best, most well-intentioned edits, otherwise policy-compliant in every way, will distort the balance of articles when made in a systematic way by large numbers of editors whose views are all distorted in the same way by the same financial incentive. Therefore, &quot;they've made positive contributions&quot; is never a defense against a [[WP:COI]] issue. It is simply never acceptable to seriously edit mainspace in areas where your employer has a strong perspective or vested interest. If this were any other organization, that would be obvious - would we accept the arguments above for an editor paid by Amazon or Microsoft or OpenAI or some cryptocurrency startup, who wanted to edit pages obviously relevant to those topics? From the Democratic and Republican parties, or from individual political think tanks who hire and send in numerous articulate, intelligent editors who share their views? How is this different? And how, exactly, could volunteer editors maintain neutrality in the face of that? [[Wikipedia:GLAM/Wikipedian in Residence]] isn't meant to be an exception to these rules - per [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_residence the description on Meta] {{tq|In this context, there is a custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution, but rather share the knowledge of their institution.}} Furthermore, look at the examples there - it's meant to be an uncontroversial role for museum curators and the like, not for a church to employ people making sweeping sorts of edits on topics related to their faith or for a political think-tank to employ someone making edits about their politics. I think that we might want to look at some of the related policies in order to tighten them up and make them more clear, if people are somehow confused about all this, but this particular example is so far over the line that an immediate topic-ban is obvious. EDIT: Support shifted to strong to emphasize how strongly I feel that none of the rationales people are presenting are policy-based and how important it is to establish that they carry no weight. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 15:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Aquillion, I agree in general with your take on this. COI and PE are often issues that result in editing that skews away from our principles, policies and guidelines. However, in this instance Rachel and her Posse (or crew) were never concerned about &quot;making edits that might get them fired.&quot; Take a look at this conversation here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)#Academic_freedom] (Section title &quot;Academic Freedom&quot;). Essentially, throughout the whole Q &amp; A it becomes clear that none of these editors are constrained by fear of an employer or policy. It doesn't take long to read. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 20:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> :::That makes no difference to me at all, for three reasons. First, [[WP:COI]] is unequivocal that the ''appearance'' of a COI is sufficient; it does not matter one iota how thoroughly someone is convinced (or can convince others) that they are capable of being impartial. It is a red line with no exceptions. Second, this is because influence can be subtle and sometimes not even obvious to those exercising it; words are cheap, actually making the people they paid to edit Wikipedia impartial is... impossible. Third, most importantly, even if someone manages to adhere rigorously to that freedom, and even if they are flawless immaculate saints incapable of ever considering who pays their paychecks, paid editing still allows the employer to &quot;stack the deck&quot; on particular subjects by hiring people to edit prolifically simply because they know what they believe and what areas they will edit in. This doesn't even have to be intentional; it's no different from the principle of [[WP:CANVASS]]ing - unless they're hiring people ''totally at random'', they're going to be stacking the deck based on who they hire and what pool they hire from. There are ''no'' situations where someone should be getting paid to make nontrivial mainspace edits on Wikipedia, or even to contribute to discussions without the extremely rigid restrictions placed on disclosed COIs (even those restrictions are truthfully too loose for me, but in this case no one even paid lip service to them.) This is ''actually important''. Pushing back against COIs is vital to keeping Wikipedia functional; most pages and topic areas only have a few dozen really active users, or a few hundred at most, and even they have no real hope of keeping up with editors whose entire job is to edit Wikipedia. If we didn't maintain a hard line, any topic area that was targeted with paid editing would be rapidly drowned in it, with every discussion and every effort at consensus-building dominated by whoever their employer decided to employ. There's no such thing as someone being a &quot;good egg&quot; as a paid editor, because the problem is the entire structure behind their editing and what it would mean for Wikipedia if allowed to proliferate. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 04:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks. I agree with your concerns about paid editing--we should get rid of it. I've never bought the argument that making it &quot;ok&quot; means that paid editors are more likely to divulge COI. Case in point here. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''', English Wikipedia has done a gang buster job, in the past to get individuals who could contribute positively, on this platform to chase them away. &lt;!-- In addition limiting what is considered a reliable source to ensure that certain points of view, and certain subjects, are presented with a certain bias based on what has been left to be allowed as sources. --&gt; The individual editor in question has done a great job with bringing individuals who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy to improving content on this encyclopedia. Yet, there is this effort to limit that effort. What does this say about our community, but to enforce the view that English Wikipedia is not neutral, is exclusionary, and doesn't want individuals who might not align a certain way onto this encyclopedia, especially if they contribute within spaces which certain alignments oppose.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B22234&quot;&gt;'''Right'''Cow&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background-color: #C2B280; color:#3C3B6E&quot;&gt;'''LeftCoast'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;Moo&lt;/span&gt;]]) 18:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{tq|who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy}} ... no doubt an unintended Freudian slip; but that's precisely the problem, institutional devotion here has created a systemic inability to edit according to our policies and guidelines. It's irrelevant what one's intention is; the cascading effect of the relationships have created a swathe of articles and edits which are non-compliant with our tenets. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 02:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::We don't have ''tenets'' on Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines. These were applied to the best of Rachel's, her colleagues', and students's ability most of the time. And actually, their efforts and goals were the opposite of institutional devotional editing. There may be some obscure Mormon religious-character-articles that don't have good coverage. But, that is an oversight that is happening in other areas of Wikipedia in a likewise fashion. And I have to say, I have not seen you involved in any of the recent discussions on LDS/''Book of Mormon'' talk pages. So rather than denigrate the hard work of other editors I recommend pitching in. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 19:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *:::This response exemplifies the problem. This is not about well-intentioned mistakes - this is about a systemic COI failure to ensure neutrality, reliable sourcing and due. Every editor has a right to be concerned about this issue, irrespective of their efforts towards the particular topic, precisely because of the far reaching effects beyond the topic. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 23:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose.''' What Gamaliel said. Also, I would like to support this Wikipedian in Residence, and acknowledge their contributions. [[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Would you also like to acknowledge the concerns raised below (now within a collapse) by BilledMammal, which were also posted on your talk page? [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 19:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Sure. Accepting or declining in-person meetings in the workplace is pretty standard in my world. By contrast, almost every single conversation in this online environment seems like nothing but trouble. I thought that meeting a person with shared interests and a public-facing job, in a public place might be a way to clear up misunderstandings. I did not know that suggesting people try talking things over in person is considered unacceptable here. Now that I think it over a little more, I suppose that if this is literally &quot;the encyclopedia that anyone can edit,&quot; gosh knows what sort of awful, terrible person might show up at a library. Perhaps someone would delete the earlier remark for me? I've always respected the LDS for their wholesome lifestyles (even if I'm too attached to coffee to ever become LDS myself), and wouldn't want to create difficulties for the folks at BYU.-- [[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 00:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' Rachel is a positive contributor. Sure there are missteps, but those can be worked through without going to the nuclear option. Similar to Rhododendrites, I would strongly urge Rachel to institute strict standards for the content she and her students produce and to keep a very close editorial eye on her students' edits, but overall I see her work as a ''net positive''. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 02:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Conditionally support a &lt;u&gt;time-limited&lt;/u&gt; topic ban''' provided that the topic ban is interpreted in such a way as not to preclude commonsensically non-church-related topics such as the [[Bakemono no e]] which according to a presentation here [https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&amp;article=7628&amp;context=facpub&amp;type=additional] she worked with. All university libraries have a lot of holdings, and there are many ways she could continue to be a productive WiR without getting into Mormon archaeology and stuff. I also think some sort of restrictions or advisories/warnings for her student helpers could be worth considering. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I had been seriously considering striking my vote for several potential reasons including RH’s cooperativeness, the issue of proportionality, and the fact that this could set a dangerous precedent based on certain statements by a few of the most aggressive supporters. However, given 1) the apparent interactions between Rachel Helps (wearing whichever hat) and other AML-related persons of interest and 2) the apparent inability on the part of the quality-control system to effectively handle the volume of contestable changes being made by the BYU group (which is by no means the latter’s fault per se, but there is still much room for improvement).<br /> *:At the same time, I am not completely convinced that a community-imposed topic ban is the best solution and I am interested in seeing more discussion. And possibly a “no consensus for now” close that allows RH and the BYU group time to further improve their practices, because I do believe there is a possible overlap between the desire of LDS scholars and The Encyclopedia as a whole in terms of documenting LDS topics more completely. And it does sound like a lot of the LDS content had been start-class poorly sourced and OR type stuff from novice editors, the same sort of stuff that you often see in Indian local articles and Judaism articles.<br /> *:However, I think the proposal about Thmazing is ripe for a close. The community, including yours truly, has a dim opinion of the behaviors that he’s engaged in, amply. And while I’m concerned about the AML situation I would like to see more evidence of any systematic collusion.<br /> *:[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 01:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I'm the one who [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Brigham_Young_University|opened the COIN in 2020]]. If Rachel would have simply agreed that she and her students would place a COI notice on article talk pages, I wouldn't be here. But she repeatedly resorted to arguing that it wasn't strictly required, so she wasn't going to comply with the request that she do so. Multiple other WiRs came in arguing that requiring her to do so would threaten the WiR system; they're here, too, opposing this. I hate to lose the BYU folks' contributions, which I believe are generally helpful, and which we'll probably lose if there's a Tban. But until Rachel agrees to disclose '''on article talk''', even though not required to, I'm a '''support''' for a topic ban from LDS articles for Rachel and her students. {{u|Rachel Helps (BYU)}}, please, just agree to disclose. It's such a small request. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :* At this point I'm happy to comply, the difference between the TOS and the guideline seems like a hill I don't feel like dying on right now. Just tell me how you want me to do it. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:I'm sincerely glad to hear it. Best practices, even if not required, is a good thing for someone who is a WiR and in education to try to follow. You and your students can disclose at article talk by adding the &lt;nowiki&gt;{{Connected contributor|User1=username}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; template into the headers. The first person to edit a particular article can create the banner and put their own username as User1, and others who follow along can just insert |User2=, etc. There's documentation for other parameters at [[Template:Connected_contributor]], but really I'm satisfied with a simple list of COI contributors. <br /> :*:If you'll agree to make that routine going forward for all edits to articles related to BYU/LDS by you and your students, broadly construed, I'll strike my support for a tban. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::@[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] This seems reasonable. I'm curious what the threshold would be for adding the template. I ask because I've often seen Rachel reverting vandalism or other unhelpful edits or just fixing a source here and there. A quick look at her contributions shows that there are over 900 articles where she's made only 1 or 2 edits. It should be possible to find the intersection of her edits with articles within the LDS wikiproject, but I would expect the list of articles to be at least several hundred long. Should there be some threshold for what constitutes a substantive edit, or would you prefer having her place the template even for minor edits? Or would a more narrow range of articles be reasonable, like articles specifically related to the BYU, LDS Church, BYU people, etc.? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::@[[User:Awilley|Awilley]], just off the top of my head: any edit that could reasonably be marked as minor -- typo fixes, grammar fixes, expanding or combining or renaming a reference -- doesn't need a COI tag. If there's content work, and it's related to BYU/LDS, tag it. Willing to be persuaded that this isn't the appropriate threshold, though! I wouldn't want to have to tag an article talk every time I edited something for the first time, that would double the work on many minor edits and maybe discourage me from making them. I don't want this to be onerous, as I do value the contributions these folks are making, and I appreciate BYU's willingness to fund a WiR to provide access to its records. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 20:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * [[User:Valereee|Valereee]], why not make it required? What harm would that do? It seems rather bizarre to make it a condition when it's not a requirement, especially for so qualified an editor as Rachel, who is a huge asset here. (We aren't making it a condition for other COI editors, many of whom have dubious motives, making the difference in treatment even more bizarre.) The solution is to make it required for all COI editors. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#0bf&quot;&gt;PING me&lt;/span&gt;]]''''') 17:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{ping|Valjean}} - To make this a &quot;requirement&quot; rather than currently what it is as a &quot;best practice,&quot; would require community consensus. No one person can make it a requirement. Someone would have to initiate an RFC. And there is probably good reason for this not be a requirement as deemed by the community. For me, the reason for &quot;strongly discouraged&quot; (or whatever) is probably to cover most of the circumstances, with some flexibility, in contrast to overbearing rigidity. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:As said in the opening of [[The Warriors (film)]]: Can you dig it? ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:: Hi Steve. I understand and largely agree about the proper procedure. What considerations might there be against making it a requirement? What harm would it do? -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#0bf&quot;&gt;PING me&lt;/span&gt;]]''''') 18:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I believe I indicated the potential harm. With the wording as it is, there is some flexibility rather than strong rigidity. The community seems to operate best with flexibility. In any case, this is veering off topic in this forum. You might want to open a discussion about this elsewhere. Maybe the Village Pump or the COI talk page or wherever else? Also, anyone feel free to hat this part of this ANI. ----[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Valjean|Valjean]], because we'll never get buy in from other WiRs. Unfortunately it's just that simple. <br /> *:The thing is, it doesn't need to be required in order for it to be best practices, and when multiple other editors are requesting you to do something that isn't strictly required in policy ''and only costs you three seconds of time'', why would you not ''want'' to comply with those requests? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I'm not sure where to respond here, but yes, I'm happy to comply and talk to other WiRs about best practices. I just told my students that we're going to include talk page connected contributor banners from today, and it will probably take a few days for everyone to start using them (one of my students is only working on Fridays this semester). I can do the pages we've worked on in the past--does anyone know if there is a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category? Or I can dedicate a few minutes each day working on it over the summer. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::{{tq|a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category}} <br /> *:::You could try a [[WP:BOTREQUEST]]. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::AWB is also an option where you can make semiautomated edits to pages based on an intersection of categories. Like pages in the LDS Wikiproject that you have edited. Ping me on me talk page if you want help. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 15:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' per Vanamonde93. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 18:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' per Vanamonde93 and Awilley [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 02:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban, broadly construed.While it's true that her userpage is a whole heap of disclosure, the real problem is her (undisclosed) willingness to encourage other's undisclosed COI. Per Fram and Levivich: in Effect. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 18:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per the reasoning of {{U|Levivich}} - which I find particularly alarming due to the walled-garden character of a lot of BYU articles. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Weak Oppose''' per Vanamode93. Even if the COI stuff is properly resolved, or Rachel Phelps is topic-banned, we still have a massive number of LDS topics with no critical sources. This does not necessarily mean that the articles will improve. As a religious editor myself, it can sometimes take me up to an hour to find a non-fringe scholarly source to support whatever perspective I want represented. This is frustrating, but I do not try to bend the rules if I cannot find a reliable source mainstream enough to support a pro-religious perspective. See [[WP:NOTTRUTH]] for more information. However, I am opposed to a topic-ban because in my experience, student editors tend to do such a terrible job following policy, that I cannot support a topic-ban without us at least doing something about the WikiEd program as a whole. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I suppose it's possible that some of the student employees being paid by the BYU Library to edit Wikipedia are also involved in WikiEd somehow through their regular classes, but this is the first time I've seen someone bring up WikiEd as a problem here. {{u|Scorpions1325}}, since it's important enough to inform your vote, could you explain what the connection is? [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 00:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Forgive me. I misspoke. I am saying that it is not wise to let people employed at universities or anywhere else edit here for pay if they are not well-versed on policy, which is the case of BYU's students. At [[WP:AFC]] I found myself removing [[WP:PRIMARY]] and non-[[WP:INDEPENDENT]] sources every day. Paid editors, disclosed or not, tend to cause time-consuming work. Being a Wikipedia editor is something that requires commitment. Sometimes, learning the ropes can take months. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 00:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I've read this over four times and no matter how I look at it, you seem to be arguing in favor of restrictions (or rather, that it would be &quot;not wise&quot; to oppose restrictions in this specific paid editor situation, where we agree that there are problems). But maybe that's just a sign that I should have shut up an hour ago and left this for the closer. Which I'll do now, with apologies for dragging this on longer. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 00:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::It's a yes, but only if situation. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 01:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Topic ban for Thmazing=== <br /> <br /> On the basis of [[User_talk:Thmazing#Conflict_of_interest|this discussion]], I think we need to topic ban [[User:Thmazing]] from pages related to [[Association of Mormon Letters]] broadly construed. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Editors may also consider a wider topic ban on [[Mormonism]]. Note the time of this post, editors commenting before '''04:13, 15 March 2024''' will not have seen this post. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 04:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' This user has a large number of COIs, and refuses to discuss them. They are still editing, but will no longer engage in questions regarding editing about themself and their friends. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood|talk]]) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. As &lt;ins&gt;he is&lt;/ins&gt; a former president of [[Association for Mormon Letters|AML]] and current Managing Editor of its journal [[Irreantum]], I see Thmazing as the &quot;highest-ranking&quot; editor in this COI group (that I know of), and thus the most culpable. Far more culpable than Rachel Helps, who is listed as AML's Discord Admin (and I believe is a current or past board member). Thmazing should have been the one to disclose, require the disclosure, or otherwise reign in, all this undisclosed COI editing coming from AML board members, staff, and other associated editors. A TBAN from AML is really too little IMO, I would ''at least'' TBAN from all of Mormonism (same scope as Rachel Helps) for the same reasons: prevent him from not only editing about AML but also about its &quot;product,&quot; which is Mormon literature, and thus by extension, Mormonism itself. Heck, due to his high ranking nature and his particularly obstructive involvement in this entire fiasco, I'd also just support a straight site ban. But support as certainly better than nothing. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;small&gt;This is phrased a little confusingly... until the end of that paragraph, I thought that you had declared ''yourself'' the current managing editor of Irreantum.--&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier&quot;&gt;[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])&lt;/small&gt; 19:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *::&lt;small&gt;That would have been a real plot twist! 😂 Thanks for pointing it out, I added a couple words to clarify. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 21:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *:What exactly do you mean by {{tqq|by extension, Mormonism itself}}? [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 02:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per sound analysis above. &lt;s&gt;I looked at his last article [[Draft:Mike Pekovich]], originally created in the mainspace: it is blatantly promotional (&quot;His work on woodcraft [...] has influenced thousands of woodworkers over decades&quot;) as much as badly sourced (two non-independent primary sources)&lt;/s&gt;. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;ins&gt;ADDENDUM&lt;/ins&gt;: I also support a wider '''topic ban from Mormonism''', broadly construed, per Levivich, starship.paint and Steve Quinn. Also based on my striked content I suspect there could be other COIs in the mix (in addition to some obvious [[WP:CIR]] issues). --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 12:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> **The draft you link to is problematic, but I don't see how it relates to the AML. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *** You're right, I had taken for granted that the subject was an LSD member. I've strikken the side comment, which is btw telling of this user's way of editing. --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 17:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ****If anything that speaks to a broader issue, perhaps include a ban on article creation? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' maybe they will miraculously recover from the [[WP:ANI flu|unfortunate illness which prevents their typing]], but hopefully they take their &quot;breathing&quot; time to learn [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thmazing&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212609155 how to not] {{Personal attack removed}}. In this particular case, however, Thmazing's obstructionist behaviour annoyed me enough to begin investigating in the first place, so perhaps we should thank him. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:AirshipJungleman29|AirshipJungleman29]]: I've removed the personal attack. Please remain civil when describing behaviour from other editors. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{reply|Femke}} That's bollocks, &lt;s&gt;mate&lt;/s&gt; colleague. We had our [[WP:DICK|own page called that very thing]] which ''still'' directs to a page on meta. So AsJm29 should have called Thamazing a jerk, I guess. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::And there is a reason the meta page is no longer has that title. More people considered this a personal attack. Neither words are conducive to resolving issues of COI editing and civility on Thmazing's part. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 20:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per the above comments. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', but per Levivich, would easily support more, as this is ridiculously lenient. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I agree that the past president of [[Association of Mormon Letters]] shouldn't be editing articles about that group, but I'd like to have all such conflicted editors able to make suggestions and {{tl|edit COI}} requests on the talk page. With niche subjects in particular, we need to balance our need for an accurate article against our desire to have the independent editors making the decisions about what to include. It's not ultimately helpful to the main goal if we TBAN anyone who actually knows anything about the subject. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:If they are the only people who know the things about a subject, that subject may not be worthy of encyclopedic coverage. It may have not gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and may not be suitable encyclopedic matter. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 23:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Strong support''' lack of candor and accountability, repeatedly citing their own off-wiki blog posts, even this topic ban is too lenient, it should be a topic ban from Mormonism at least. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' the topic ban described above per all the comments about COI and lack of candor. I also support a broader ban to include all LDS/Mormon topics per [[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]]. --&lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Futura&quot;&gt;[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' the subject obviously has skin in the game regarding AML and they fail to adhere to COI policy. I agree that the ban should include all LDS/Mormon topics. They do not understand how to edit according to policies and guidelines. Also, I am looking for evidence that they actually cited content in articles with their own blogposts. If this is true then that is totally unacceptable as one of the primary no-no's on Wikipedia. Anyone have any diffs about them citing article content with their blog posts? I read about it in the linked conversation but was unable to discern on which article(s) this happened. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **{{re|Steve Quinn}} - perhaps you can look at the articles [[Elias: An Epic of the Ages]] (most obvious, look here first), [[Adam and Eve in Mormonism]], and [[Brad Teare]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 03:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Starship.paint}} - So yes, it is true. Thmazing has been citing content with their blogposts. This is disconcerting. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 16:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *'''Support'''; Thmazing appears to be both more culpable and less able to recognize and fix problems with their editing. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 04:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed'''. As {{slink|User talk:Thmazing#Conflict of interest}} {{small|([[Special:Permalink/1213676930#Conflict_of_interest|permalink]])}} shows, the editor repeatedly cited their self-published blog posts (from [[Substack]], [[Blogspot]], and at least one personal website) in Mormonism-related articles, including articles not directly related to the [[Association for Mormon Letters]]. These are clear violations of the [[WP:PROMOTION|policy against promotion]] and the [[WP:REFSPAM|guideline against citation spam]]. New editors who do this are indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia as a routine matter; see the reports on the [[WP:UAA|username noticeboard]] for examples. The editor's use of deflection when asked about their promotional edits and conflict of interest (e.g. {{!xt|&quot;[[Special:Diff/1212451954|I know you just got out of arbitration yourself and so I can understand why you'd want to share the love, but I feel like the conversation we've had has already solved this problem.]]&quot;}}) is highly concerning and shows that they are not an appropriate fit for this topic area. —&amp;nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#536267;&quot;&gt;Newslinger&lt;/span&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:Newslinger#top|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;'' 04:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', per extensive discussion above and elsewhere. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 05:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', per evidence presented by others. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 12:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support site ban for high conflict-of-interest, topic-ban as second choice''' - Refer to my comments in re the Rachel Helps topic-ban above; they apply equally here, with the caveat that we have community banned editors for editing blatantly to further their organisation's goals on the grounds of irreconciliable conflict-of-interest. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * &lt;s&gt;'''Oppose'''. Generally concur with the comments by Awilley, Ocaasi, Pigsonthewing, Vanamonde93, and FyzixFighter. I do not see anything presented that rises to the level of requiring a topic ban, and I see plenty of evidence of the positive contributions this editor has made to Wikipedia. [[User:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;Gamaliel&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/small&gt; 22:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/s&gt;<br /> ::&lt;small&gt;{{ping|Gamaliel}} {{ping|Oliveleaf4}} I think you may have voted in the wrong section? This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, {{ping|Viriditas}} might want to re-evaluate the &quot;per Gamaliel&quot; vote. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 06:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :::&lt;small&gt;{{ping|Gamaliel}} {{ping|Oliveleaf4}} I also think you may have voted in the wrong section! This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, {{ping|Viriditas}} might want to re-evaluate the &quot;per Gamaliel&quot; vote. ---06:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :::{{ping|Awilley}} {{ping|Steve Quinn}} Thank you! You are correct, and I've moved my !vote accordingly. [[User:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;Gamaliel&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/small&gt; 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' per Gamaliel. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *&lt;s&gt;'''Oppose''' as per Gamaliel also. Telling the BYU Wikimedian in Residence not to edit on Mormonism? We don't want to go there, folks. If we need to work with them on some aspects of wiki policy, let's not harangue them online, let's arrange for an experienced person to meet up with them. I might have a chance to go out to Utah next year, and I'd be happy to sit down with them and edit.&lt;/s&gt; [[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 04:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Why don't we want to &quot;go there&quot;? What are you implying? The community has been trying to &quot;work with them&quot; on aspects of policy for years. It hasn't worked. Why are you so confident your in-person visit is going to be successful? Do you have a track record of success with such things? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 11:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It is creepy to offer to meet in real life with editors you don't know to help them avoid a potential topic ban. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood|talk]]) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{+1|color=green}} [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Fwiw this is a WiR at a university whom anyone can walk up to and not some editor editing off their couch at home so if anything the suggestion raises the opposite sort of sussiness. Anyway… [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 05:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::One word: safeguarding. One wants to interact with another Wikipedian one does so on Wikipedia or at an event where Wikipedians have *themselves* *chosen* to attend. We should not be treating casual contact amongst editors in RL with anything other than the most serious concern for unintended consequences. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 05:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Am attempting to support efforts by a WiR, not give them a bad time! (Have attempted to comment in the other section.)[[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 18:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' The evidence is clear here as well. Currently this editor is a net-negative to Wikipedia and cost us time and energy. I cannot understand this continual impulse to let folk get away with bad behaviour and breaking policy that are clearly understood and followed by the majority of editors. That was a long conversation that was held in 2020 by administration, it was very clearly stated. Combined with the analysis done recently, makes it clear as day. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 13:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:This is quite rude and suggests an egregious misreading of my editing history. Some cherrypicked flaws in my editing past do not a &quot;net-negative to Wikipedia&quot; make. Has anyone actually looked at my entire editing history or are you just believing what you're told?<br /> *:I appreciate the fellow above who admitted he had made erroneous assumptions about an article I had started but his errors were more numerous than the one he apologized for.<br /> *:I know this isn't the place for it, but I feel obliged to point out that what's happening here is largely an on-Wikipedia doxxing of people who, in good faith, made it possible to do so.<br /> *:(Also, I might add that the idea that I've only heard about Fram in one Discord server and that you can guess which one it is is charming. She has quite the reputation as I'm sure many of you know.)<br /> *:Anyway, carry on. If you could do it without the ad hominem attacks, however, I would appreciate it. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 22:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Thmazing}} No it isn't. I did look at your entire editing history and checked a whole bunch of it as I work on article reviewing, before I commented here. I read the discussion prior to this as well. The comment is probably is a bit harsh but you made the concious choice to ignore policy and your response hasn't been particularly positive. I work up at conflict of interest board also and I see the same kind of response by coi editors every time. I am sick to death of it dude. I want you to experience a moment of catharsis and undergo an epiphany, improve and stop breaking [[WP:COI]] and particularly [[WP:NPOV]]. I only state this because of your previous work. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 08:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' - Same general rationale as my !vote regarding Rachel Helps, but with Thmazing there appears to be even less mitigating circumstances as they have not engaged with this discussion in a remotely satisfactory fashion, whereas RH has at least attempted to make amends. &lt;sub&gt;signed, &lt;/sub&gt;[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban from Mormonism, per above. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' I'm here particularly because of the refusal to acknowledge the problem. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :'''Support''' I haven’t yet decided what I think about the proposal for Rachel Helps, but given the level of incivility and defensiveness Thmazing shows on their user talk, combined with their substantive behavior with content and CoI, I think a topic ban might be warranted. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 07:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed. Even on top of the obvious COI issue for the reasons explained in my reply regarding Helps above, their replies on their talk page about it are not acceptable and show both an unwillingness to assume good faith and a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] view of Wikipedia, which is particularly incompatible with COI editing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1190835734&amp;oldid=1190608956&amp;title=User_talk:Thmazing This] they thought better of and replaced, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1190838884&amp;oldid=1190835734&amp;title=User_talk:Thmazing the replacement] is no better. {{tq|I understand your feelings may be hurt and I don't want to pile on}} and {{tq| Wikipedia is not a sport where people should strive to win or lose and I apologize if I made you feel you needed to win}} are not acceptable ways to respond to a serious concern. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1212451954&amp;oldid=1212410244&amp;title=User_talk:Thmazing This] is in some ways even worse - I'm particularly concerned by {{tq|I think you might feel better about things if you report me. I mean—you're Fram! You have a reputation to maintain! (I was lurking on a Discord channel earlier today and you came up. &quot;What a coincidence!&quot; I said to myself)}} coupled with {{tq|I'm not sure how you all ended up here (perhaps you're on another Discord channel complaining about me?)}} - I'm not sure how to interpret those two sentences other than, well, 1. Thmazing believes that people coordinate Wikipedia edits on Discord, and that this is common and normal enough to immediately leap to that assumption when COI concerns come up, and 2. Thmazing themselves is in a Discord channel which was discussing Fram around that time. The logical conclusion, to me, seems to be that Thmazing leaped to that conclusion because that is, in fact, the nature of the discord channel referenced in the first sentence, and they assume that everyone else is doing the same thing because they're approaching Wikipedia as a battleground. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:In fairness, [[WP:FRAM|we did have a massive controversy which involved harassment and Fram]], and all that seemed to come from that is that Fram has a reputation.... for being a punching bag whenever he inserts himself in anything involving any sort of controversy and getting fucked over whenever his name comes up in conjunction with anything remotely near [[WP:HARASS]]-related content (though in this case I will defend his block as justified, just not as performed by [[WP:INVOLVED|Primefac]]). This is not to justify Fram's actions or exonerate Thmazing, whose actions smack of [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list|EEML]] or [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones|WTC]] just from a brief glance, and get just as ugly as them if scrutinised. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :'''Comment''' Thmazing has been creating a lot of redirects such as &quot;John grisham&quot; (note the capitalization) and seems to be unaware that these are superfluous (unless I’m very much mistaken) due to case insensitivity. Is there a way to bulk RfD like multiple AfDs? [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 10:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|RadioactiveBoulevardier}} - actually Thmazing is correct in this regard, so no deletions should occur. For example, our current TFA [[George Griffith]] versus [[George griffith]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 12:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::How so? If I put “George griffith” into the search bar and press the button (ignoring suggestions ofc), I get sent to the article. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 13:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I see, we did different ways, {{re|RadioactiveBoulevardier}}. I typed the URL with &quot;George_griffith&quot;. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_griffith] '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 13:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In any case, there’s a reason these redirects are not created systematically. Still, I suppose they’re cheap. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 13:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I'm not particularly interested in defending myself here even though a lot of what has been said is more game-of-telephone than evidence and would never hold up in a court of law. It also makes me sad how corrosive discussions can become. That said, I thought I might add a couple bits of information for consideration.<br /> <br /> 1) I was editing AML-related articles long before I was involved in the AML. I agree that's no excuse for failing to disclose COI when it became a thing, but honestly, it never really occurred to me. I was just doing what I'd been doing before.<br /> <br /> 2) Based on the specific edits that have been used as evidence against me, it seems like we're talking about maybe a dozen of my roughly 8000 total edits---or '''0.15%'''. Even if we quadruple my infractions, which seems a number higher than likely, it's less than half of one percent of my total edits. So some of the hyperbole about me being a threat to the very existence of Wikipedia is wild.<br /> <br /> 3) Something I've noticed in these discussions before is that a few facts can become monstrous through snowballing assumptions. I would encourage anyone who thinks #2 is a lie to please check my contribs for yourself. I genuinely consider myself a gnome and a fairy and you'll see that I turn Wikipedia green. In a wide variety of subjects.<br /> <br /> 4) This conversation makes me think Wikipedia needs to have a new conversation about what COI even means. We have some cowboys that go around enforcing, imo, absurdly broad standards. I'm not sure, by their logic, that I should be allowed to edit places or people within the United States, or with the arts of any sort, or possibly things that metabolize. I know you all think I'm exaggerating here. Good! I agree!<br /> <br /> I don't anticipating posting here again. I've found that a few people (not you, of course, ''other'' people) just want a fight, while I believe in a troll-free Wikipedia. I suppose if I hadn't identified myself, none of this would have been possible. But I'm not afraid to be identified. And I'm up for being called out on my errors. What I'm not cool with is people saying things like I'm a net-negative on Wikipedia. That's not the Wikipedia culture I know. And it's not representative of the work I've done here over the last 20 years (17 with this account). Thank you for reading. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 23:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::I know I said I didn't plan to butt in again, but about an hour after I posted, a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity and describing me and my evil ways and nefarious means. (I will not be providing a link.) But the thing that made me laugh was his primary argument that I have a financial motivation in all this and it made me wonder if that's what everyone here has been thinking? Finances have always been the way ''I'' think of COI and you won't find edits where I cross that line. See if you can see what these have in common:<br /> :::Money made editing Irreantum: $0<br /> :::Money made as president of AML: $0<br /> :::Money made editing Peculiar Pages: $0<br /> :::Money made editing Wikipedia: $0<br /> ::I suppose in my mind these are all part of my efforts to make the world better using the tools I have. Anyway, if that was the (unspoken) subcutaneous concern, I thought I should address it. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 00:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::When you say &quot;a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity&quot; you do realize all that information can be found on your userpage? [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 17:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The post at…that place makes some easily verifiable claims. Other sources indicate you wholly own Peculiar Pages and have a senior position at Irreantum, so the claim that no money explicitly changed hands is not only irrelevant, but indicative of the reasons why editors (including myself) think a topic ban might be helpful to the project.<br /> :::Like, unilaterally removing a notability tag with the diff summary you did? Going about it that way is horribly disruptive to processes and doing so with a CoI is unconscionable to anyone engaged in the NPP or deletion processes (as I am).<br /> :::And by the way, unlike Nihonjoe you by definition can’t be outed, at least not while you have links to your public-facing socials and your personal website on your website. That’s not outing, it’s [[muckraking]]. If you want to claim any sort of protection for your identity, blank your user page.<br /> :::Frankly, if I had a mop I’d have given you a 24-hour block for the particular flavor of calculated incivility you’ve shown multiple editors on your user talk.<br /> :::Through your repeatedly telling people things to the general effect of &quot;[[I am not a crook]]! Was it because of [insert personal attack] that you thought so?&quot; when you know as well as they and now we do what the diffs say, you’ve turned a not that big complaint into something that a pseudonymous WikiHater thought was worth posting about.<br /> :::In fact, it should have been dealt with sooner. An admin should come along and close this because the more people vote !support, the more I get unpleasant feelings related to having just reread ''[[To Kill a Mockingbird]]''<br /> :::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *{{re|Thmazing}} - first, money doesn’t have to be made ''while editing''. The very existence of the Wikipedia pages, in a promotional way, may generate money for the entities. That isn’t my biggest concern, though. That would be that within the last year '''you literally cited your own blog''', multiple times [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elias:_An_Epic_of_the_Ages&amp;oldid=1151435889] within the [[Elias: An Epic of the Ages]]. One month after that you declared that it was your blog [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thmazing&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1153382284]. Citing yourself is blindingly inappropriate. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I've copped to that and apologized and not touched the article since. I hope that these (rare) instances will lead to other editors improving the articles with sources they see as appropriate. But of course I'm not going back to them myself. I can't imagine a better way to get more people mad at me.<br /> *:Also, I hope if I'm not responding quickly there aren't more accusations of me avoiding the conversation. This is a dreadfully busy moment for me in almost every way. Plus, most of the commentary hasn't really been to me, more at me. Thank you, @[[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]] for being so civil. (And I know you understand busy!) [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 05:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Oh, hey---serious question:<br /> *:Considering how often I could have cited myself, I rarely have. Usually I use some other source because it seems like the right thing to do. Those few exceptions are for information I didn't think was available elsewhere. I appreciate people don't appreciate the exception and I'm suitably cowed, but that gets to my question.<br /> *:There's been effort to have scientists and historians and others bring their expertise to Wikipedia. And I have to imagine, especially with a scientist bringing new information into the world, if they do so they have little choice but to cite themselves. Although I've generally avoided citing myself (as the rarity of instances proves) I've always thought that this drive to get wild-haired scientists to bring their work to the public via Wikipedia suggested a backside-covering precedent. I wonder how this understanding of the intersection between expertise and COI may have changed? [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 05:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Scientists do not need to cite themselves to contribute their expertise. Science topics generally disallow primary sources (research articles), so adding info sourced to one's own research publications isn't compliant with PAGs anyway. Issues would really only arise when editing a ''very'' narrow subject, when the editor is so prolific writing review papers that all the most up-to-date consensus info is cited to them, or when the editor has a huge number of collaborators and can't avoid citing one of them. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 06:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{re|Thmazing}} - I am afraid your response and past actions show what seems to me a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines. By citing your own self-published blog {{tq|for information I didn't think was available elsewhere}}, you are violating [[WP:COI]], [[WP:SPS]] (part of [[WP:V]]) and also [[WP:DUE]] (part of [[WP:NPOV]]). It is my opinion that any topic that desperately needs your blog as a source probably does not meet [[WP:GNG]] for an article on Wikipedia, and any article that meets WP:GNG does not need your blog. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 00:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::That's not quite what I said. All the articles are worthy of existing sans me. I only cited myself for ''specific details'' I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page. I now understand I should not have done that. Lesson learned. If my goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia, such edits would be greater than one one-thousandth of my total edits. I mean---I've written a lot of stuff. I've written about thousands of books and hundreds of movies and plenty of other stuff. If I were the sly ne'er-do-well described in this discussion, you could find hundreds more examples of self-citation to harp on. Since that's not that case, I would greatly appreciate a bit of [[WP:AGF]]. I'm trying to be a good citizen. I believe deeply in the value and importance of Wikipedia and my edit history proves I have added to that value. I'm not touching the articles I've been accused of COI on, even when it's absurd and I have stuff to add. For instance, I had collected a bunch of more recent sources on [[Brad Teare]] but I've only posted them to the talk page, even though I can't imagine a reason why I shouldn't be able to edit that page. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{tqq|I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page.}} That's what [[WP:NPOV]] says ''not'' to do: include details that aren't in secondary sources that you personally think are valuable to someone visiting the page. If the only person who wrote about a specific detail is you, then you're not the person who should be adding that detail to the Wikipedia article. What you did there was use Wikipedia to promote your own viewpoint--to promote details nobody else thought were important enough to publish. That ''is'' &quot;sly ne're-do-well.&quot; That's not being a good citizen, that's putting your head in the sand and pretending that bias and COI don't apply to you. That you don't understand or accept this, is why we have COI rules: people with COI have biases that prevent them from viewing something objectively; in particular, COI comes with a bias that makes everyone think their COI doesn't come with a bias, or the bias doesn't matter. It's inherent, it's why COI rules exist in the first place. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{re|Thmazing}} - you've asked for {{tq|a bit of WP:AGF}}, I assure you that's exactly what I have given to you. I've never called you a {{tq|sly ne'er-do-well}}, neither have I said that you have a {{tq|goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia}}. I simply think that you do not know (yet) if you should, or should not, add certain information to an article, per [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:SPS]], which you should thoroughly review. That is evident from your response: {{tq|I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page.}} '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 07:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' for disruption and ignoring NPOV. &lt;small&gt;If Thmazing thinks Fram's comment is unclear[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thmazing&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212609155] or that the draft linked above is NPOV, Fram's command of English, or at least the formal English in encyclopedias, may be better.&lt;/small&gt; It seems like a sarcastic comment to me, but either way there's been enough egregious behaviour that the camel was crushed long before the Belgian comment. [[User:Novo Tape|Sincerely, Novo Tape]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Novo Tape|My Talk Page]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Also, tagging is still editing. 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [[User:Novo Tape|Sincerely, Novo Tape]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Novo Tape|My Talk Page]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed''': Thmazing says that their COI editing is a very low percentage of their Wikipedia edits — 0.15%, according to their completely made-up estimate. If that's the case, and it's not a big deal to avoid all the pages where COI is likely, then a topic ban should be easy to comply with. In general, I'm unimpressed with Thmazing's statements — if they're still calling the COI concerns &quot;absurd&quot; after all this conversation, then they're not getting the point. If they really want to avoid a topic ban, being less defensive and dismissive would help. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 23:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:The conversation with Fram (linked above by Novo Tape) shows that Thmazing prefers deflecting away from the issue of declaring COI by essentially verbally assaulting Fram. {{redact}} Being snarky doesn't work. {{redact}} One more thing, this is not social website where we host links from personal blogs or links from other trivial venues. Thmazing, try doing some reading to learn about editing on Wikipedia. I suggest you start with reading [[WP:N]] and then follow the links from there. But, candidly, I don't see that as happening. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed''': Note that this is an ongoing issue, Thmazing continues to join in discussions without disclosing relevant conflicts of interest [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Motley_Vision&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214597917] [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{redact}} ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' broadly construed. Not merely the absolutely ''blatant'' COI, but their refusal to acknowledge it, let alone address it, means that the community must do it for them. They chose... poorly. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 18:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Canvassing concerns===<br /> :{{userlinks|BoyNamedTzu}}<br /> :{{userlinks|Awilley}}<br /> I am concerned that there has been canvassing involved in discussions related to Rachel Helps (BYU). In January 2024 there was a case here at AN/I involving myself and Rachel Helps (BYU). Both BoyNamedTzu and Awilley broke long no-edit stretches (21 November 2023-8 January 2024 and 9 December 2023-7 January 2024 respectively) to take positions strongly in support of Rachel Helps (BYU). Neither disclosed a conflict of interest. The same thing happened again with this VP/M-AN/I thread, both broke long no-edit stretches (8 January 2024-12 March 2024 and 17 February 2024-13 March 2024) to take positions strongly in support of Rachel Helps (BYU). BoyNamedTzu did not disclosed a COI, Awilley only disclosed after being asked. In between 8 January 2024 and 13 March 2024 BoyNamedTzu made no edits and Awilley made only four. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :As I mentioned above, I was alerted to the existence of these threads by pings or mentions because I had participated in a previous discussion about you and Rachel Helps. <br /> :*January 9th AN/I thread: That thread was actually about topic banning or admonishing ''you'' for hounding Helps. You say I took a strong position, but I didn't even !vote. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194089340#Admonishment_proposal Here's] the only comment I made in that thread (replying inline to another user to gently correct what I saw as a misrepresentation). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1193974962 Here's] the comment that mentioned me in that discussion. <br /> :*February-March VP/M thread: I got what looks like a more deliberate ping to that thread in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1213362422 this] comment. You will undoubtedly find that suspicious because it was the same user who pinged me to the earlier thread. In any case, there seemed to be a lot of misunderstandings and accusations flying around, so I made a similarly meandering comment trying to clear up a few issues and replied to one user. Unfortunately I can't provide diffs to my two posts because they were caught up in an oversight, but if you scroll up from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;oldid=1213635752#A_personal_analysis_and_proposal] you'll find it. <br /> :*March 13 AN/I: I got pinged to the above thread by its creator in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1213529641 this diff.] You can see my response above where I wrote, &quot;in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor.&quot; I try to say something like that whenever I !vote on AN/I threads related to religion because I've recused myself from taking admin actions in that topic area. <br /> :I didn't get any emails or off-wiki communication about these threads, and I'm not on any email lists or text threads or discord servers related to Wikipedia. From a search of my inbox, the last Wikipedia related email I received was in September 2023 from a user asking for details on how I created a certain .gif animation. As for why I chose to comment in the above threads: I have a soft spot when it comes to seeing gnomes getting attacked and sucked into wiki-drama. <br /> :Speaking of pings and notifications, it looks like the &quot;userlinks&quot; templates you used above do not automatically generate pings, so I got no notification that you had opened this thread. You might want to consider officially notifying {{ping|BoyNamedTzu}}. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The community appears to have now endorsed my concerns around Help. I am disturbed that you are only now disclosing your BYU COI despite participating in a number of discussions about the BYU wikipedia editing program. Also, given what we now know clearly not a gnome and never was. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I would also note that since pinging you to that first discussion [Hydrangeans] has disclosed a series of COIs. In hindsight that appears to be on-wiki canvassing. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Then the canvassing issue you have is with [Hydrangeans], for the first two discussions, not Awilley. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I don't agree with that. I was just writing that I'm disappointed in Awilley. In the Jan 9th thread, that's one BYU alum pinging another BYU alum for backup in a thread involving BYU's WiR, and ''none of the three of them'' disclosed it. In the VPM, ''again'' a BYU alum pings another BYU alum, again accusing HEB of &quot;hounding&quot; the BYU WiR, and again, neither of the BYU alums disclose their connection. This is all in an effort to shut down HEB when ''HEB was right all along about the COI'', in fact it's a much bigger and broader COI issue, we now know, than just involving the BYU WiR. This was super deceitful. I understod when I read &quot;I'm commenting here as an involved editor,&quot; and I thought, ''ah ha, that's why''. This is very not kosher, you should ''all'' know better than to participate in ''discussions about COI by your alma mater'' without disclosing that it's your alma mater. In hindsight, we now know, that almost all of the people defending the BYU WiR from COI allegations were also BYU people (or AML people, or both). This was all highly deceptive, which is extra disappoint when it all comes from a Christian church (yeah I said it). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 02:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I would say that this is an issue of lack of disclosure of Awilley's part, which is, the more I think about it, pretty disturbing, for the reasons you mentioned. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You're right, with that fact pattern laid out Awilley's conduct looks like harassment. They selectively participated in discussions about topics they had a COI with at a time in which they were not generally active on wikipedia in order to confront or inhibit the work of another editor (me). That would be unbecoming of any editor, from an admin it really begs the question of whether they should remain an admin. It is par for the course for disruptive editors to cry &quot;Harassment!&quot; while engaging in harassment, but I rarely see an admin do it and never without consequences. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 02:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> :::::{{tq|you should all know better than to participate in discussions about COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it's your alma mater.}} We talked thoroughly on my userpage why the [[WP:COI|conflict of interest policy]] left me with the impression that it asked about current relationships and not terminated ones, and I apologized for that, both to you personally and in the Village Pump thread. This thread is the first that I learned Awilley had any connection to BYU. I pinged Awilley, along with Drmies and Mackensen, because they had participated in a past ANI thread about HEB and I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again. There are ways of communicating about COI other than by violating the [[WP:HA|harassment and privacy policies]]. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 02:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::If you pinged people because of their past interactions with me and not their past interactions with Rachel on a discussion purely about Rachel's conduct that is not appropriate. Especially if you did it because &quot;I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again&quot; that would be canvassing with a specific goal in mind, all three are admins, were you trying to get me blocked? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 02:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I get that at the time, you didn't know Awilley was a BYU alum. But Awilley knew. I now count at least half a dozen editors who have some affiliation with BYU/AML -- almost all of them current or former employees -- who engaged in discussions about undisclosed BYU/AML COI editing without disclosing their affiliation. If all of them were part of one single conspiracy, that would be bad. But if they all each independently decided to surreptitiously influence the COI investigation without disclosing their own COI, that's even worse. That's like: what the heck are they teaching at BYU, that there are so many BYU folks who don't seem to grasp basic ethics -- and not a matter of the wording of Wikipedia policies, or even ethics tied to any religion or culture, but cross-cultural basic ethics, like that if you are going to act as a &quot;judge,&quot; &quot;juror,&quot; or &quot;witness,&quot; you'd better disclose your connection to the &quot;defendant.&quot; That's so basic. Everyone involved in these discussions about BYU/AML COI who has any connection past or present with BYU or AML should disclose that, or else stay out of these discussions. And it seems like every day I'm learning of someone else who has been involved, has the connection, but didn't disclose. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 02:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::@Levivich, up until today I didn't know that [Hydrangeans] was a BYU alumnus. And frankly knowing it now doesn't really change anything for me. She's just an editor with whom I cross paths with occasionally. There's only one Wikipedia editor I've ever knowingly met in real life. We went to lunch together and had a nice talk. Maybe he was a BYU alumnus too; I don't actually know. And it doesn't matter. Editors on Wikipedia should be judged by their words and actions, not the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 05:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Yeah, judged for actions like choosing to participate in multiple discussions about undisclosed COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it was your alma mater (though I appreciate that you finally did). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Nobody is being judged by the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended... They are being judged by their words and actions *alone*. Throwing out these red herrings and insinuations of bigotry against good faith editors is not constructive. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Indeed, and my concern at the time was that HEB pushed too hard, evening when not gaining support from other editors for their views (still feel that way, but it's not relevant here). This situation is different, and I feel seriously misled by Nihonjoe's failure to disclose their COI. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 00:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I will happily acknowledge that Rachel is my friend and the person who recruited me to Wikipedia and taught me how to edit. When I have seen her being relentlessly bullied by other editors, I have defended her. She has never asked me to do this. She has never reuqested that i participate, in any way, in any discussion about her work. She has never canvassed me or anybody else that I know about in order to solicit responses or participation. But the grenades that you and others have thrown her way have a real life impact on an actual human being that I care about, and that often propels me to action. I am conversant enough with Wikipedia conventions to find my way here without being canvassed.<br /> :I will soon be deactivating my account and leaving Wikipedia for good. I have no desire to continue to edit, and I will pledge to make no more edits to any pages. [[User:BoyNamedTzu|BoyNamedTzu]] ([[User talk:BoyNamedTzu|talk]]) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::And did you see it on the discord? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No. I did not see it on the Discord, which I have not participated in for months. I saw it in my real-life interactions with my friend. [[User:BoyNamedTzu|BoyNamedTzu]] ([[User talk:BoyNamedTzu|talk]]) 20:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::For what its worth I hope you stick around, in the future please either avoid such crossovers between your personal life and wikipedia or disclose them. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Further canvassing and meatpuppetry concerns====<br /> {{hat|This was apparently instigated by a joe job}}<br /> {{userlinks|Luke Olson (BYU)}} created an account for the purpose of !voting against a topic ban. In a discussion on their talk page, they revealed there is a discord channel where BYU editors are discussing and are opposed to this topic ban - I am concerned that other !votes may have been canvassed by that channel.<br /> <br /> In particular, I'm concerned about {{userlinks|Oliveleaf4}}, who returned after a two month hiatus and after a few hours of editing elsewhere arrived to vote against this proposal - their first ever participation at ANI.<br /> <br /> I note Awilley has already been raised above, but I'm also concerned about them; they deny being a member of this discord channel, but there is clearly some connection as Luke Olson pinged them when restoring their !vote, saying {{tq|I'm going to ping [[User:Awilley]] so he sees if someone deletes my message again.}}<br /> <br /> In general, I think this is evidence that stronger and broader action is required, perhaps similar to what was used against the Church of Scientology. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I wasn't around for any Scientology saga, but I think if broader action is required, it would likely be geared towards reducing time wasted by college students with the most poriferous opsec I've ever seen, rather than what I presume was a real operation by serious people. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 04:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :what ''did'' end up happening with scientology anyways? [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 04:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Well, there was [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology|this]], @[[User:Vghfr|Vghfr]]. [[Special:Contributions/57.140.16.57|57.140.16.57]] ([[User talk:57.140.16.57|talk]]) 13:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214295281 Diff]''' of the quote BilledMammal is referring to, for convenience. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 04:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I don't know why Luke Olson singled me out. I've asked [[User_talk:Luke_Olson_(BYU)#Curious_why_you_pinged_me|here]] on their talk page. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Most likely because you're a member of WikiProject LDS. I guess he thought that you'd back him up because you had involvement in LDS related topics [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *If any more single purpose/meatpuppet accounts show up, just tag with {{green|&lt;nowiki&gt;{{spa}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;}} directly after their sig. The closer should be an admin, and they should be able to properly weight any SPA comments. [[User:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;Dennis Brown&lt;/b&gt;]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;2&amp;cent;&lt;/b&gt;]] 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I added the &quot;not a ballot&quot; notice to the top. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 12:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:ජපස|ජපස]], @[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]], @[[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]], @[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] and others, fwiw CU data indicates that account is a Joe job. Seems like it was created to derail the discussion and cause drama for entertainment. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Glad y'all put a stop to it. This really makes [[WP:AGF]] hard, doesn't it? Now I have to reset my priors because it did not occur to me that this could have been a joe job. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{hab}}<br /> <br /> Assuming I'm no longer under under investigation for [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Awilley&amp;page=Brigham_Young_University&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max= being an agent of BYU], may I suggest that if there is truly an appetite for having an open and honest discussion about off-wiki canvassing, it might be healthy to acknowledge the real elephant in the room. The thing that I think [[User:Horse Eye's Back]] referred to as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213530736 the &quot;invisible baseball&quot;]. Above [[User:Aquillion]] above criticized Thmazing for questioning how Fram, &lt;del&gt;HEB, and company&lt;/del&gt;&lt;u&gt;and a couple other editors&lt;/u&gt; spontaneously ended up on his talk page. It seems that was a valid question after all. In that light it's a bit ironic that we have editors tracking down Oppose voters to interrogate them on how ''they'' heard about this discussion, what their alma mater is, and whether they're members of a Discord group. {{pb}}I also can't help but wonder if some part of the frustration on display above may be displaced anger for a different user who is currently out of reach of AN/I. I'd hate to see Rachel Helps and Thamazing become convenient scapegoats for Nihonjoe. I'm not asking anybody to change their votes, but I do think it would be healthy to reconsider the [[McCarthyism|BYU editor under every rock]] approach. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 03:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I don't think it was a valid question at all. I asserted, and continue to assert, that the way in which Thamazing reacted there shows a starkly [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] approach to Wikipedia. And it seems a bit silly to bring up the fact that Nihonjoe is before ArbCom as if that is something people concerned about COIs might ''object'' to. It seems clear to me that this will (and should) end up before ArbCom as well - the problem is systematic and comparable to eg. [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology]]; it is unlikely to be settled here. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 04:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :FWIW, I started watching Thmazing's talk page back in January after I submitted evidence on AML COIs to ArbCom. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 06:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It's rather hard to look at Nihonjoe's COI contributions and ''not'' notice the constant intersection with both Thmazing and the BYU editors. For example [[Annie Poon]] was created by Thmazing, with later important edits by Nihonjoe and Rachel Helps (BYU). Oh, Rachel Helps even sourced the article to two different non-[[WP:RS]] sources written by Thmazing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annie_Poon&amp;diff=733735545&amp;oldid=715763069]. Stellar work promoting AML editors in an article about an AML Award winning artist, not problematic COI editing at all. Same at [[Steven L. Peck]], created by Thmazing, expanded by Rachel Helps (BYU) with addition of a source written by Thmazing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_L._Peck&amp;diff=760551193&amp;oldid=696493939] (and e.g. a source written by Michael Austin, which whom she has a COI as well) , of course again a winner of an AML Award (as are Thmazing, Rachel Helps, Michael Austin). On other pages edited by Nihonjoe, I encountered Thmazing adding his own publications[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Wells_%28author%29&amp;diff=449048632&amp;oldid=445839510]. I have to say, Rachel Helps is rather fond of quoting Thmazing, she used him as a reference twice in [[List of Mormon cartoonists]] as well, next to of course the AML Awards. But Thmazing doesn't really need her help, he is perfectly capable of ading his own self-published work[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nephi_Anderson&amp;diff=713827919&amp;oldid=712611908], again on a page edited by Rachel Helps and Nihonjoe as well. But it is a good reference, because that work won, you guessed it, an AML Award. <br /> :Oh look, [[Dendō]]! Created by Rachel Helps, about an AML Award winning book where the Library that pays Rachel Helps owns the original artwork, and where Helps again uses Thmazing as a reference (among other not quite independent references as well). It's a walled garden which becomes very obvious once one looks at more and more articles edited by the same people referencing each other by name, each others publications, the organisations they're in, and so on... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''It seems that was a valid question after all.''' Please explain what you mean by this. I would also note that if you want &quot;to acknowledge the real elephant in the room&quot; it would be helpful to actually name the elephant... In plain English what is the concern? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Re: &quot;It seems that was a valid question after all.&quot; I was referring to the off-wiki blog post/doxing that Thamazing mentioned above and questioning whether that might have been part of the reason a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep. The earlier blog post and related on-wiki fallout was what I was referring to as the elephant in the room. I think that's about as plain as I can be without having this post redacted. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Is &quot;a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep&quot; an accurate summary of the facts? I showed up on Thmazings talk page in December 2023‎. The off-wiki blog post was made on January 18th 2024. Fram didn't show up until 6 March 2024‎, JoelleJay on the 7th, and AirshipJungleman29 on the 8th. To me that looks like JoelleJay and AirshipJungleman29 followed Fram to the page but it doesn't look like Fram was following the &quot;bad site&quot; closely. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yeah, I saw Fram's edits to the page come up on my watchlist and was curious. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how AJ29 arrived too. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::No actually, I was following you; I believe you had said something on Jimmy Wales' talk page (EDIT: yes, it was [[User talk:Jimbo Wales#French Wikipedia's new trans MOS|this thread]] which I participated in) and I absent-mindedly had a look at your recent contributions. Couple of days later I was having a look at WPO (I believe for the Nihonjoe saga), saw that thread, and thought &quot;huh&quot;. Used what I could of that thread when opening the VPM subsection after being irritated by Thmazing. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Based on these facts I would ask that you strike &quot;HEB&quot; from &quot;questioning how Fram, HEB, and company spontaneously ended up on his talk page.&quot; if you don't choose to strike the whole thing. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 22:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Although you joined the others in posting on March 7, I'll strike &quot;HEB&quot; as you requested because, as you pointed out, you had posted on Thmazing's talk page in December 2023. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::And what about those who posted on the 9th? Are they part of this clique you're alleging the existence of or is the 8th some sort of magic cutoff? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't mean to defend the blog in any way, but doesn't that editor make their real life identity abundantly clear, hence the conflict of interest? [[User:XeCyranium|XeCyranium]] ([[User talk:XeCyranium|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Correct. Thmazing made like zero effort to hide his identity, which made the COI obvious. And to be fair, I have seen some evidence that Thmazing was trying to declare COI even before he was confronted. See for instance [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irreantum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1178161024 this October 2023 edit] with the edit summary, ''&quot;conflict alert: just cited myself&quot;.'' (Still not great to cite yourself though, even if the information was mundane.) &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::So, Awilley, you claim that insinuations that I appeared at Thmazing's talk page due to some off-wiki canvassing is &quot;It seems that was a valid question after all.&quot; I guess you have some evidence for this? As far as I can reconstruct, I noticed Thmazing because of the AML and the AML Awards, which I was looking at because of the many links between them and Nihonjoe's COI articles; and because he also turned up at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 26]], which I looked at when I delved a bit deeper in Rachel Helps' edits (again after I noticed the BYU, AML, ... edits and the collaborations with Nihonjoe on GA review, edit-a-thon, ... ). I then noticed the older discussion about his COI issues, so I started looking at his edits more closely then. But feel free to post any evidence you have of any off-wiki places I was contacted or where I contacted others or ... If you don't have any, perhaps strike the accusation and don't repeat such bogus claims in the future. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 11:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Fram: I'm not trying to claim or insinuate anything. I became interested in the possibility of off-wiki collaboration when I was singled out by the &quot;joe job&quot; sock, so I did some digging and then posted the above. I don't find fault in any of your actions that you described above, and I really wouldn't care even if you ''had'' learned about Nihonjoe and the other editors on the other site. How you find the information matters much less than what you do with it. You'll have to forgive me for not being immediately familiar with all the facts. When I first commented on the Village Pump thread this month I didn't realize there was an Arbcom case afoot and Nihonjoe wasn't even on my radar, so I've been kind of piecing things together since then. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Once you look at the timeline of things, you can see that this didn't start with WPO, WPO only confirmed what people had already been saying on-wiki for ''years''. To recap:<br /> :* the now-familiar [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University|2020 COIN]]<br /> :* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1115#Another user is persistently complaining about me|2022 ANI]] started by Rachel Helps against HEB, where she writes &quot;I have invited Horse Eye's Back to bring their concerns to COIN. I would prefer that to the constant accusations that I should not be editing certain pages.&quot; This is ironic in hindsight, as these concerns had already been brought to COIN two years earlier. AFAICS, nobody in the 2022 ANI thread mentioned the 2020 COIN. The only person in the 2022 ANI discussion who was also in the 2020 COIN is... Rachel Helps. I find it not very honest of her to say &quot;take it to COIN&quot; without disclosing that this had already been done. BTW, who jumps in to defend Rachel in the 2022 ANI? Awilley.<br /> :* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Horse Eye's Back's battleground behavior|January 2024 ANI]] against HEB (for things including but not limited to the BYU/AML COI), in which Rachel Helps writes &quot;HEB has been harassing me since last year (see my talk page archive) and the students who work for me(see 1 and 2). He threatened to nominate us for a topic ban on editing pages about the Book of Mormon...&quot; (this is the one mentioned above where [Hydrangeans] pinged Awilley to the discussion) Dozens of editors participated here.<br /> :*:BTW just to toot my own horn here, I said there and then, on Jan 8, that &quot;It seems ''wildly'' obvious that 'something is afoot,' and I don't think it's limited to this thread...&quot; That there was widespread undisclosed COI editing was obvious by Jan 8. Subsequent disclosers have since validated my suspicions.<br /> :* The &quot;Let's talk about LDS editors&quot; WPO forum thread was started Jan 18. After all of the above.<br /> :* The WPO blogs were posted in Feb and March (neither one about Rachel Helps, but related)<br /> :The timeline refutes any suggestion that WPO is what brought attention to this matter. Rather, WPO laid bare the evidence that supported what was already being discussed on-wiki. We know from people's statements that editors submitted evidence to Arbcom privately in December and January. Wikipedia didn't follow WPO, WPO followed Wikipedia. People weren't canvassed from WPO to Wikipedia, it was the other way around. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm pretty damn sure that the reason WPO wrote about it was ''because'' nothing was done on-wiki. Which happens pretty regularly: if Wikipedia doesn't take care of its own problems on-wiki, the rest of the world will notice and call Wikipedia out for it whenever the problems are serious enough for the rest of the world to care. Spreading misinformation in Mormonism, the Holocaust, Israel/Palestine, Iran, etc. are examples of things the real world will care about. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Given the extensive ongoing issues and the lack of recalcitrance maybe we need to start talking about sanctions for Awilley. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you for the timeline, Levivich. That is very helpful. I remember that 2022 ANI...I think that's why I kept getting pinged back to subsequent threads on the same issue. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Right, so when you're in a hole, stop digging. This isn't McCarthyism, which you literally linked to. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 08:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Jesus this is a mess,<br /> ::::does anyone want me to contact an admin [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 02:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{ping|Maestrofin}} The admins are most likely fully aware. This forum is entitled &quot;Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.&quot; ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Do you think we should have an Request For Comment [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 06:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Several admins have participated in this thread, including Awilley above. An RfC might be needed subsequently, but not right now; you are welcome to comment on this discussion {{u|Maestrofin}}. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I suspect that {{Ping|Ocaasi}} was canvassed to this discussion per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ocaasi]. Despite being an admin Ocassi had not commented on this noticeboard since September 2015 and was not in general active on wikipedia when they came here to make a very strong comment. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Based on their user page, there are several other highly plausible explanations than outright canvassing…honestly this is getting a little too Inquisition-y for my liking and while it may well result in discoveries that a do-no-harm editor like me would never have chanced upon, ArbCom has a nasty reputation for being a little indiscriminate with its remedies. Just so you’re clear on the risks/rewards. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 01:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: There's a line between a witch hunt and hunting witches... But yes, I take your point. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Well, you ''were'' pretty much accusing the founder of [[WP:LIBRARY]] of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy not limited to LDS editors…lol<br /> :::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I think it's legitimate to point out that some GLAM higher-ups are circling WiR wagons in this dispute. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{cn}}{{clarify}} [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I join you in soliciting additional evidence of same. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Horse Eye, respectfully, how are you defining &quot;active&quot;? The link you provided shows activity every month from October 23, 2023 to March 2024. And if we go back to the next oldest 100 edits there is activity every month from May 12, 2023. And this is starting to feel a little creepy, imho. It may be best not to go down this road unless there is some sort of definitive evidence, imho. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 02:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : I'm defining active as &quot;could reasonable be expected to have found this discussion through their normal editing.&quot; If you can come up with a way they got here let me know, IMHO their appearing here is a little creepy and I'd like some context. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::This discussion is already so complex that it's going to be hard for anyone to close it. Quibbling over a single participant's possible canvassing is adding more complexity. Even if this is true, it's not important. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 16:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'd disagree. If an admin were canvassed and still !voted (I have no opinions on whether or not they were), it would be a serious [[WP:ADMINCOND]] issue, potentially warranting a formal warning. It's certainly important if true. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 18:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Agreed but…''prima facie'' evidence much? Canvassing has a specific definition. Being hypothetically informed of a WiR getting in trouble, coming over to see what’s up, and then deciding on one’s own initiative to respond in a knee-jerk way is, unless I’m very much mistaken, not canvassing.<br /> ::::Anyway, if the movement were as politics-ridden as was implied, then he in turn would, purely theoretically, probably be able to canvass a goodly number of experienced uninvolved editors who are overwhelmingly grateful to him for their free access to more things than even those enrolled at most top universities get.<br /> ::::Separately, I sense that Awilley’s vehemence is probably related to the tone taken by jps and others. Even if mainstream consensus and anti-religion PoV intersect on points of fact (like that the society depicted in the BoM is, ya know, completely fictitious and Joseph Smith was quite literally pulling it out of his hat) that doesn’t give editors a blank check to exceed or breach guidelines (any of them). [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Meh, even if it was canvassing, this is just one vote amongst many. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Closing time?===<br /> There have been no new comments in the main threads for a couple of days, so is it time for an uninvolved admin to close before the archiving bot gets trigger happy? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :This should absolutely get the attention of a closer. I look forward to reading it. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::My reading of the main thread is that it's a tricky close because of so many overlapping issues. On the one hand, there's a clear consensus that the user messed up in editing topics with a COI without adequately disclosing the COI. But there's no evidence that her editing was disruptive (quite the opposite). There's evidence that her student editors weren't doing a great job with NPOV and were too &quot;in-world&quot; on Mormonism-related topics. But she seems to be taking steps to address that as well, starting by having them only edit in sandbox for now. There are some users who seem to suggest that all paid editing should be banned, but AFAIK that argument doesn't have the force of policy behind it. There seems to be a numerical majority favoring a topic ban, but the editor is a clear net-positive on Wikipedia and shows a genuine interest in following the rules. In this thread she openly admitted fault, and then she went way beyond what is expected by listing all possible conflicts she could think of on her userpage. (See also the conversation with above with Valeree about which talk pages require a COI template.) The WiR thing is another complication that I think most people (including me) don't fully understand. And it seems the biggest COI violations (like the creation of [[The ARCH-HIVE]]) were unpaid—done on her on time from her personal account. This all makes for a thread that different admins could reasonably close in different ways. {{pb}}My suggestion would be to wait a day or two (I don't know if Rachel edits on Sundays) and see if people might be interested in finding a middle path...something between &quot;topic ban from Mormonism broadly construed&quot; and &quot;no action&quot;. There might be some solution that would satisfy more people and solve the problem too, perhaps something along the lines of &quot;Rachel Helps agrees to use the {{tl|Connected contributor}} template on all articles in the LDS Wikiproject to which she makes substantive edits, and will not directly edit articles about BYU, its current staff, or its library. She agrees to follow the advice at [[WP:COIEDIT]] for subjects she has a close connection with, including using the {{tl|edit COI}} template on the talk page. All article creations, even those from her personal account, must go through the [[WP:Articles for Creation]] process.&quot; Some guidance for what to do with her students would also be helpful. {{pb}}Is there any interest in this? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 17:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;small&gt;(involved here, in case anybody hasn't read the above thread)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :A 2007 close that led to an arbcom case above [[Special:Diff/140818119]] suggests that this discussion is gonna be difficult to close definitively…[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 18:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}I don't understand why people are opposed to a topic ban from Mormonism broadly construed even as they admit there were problems. What is the added ''benefit'' of these accounts being able to move around the pages about Mormonism? I think there is rather ''broad consensus'' that encouraging them to move towards new topics would be ideal. Wouldn't a topic ban do that? What I don't understand is why the &quot;middle ground&quot; is sought at all. If you think she and her students should be editing Mormonism pages, then she should be allowed to do so. If you do not, then why the worry about the topic ban? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:ජපස|jps]] My experience in many contentious (especially religious) topics around Wikipedia has been that there are often two major groups of editors in opposition with one another. One group usually has some affiliation with the topic that gives them three things: 1, motivation to edit, 2, above average knowledge about the subject matter, and 3, a non-neutral point of view. (1 &amp; 2 are good things, 3 is a bad thing.) These users are usually opposed by another group of users who are 1, motivated by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to counter the POV of the first group, and that, 2, have relatively little knowledge of the subject matter. It is &lt;u&gt;good&lt;/u&gt; to have some friction between these groups of editors, since Wikipedia needs motivated editors, people with deep knowledge about the subjects, and a commitment to follow its PAGs. Sometimes you will find a smaller third group of editors between these two opposing groups. These editors may some affiliation with the subject matter with the corresponding POV problem, but they have decided that when they log into Wikipedia, they are going to put Wikipedia first. They have a deep knowledge of the subject, but they recognize their bias and they take steps to mitigate that. If improving Wikipedia is the goal, these editors are a precious resource. The main reason I'm defending Rachel Helps is because I see her as being part of this third group. Does that answer your question? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You think being Mormon gives a person an above-average knowledge of Mormonism? I think it's the opposite. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Strike your comments. That is very disrespectful. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 01:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Agreed: this is a completely unacceptable PA by Levivich, and not even attached to an actual point they're trying to make. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 04:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::How is Rachel ''not'' a member of group 1? She has motivation to edit, above average knowledge of the subject (such that one might have as a member of the church), and a non-neutral point of view. You are also a member of group 1, no? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I suppose if you're technical about it, a Venn diagram would show that group 3 is largely a subset of group 1. My own relationship with Mormonism is complicated and something I prefer not to discuss on-wiki, but I have tried my best try my best to be a good member of group 3. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I think the controversy here is one over whether it is possible to be more or less in the service of NPOV. I would prefer that we simply admit that people with a ''close'' relationship with a subject will necessarily be biased. It is our job as editors to try as best as we can to put that bias aside and attempt to follow Wikipedia's consensus [[WP:PAG]]s to achieve [[WP:NPOV]]. To the extent that I think the BYU contingent has been unable to do that and to the extent it has been in the service of the particular bias which is more-or-less apparent at first glance from the consideration of their approaches in articles on the Book of Mormon is the extent to which I have concerns over [[WP:PAID]], [[WP:COI]], etc. in these areas. So while your complicated relationship with Mormonism is a concern, you (as far as I know) are not being paid to edit Wikipedia by an organization with an iron in that fire. Here is the bone of contention. This is why I am having a hard time seeing how this is amenable to compromise between &quot;just stay away&quot; and &quot;there's nothing wrong with it&quot;. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Isn't it the case that at this point, only the community can determine if a compromise is possible? I mean, the community has already reached a consensus on its preferred outcome. And admins are not likely to thwart the community's decision, imho. Also, since we are already here, wherever &quot;here&quot; is, we might as well move forward ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In other words, Rachel can appeal in six months or whatever the time frame is. Time in between now and an appeal can be a benefit because it is a chance to show a proven track record. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 22:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{tq|which is more-or-less apparent at first glance}} Except it isn't more or less apparent. The worst of those Book of Mormon topic articles were created decades ago, in the early 2000s, by completely different accounts with nothing to do with Rachel Helps (BYU) and were in far sorrier states before the BYU-paid editors actually added citations to sources other than the Book of Mormon. (To quote Ghosts of Europa, {{tq|Second Nephi and Ammonihah are in much better shape than, say, Jason, a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid.}} [for clarity, Ammonihah was not expanded by a BYU-paid editor; that's an article I expanded]) {{pb}}I'm aware of JPS having complaints. Yet some of these complaints have ranged from the genuinely inaccurate (I urge JPS to at some point accept the academic assessment of Joseph Smith as having been racist in a slightly different manner than has been insisted with repeated linking to a 30-year-old ''JWHA Journal'' article—and saying that isn't apologetics unless Max Perry Mueller's ''Race and the Making of the Mormon People'' (University of North Carolina Press, 2017) is Mormon apologetics, which would be a strange characterization for an academic book written by a non-Mormon about Mormon racism and white saviorism)—to the demandingly excessive, like at [[Talk:Ammonihah]] where JPS calls a non-Mormon literature professor a {{tq|lunatic charlatan}} and repeatedly insists the article is incomprehensible because it doesn't provide an apologetics-style anthropology of background elements in the story like supposed Nephite ecclesioilogy.{{pb}}My bone of contention is that JPS's catastrophic description of the Mormon studies topic area that Rachel Helps (BYU) and the student employees have contributed to doesn't hold up in all cases and only holds up in a couple. My bone of contention is that speaking as a trans girl who was formerly a BYU student with a BYU student job (unrelated to the Wikimedian-in-residence business; I never met Rachel Helps (BYU) at BYU and instead met her and primarily got to know her via Wikipedia), this {{tq|BYU contingent}} as JPS calls them never made me feel ashamed or like I was less than them, whereas the users most strongly insisting that Rachel Helps (BYU)'s contributions are catastrophically damaging have proceeded with a tear-down tone that's left me feeling paralyzed about editing completely unrelated things on Wikipedia. I cannot stress this enough when it's so bizarre. I ''came out as trans at BYU'', and the behavior that has been on display here at Wikipedia in the midst of this whole &quot;thing&quot; has hurt ''more'' and inflicted ''more'' shame than I experienced back then. There's been [[WP:OUTING|attempts at outing and stalking]], there's been bizarre additions to articles like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=1213942114&amp;oldid=1212611600 throwing {{tq|judge of ???}} (actually with the question marks) in body text] because apparently that was the best way to insist that article text I wrote wasn't clear enough about the intricate geopolitics of a Nephite society that NPOV means we're not supposed to be treating as nearly so real (JPS's train of thought on Book of Mormon topics more than once has resembled FARMS-style apologists much more than the 21st-century academic-critical field), I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213912940 been told my best effort to summarize available scholarship has constituted {{tq|stupid games}}]. At BYU, I didn't develop a fear I was being stalked. I didn't get talked about over the pulpit or in publicly-viewable forums. No BYU personnel ever [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick&amp;diff=1214009259&amp;oldid=1213938770 followed me to an unrelated article to loom over my shoulder].{{pb}}I don't know what's up about Nihonjoe and ArbCom, and I don't know why the heck Thmazing has been so devil may care in tone and has been making articles cited so predominantly to blog posts. Let the sanctions on ''them'' fall as they must. But to apply the same broad brush more widely and without nuance or differentiation strikes me as reminiscent of the kind of thinking at which the [[Wikipedia:List_of_cabals#Mormon_Smokescreen_Cabal|Mormon Smokescreen Cabal]] joke was supposed to poke fun. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 23:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{Ping|ජපස}}, you've certainly been around long enough to know that {{tq|???}} is poor wikivoice. A couple questions: Can you point to consensus regarding the WSJ not covering climate change accurately? [[WP:WSJ]] makes no mention of it. Are you following [Hydrangeans] around and/or intentionally scanning their contributions for errors? I'm struggling to find an explanation for these edits besides you intentionally being harsh on [Hydrangeans]'s edits, although please provide one if there is. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 00:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Oh, it's well known that the WSJ is a problem when it comes to climate change denial: [https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/Online/22952/Wall-Street-Journal-opinion-editors-are-attacked].<br /> :::::::I am not &quot;following&quot; [Hydrangeans] around. I did look at some of the articles she had last contributed to and did see this terrible &quot;hockey stick controversy&quot; WSJ article added in [[Ross McKitrick]]. This was not, to my knowledge, anything she added to the article. I do not find anything problematic about her work on that article.<br /> :::::::I think the lack of [[WP:AGF]] extended towards me from [Hydrangeans] is sad, but as you can see from our interactions on her talkpage, not surprising. I ''am'' leveling harsh critique on certain Wikipedia contributions she has made, but they aren't unforgivable sins by any means. Yes, I found the article on Ammonihah and most of the rest of the Book of Mormon pages to be pretty bad and needing a lot of cleanup. I will not apologize for being a disruptive force in those places. I think there is a lot more work to be done up to and including three question marks!<br /> :::::::[[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 01:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Who are we discussing about again is it Rachel helps or her students Or all, <br /> ::::::::Because this is a big mess [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 03:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::I don't take issue with deleting that ''Wall Street Journal'' reference on the Ross McKitrick article. I'm sorry that I wasn't paying enough attention to delete it myself; my attention was taken up by belatedly implementing the results of a talk page discussion. What I take issue with are the looming and a tone that others [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=1214739500&amp;oldid=1214681976 others have] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214576198 talked] to JPS about (the two linked diffs are written by someone who agrees with JPS on content, about a different article JPS was participating in). I take issue with someone who says he {{tq|will not apologize for being a disruptive force}} instead of wanting to be a constructive force. I can accept we disagree about the utility of literary criticism as a secondary source about texts (although I find [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmmonihah&amp;diff=1213917154&amp;oldid=1213917026 the {{tq|lunatic charlatan}} invocation a perplexing characterization, especially as apparently applied to even completely secular scholarship]), and I can accept we disagree about what makes good content in an Ammonihah article or what have you. I can accept being wrong about that, and I can accept those articles significantly changing. What I don't think I'm obliged to accept is an apparent priding of oneself on contributing [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptively]] rather than constructively, or behavior like going {{tq|LOL}} (actual quotation, multiple times) at other editors' [[WP:AGF|good faith]] interactions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmmonihah&amp;diff=1213909195&amp;oldid=1213909094 at Talk:Ammonihah], at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215406823 Talk:Massacre of the Innocents]). The presumption of good faith is a core value on Wikipedia of course—and so is the recognition that [[WP:BRIE|being right isn't enough]]. A templated dove doesn't oblige me to roll over and just take the {{tq|LOL}}s and {{tq|Whachagonnado}}s and pretend like that's restrained, polite talking. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 05:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please feel free to disagree strenuously with me, as you have been. You can even request that I reword things, if you like. I'm not saying I necessarily will agree to reword things, but I'm happy to discuss these matters on my talkpage. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::I didn't realize the WSJ's issue with climate change (though I am aware of [[WP:RSOPINION]]). Either way, thanks for answering my question about climate change. <br /> ::::::::On second thought, I think the {{tq|???}}, while not perfect, isn't worth relitigating this whole debate. I welcome a close and don't need any further answers to my questions. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thats an opinion piece... And the [[Editorial board at The Wall Street Journal]] is definitely known for bad takes on climate change. Note that [Hydrangeans] has a history of following around other editors (including to completely unrelated topics) and &quot;looming&quot; over their shoulder so their complaints are a bit much all things considered. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::My own feeling, like I said above, is that this sort of paid editing (paid editing that doesn't follow [[WP:PAID]] and [[WP:COI]], and a WIR program that doesn't follow the guidelines for those organization) is a hard red line. I'm not remotely convinced that the people in question knew more about the topic area or were in whatever respect more policy-compliant compared to the average editor, but either way it ''doesn't matter'', for the reasons I outlined above - this is an actually serious problem which, as a precedent, would have implications far beyond this specific dispute. I'm also deeply unimpressed by an argument that we should make a special exception for someone just because some people feel [[WP:YANI|they are irreplaceable]] - that is not how Wikipedia works or has ever worked. Based on that I'm unwilling to accept anything but broad topic-bans, and I expect this to go to ArbCom if necessary in order to get them - this has been discussed repeatedly, devouring massive amounts of editor time and energy, for ''four years''. If it isn't ended in an extremely conclusive manner here, then the community has failed to resolve it and a broader ArbCom case is the only way to go. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 03:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I think your third group is just the first group from its own POV. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It would probably help if a request for closing was not immediately followed by relitigation of the above debate and related events from the parties who are most unlikely to change their minds. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Hi, I'm not sure where to respond or if it's appropriate to respond. I'm open to helping to &quot;fix&quot; edits that me and my students have made if we can agree on what is appropriate for Wikipedia (including removing research). I'm open to a topic-ban. I'm open to a topic ban on just Book of Mormon pages (and BYU stuff?), since that seems to be the place where most of our edits have been criticized. I think our edits have been constructive in Mormon studies and Mormon history topics. I'm trying to be flexible here. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 18:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :That's great to hear, and will probably inform any closer's decision. But listen: since you're the one who's getting paid to edit Wikipedia, you should be the one proposing specific fixes and to-do items for yourself based on the extensive feedback you've already received over the past several years (from many unpaid, volunteer editors who could have been doing other things instead, I should add). In specific content terms, what are some of the specific edits you're planning to &quot;fix&quot;? What articles, what sections, what changes to your prior edits, specifically? Even just a few will help convey a sense of what you think is wrong with your prior edits, and how you will correct them. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::There are a lot of complaints about me personally, my job, and my edits here. One of the ones that I think is the most legitimate is the argument that we are using too much &quot;in-universe&quot; explanation for the books of the Book of Mormon. I think we could add more context to clarify on individual pages what a book of the Book of Mormon is. I'm watching the edits on BoM pages. It's difficult for me to look past [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=1214181462&amp;oldid=1213564636 jps's inflammatory language] asking for clarification on issues where I or other people used ambiguous language to summarize theology that was ambiguous in the text that we summarized (but at least he is articulating his complaints to the extent of making edits). My plan is to watch how other editors resolve these edits to try to figure out what is the most objectionable part about our edits. Was it how we wrote the narrative sections? Is there a better way to introduce analysis of the Book of Mormon by members who are also Biblical or literary scholars, if that is appropriate to include on Wikipedia? Those are the kinds of questions I am looking for answers to. My current plan is to give myself and my students a break from editing Book of Mormon pages for the rest of the semester (here that's until the end of April), which I hope will give time for some consensus to develop and for one or two pages to get to a standard that is acceptable to the community, which I could then imitate. If my team returned to editing Book of Mormon pages, it would be either me, or me and one other student, to make the pace of editing slower to wait for review from other editors. And it would be great if I could find an on-wiki mentor who is not associated with BYU or the LDS Church to go to with my editing questions. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 21:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I suspect this is one of those ANI discussions where each participant leaves with a lower opinion of every other participant, but for different reasons. That said, probably the best content-related argument against the topic ban (e.g. from Vanamonde) is that you are the editor who is most capable of fixing some of the content problems that have been identified in the topic affected by the ban. If that were true, then topic banning you would impede the process of fixing the content, making things worse overall. But from what you've said here for the first time (I think), it seems like your actual plan is to wait for other editors to (figure out how to) fix content in that topic area anyway. Not you, not now. Given this new information you've provided, that &quot;best content-related argument against&quot;, aka &quot;per Vanamonde&quot;, becomes much less persuasive, I think. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 04:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Rachel Helps (BYU)}} I have to agree with {{U|Indignant Flamingo}} above. I opposed a TBAN because I believe you're among the few editors with the time ''and'' the inclination ''and'' the ability to help clean up some of the problems with articles related to Mormonism that you and your students have worked on, which in my view largely have to do with using sources too close to their subject and language that doesn't distinguish articles of faith from accepted fact. I opposed a TBAN despite the serious concerns many colleagues raised above, because I felt you would be willing to help rectify these issues. If you would rather take a break from the topic, though, I struggle to see why I, and others, should advocate for your continued ability to edit about it. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 20:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::: {{ping|Vanamonde93}} and {{ping|Indignant Flamingo}}: Thank you for these question. I have been thinking a lot about what I have done wrong. It has been difficult for me to sift through feedback on my editing (and I have felt paralyzed by my own anxiety), but this conversation has helped me to narrow down what is important, and empowered me to have an opinion on how I think we could repair some of our work. With the Book of Mormon pages specifically, I think I got into too much of a binary mode about whether or not a source was &quot;reliable.&quot; But for scholarship in Book of Mormon studies, especially from the 1990s or 2000s, sometimes it is more complicated than &quot;this is a reliable source.&quot; Something I understood implicitly was that I shouldn't use Wikipedia's voice to summarize opinions about the Book of Mormon as a historical or archeological source--at the very least these should be consolidated into a section on apologetics, or, like you and others have suggested, excluded entirely. However, my students did not understand this implicitly like I did. They were doing what I told them--to summarize what a given source said about a topic and cite it in-line--when I should have instructed them to look more carefully at the implicit bias in scholarship, especially sources like Brant Gardner, which have some valuable analysis, but also work off of the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text. If we were to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, cleanup of archeological/historical arguments on pages we have edited would be my first priority. However, my students have experienced emotional damage from my incompetence. I would let them choose whether or not to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, with an option to continue their projects that are less connected with Mormons and the LDS Church. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Indignant Flamingo asked for an example. [[Laban (Book of Mormon)]] contains a paragraph about the brass plates under &quot;Interpretations&quot;. It is tricky because it mixes apologetic arguments with literary ones. I would remove this analysis, or introduce it differently: &quot;Brant Gardner, writing under the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text, has argued that the brass plates were a symbol of political authority and recordkeeping in the society of Book of Mormon people (Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites).&quot; I would remove the Stephen Ricks info. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Rachel, I'm so sorry this is making you feel so much anxiety. FWIW, I do not believe you have edited in bad faith, and I doubt I'm alone. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I’m not very happy about this either and in my opinion this should be spun off from the AML issues with Nihonjoe and Thmazing unless and until the inquisitorially minded editors find clearer linkages.<br /> ::::::I’m not sure how this would best be handled, but I would be very wary of any permanent remedies being applied at this point and will slightly adjust my vote accordingly.<br /> ::::::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::A clearer link than the three of them all being current/former board members of AML? What clearer link can there be than all three of their names appearing on the AML about us page? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Well, why don’t you just ask her? She’s been very cooperative so far. And anyway, while the same person wearing two hats is obviously going to rub off both ways, sanctioning Rachel Helps (BYU) would include the whole BYU outfit, and I don’t believe the standard of evidence has yet been met to say that the BYU outfit has demonstrably colluded with Nihonjoe or Thmazing. If such a thing happened, it’ll probably come out over at ArbCom.<br /> ::::::::The reason I’m now flip-flopping uncertainly is that I perceive jps as dragging their apparently long history of content disputes into this venue, and, along with others, making statements that could be reasonably interpreted as implying support of non-neutral handling of religion more generally, while HEB is making unsubstantiated allegations that faintly ooze a touch of Chekism.<br /> ::::::::Meanwhile, Fram and some others have notably tapered off, most likely because they intuit that some more wheels are turning at ArbCom and/or elsewhere and further participation in the mud bath party here is worse than useless for anyone who wants to doggedly pursue the actual application of remedies.<br /> ::::::::ANI is probably no longer an appropriate venue and pretty soon I think I’m gonna go make a formal closure request. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::There are already requests at [[WP:ANRFC]] and [[WP:AN]]. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 19:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Why don't I just ask her what? I don't have any questions. There is, in fact, evidence that Rachel Helps (BYU) &quot;demonstrably colluded&quot; with Nihonjoe and Thmazing, and others. Some of the evidence has been redacted so I can't discuss it, but there's plenty of public evidence still on this page, VPM and the arbcom evidence page -- the evidence my support votes are based on. Look, bottom line: COI concerns have been raised for years about Rachel Helps (BYU). The people who pushed back the hardest against those COI concerns fall into three groups: BYU people, AML people, WiR people. I don't know if you're aware but arbcom already considered expanding the scope of its Nihonjoe case to include Rachel Helps/BYU/AML and voted against doing so. I think ANI is still the appropriate venue for this. This will be closed eventually, it might take some time as it's a long thread, and probably the best thing we can all do, including myself, is to stop making it longer, unless we're bringing evidence of something new. Otherwise, all the evidence and the votes seem to be in. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::@[[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]]; thank you, that is somewhat reassuring. I think you should seriously consider, though, keeping your students off of topics closely intertwined with Mormonism for the foreseeable future, assuming the lot of them do not emerge from this situation with TBANs. It's quite evident from this discussion that there have been problems with the mormonism-related content they have produced. I could speculate as to why, but I won't; I'll just say that dispassionately describing faith and belief in any system is difficult, and is not the sort of task an undergraduate may be up to. I say this to save you and your students further distress, as well as to protect our content. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 21:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have not looked at your Mormon studies/history related edits in any more detail than what was required for the post at VPM and at the start of this section. I have no doubt that many, perhaps even the majority, of you and your students edits on those topics were constructive. But that is to not see the wood for the trees.<br /> :For me, COI editing is comparable to (in some ways) to [[WP:SPI|sockpuppet editing]]—let me explain. It is a question of trust. Yes, a sockpuppet can contribute productively, in improving articles, taking part in processes, getting Wikipedia to function. But it is Wikipedia policy to block all sockpuppets on sight and to put all their edits up for [[WP:BANREVERT|immediate reversion]]. Why? Because once you mislead others to that extent, the trust is gone. And that the trust, or lack of, is fundamental, because good conduct is of equal importance to good content (and I say this as someone who focuses on the latter and occasionally fails at the former).<br /> :It is the same for COI editing. After I have seen your lack of disclosures with, e.g. the account named BoyNamedTzu &lt;small&gt;(I do not know what is public and what is not, but I know that you and I and Primefac and BoyNamedTzu and most of the people in this thread and everyone on The Site That Must Not Be Named know)&lt;/small&gt; how can there be trust? Especially for a person who has held a position which by rights should indicate you are above suspicion. To find that you were actively pushing back against the basic COI suggestions as far back as 2018, and you might as well throw that trust into a shoddily-built submersible and send it down to the wreck of the Titanic.<br /> :The closer may decide that there are significant issues with your Book of Mormon editing, and that's more important. If that's the close, fair enough, I don't really mind—I know you have asked above and on WPO how to improve that aspect. But I want to be clear: I opened this section because I did not think [[WP:CIVILITY|you treated your fellow editors with adequate respect and consideration]], not because I felt you were harming articles. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 02:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{Reply|AirshipJungleman29}} earlier than that, 2016 at least [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amgisseman(BYU)/Archive_1&amp;oldid=854327236#COI]. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Inappropriate removal of NPOV tag by JayBeeEll ==<br /> <br /> {{ping|S Marshall}} closed a controversial RFC today at [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], see [[Talk:Tim Hunt#RfC: 2015 remarks]]. Whilst acknowledging there appeared to be a consensus, he reminded editors that consensus can't over-rule [[:meta:Founding principles|founding principles]], the [[WP:5P2|second pillar]], and [[WP:NPOV|core content policy]] and quoting the amplification on his talk page these ''cannot be overruled by any talk page consensus however strong''. He later emphasised this on his own talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213538308&amp;oldid=1213534477] in response to a query [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213522530&amp;oldid=1213355874].<br /> <br /> Judging by that query, it appears that the key point in the closure was being ignored; namely [[WP:PROPORTION]]. Shortly thereafter, and before any reply, an edit was made to [[Tim Hunt]] which appeared to ignore the closure[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213521275&amp;oldid=1208829572]. Noting the history of edit warring at the article, I chose to add a &lt;nowiki&gt;{{npov}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; tag and start a talk page discussion. I felt that any revert of a bold edit would result in an edit war and had no intention to revert war.<br /> <br /> My tag was removed by JayBeeEll [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213538744&amp;oldid=1213533989] with the edit summary &quot;Don't be silly&quot;, I restored the tag and it was once again removed by JayBeeEll [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213539288] with the edit summary &quot;Yes sure let's see how this turns out&quot;, which appears to be an intention to revert war. The comment in the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213539531&amp;oldid=1213535026] in response to my concerns and the unnecessary 3RR warning on my talk page appears to confirm [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWee_Curry_Monster&amp;diff=1213539690&amp;oldid=1212590941] that.<br /> <br /> On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies. As such I would suggest that the tag should remain until the closure is fully addressed. On a side note, I remain concerned about the toxic nature of any discussion in that talk page presently. Reluctantly bringing it here for further review. Please note I will not be available for a couple of days due to personal commitments. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 17:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The behavior displayed by WCM is very similar to the behavior that led to [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Tendentious_editing_by_Thomas_Basboll|this]] only one month ago; it is disappointing that he has not been able to accommodate himself to the fact that his view is a minority, both relative to WP editors and to the views represented in reliable sources. At least he stopped after a single round of edit-warring about the ridiculous tagging. As with Thomas B, my hope is that this can be settled by a change of behavior, without the need for any sanctions. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::I've no wish to comment on this ridiculous tag edit war, and I'd prefer to limit my involvement with the page to closing that one RfC, but I do want to say tempers are extremely frayed in this topic area and there's definitely scope for an uninvolved sysop to step in and restore order. Please.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 18:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::It would be a ridiculous edit war, were it not for the fact I refused to edit war over this. The fact remains that removing the tags in the way JayBeeEll did is counter to accepted policy. I would acknowledge {{ping|S Marshall}}'s comment that this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. I have been asking for that for weeks, the reference to the removal of Thomas Basboll, is exactly the point I wish to make. If editors are convinced they're right and there are enough of them make a fuss, they can remove what they see as an obstruction by lobbying loudly here. The edit war that editor attempted to start, and its clear that was his intention, was a repeat of the same tactics used previously. I have made no attempt to filibuster I simply tried to bring external opinion but that's pretty unlikely given the toxic nature of editing at present. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::The editing situation got much less toxic when you stopped participating for a few days; maybe you should try that again? Certainly it would be good for an uninvolved admin to tell you the same thing everyone else on this thread has said. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Point to anything I've said that contributes to a toxic atmosphere. As for comments contributing to a toxic atmosphere[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213538744&amp;oldid=1213533989] {{tq|&quot;Don't be silly}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213539288] {{tq|&quot;Yes sure let's see how this turns out&quot;}} whilst edit warring to remove tags that encourage outside input. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{tq|On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies.}}<br /> :That's an extremely uncharitable reading of the closure, apparently because you just don't like the results. The close was finding that the RfC consensus narrowly found for inclusion, with a warning to follow guiding principles of the Wiki while doing so. ''That's it''. The rest of it is you projecting onto the closure and making vague, hand-wavy assertions that the close is against policy.<br /> :Since you won't be available for a couple days anyway, I suggest you wait and see what proposed edits come from the RfC before making any further comments. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I at no point said the close was against policy, I actually think given the toxic atmosphere he was entering {{ping|S Marshall}} made a very good closure of that malformed RFC. The reminder that local consensus can't trump core policy seems to have fallen on deaf ears it seems. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[[WP:CON]] has by definition got to be aligned with the [[WP:PAG]]s since it embodies &quot;a process of compromise &lt;u&gt;while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines&lt;/u&gt;&quot;. So if @[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]]'s close is &quot;very good&quot;, it follows it must have correctly divined consensus, which you now need to accept. If however, you think the close has arrived at a problematic [[WP:LOCALCON]] you need to initiate a close review. Shit or get off the pot. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 11:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Precisely this. WCM, you can't have it both ways: you can't claim the close &quot;trumps core policy&quot;, while acknowledging it was a good close. The close in fact emphasizes that any proposed changes have to adhere to core policy. It seems you're claiming that the finding of inclusion ''inherently'' violates policy, so which is it? — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::At no point did I say the close trumps policy, that's your strawman. The closer clearly refers to core policies and makes it plain that they can't be overridden by a local consensus. He also singled out that I and others couldn't be ignored because we were making {{tq|well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy}} further adding {{tq|While editors are implementing option 1 and option 2A, they should have regard to core content policy, and specifically [[WP:PROPORTION]]}}. It's clear from this comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213522530&amp;oldid=1213355874] there is no intention to implement the full intention of the close {{tq|The view of myself, and I assume a lot of participants, is that [[WP:PROPORTION]] isn't terribly relevant}}. There is [[WP:TAG]] team of editors are acting in concert and per {{ping|S Marshall}}'s comment this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 17:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::''sigh'' I tried, but if you're intent on digging a [[First law of holes|hole]], I can't stop you. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :If you aren't available for the next couple of days, why the hell are you opening an ANI thread? &quot;Reluctantly bringing it here&quot; yeah right. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * WCM's editing regarding the Tim Hunt article has been as tendentious as Basboll's in staunchly refusing to [[Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_&quot;get_the_point&quot;|get the point]] regarding the fact that their viewpoint is a minority and continuing to [[WP:DEADHORSE|beat a dead horse]] and engage in [[WP:WIKILAWYERING]] in an attempt to fillibuster discussions regarding the issue, rather than just moving on. I would '''support a topic or page ban''' from Tim Hunt if WCM does not desist with his aggressive rejection of the talkpage consensus. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Given that WCM has continued his disruption regarding the article, I firmly support a topic ban now. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I haven't done any editing that would remotely be described as disruptive. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1215468029&amp;oldid=1215465703] Any editing I do is immediately reverted, this was clearly constructive. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 12:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Absolutely astonishing. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''support topic ban''' due the editor's apparent unwillingness to drop the stick and refusal to get the point of the RfC. I commented at the ANI thread where Thomas B was topic banned. Given the RfC I moved on and have not touched the article or the RfC. The level of name-calling on display at that article over an ancient ten-day kerfuffle in the bro-sphere easily matched the most acrimonious mutual accusations of genocide I have witnessed on Wikipedia. EE squared. I had never heard of Tim Hunt. He seems nice? But if the episode in question is included in the article -- and there seems no question that RS has covered it in immense detail - then the article should dispassionately state that Tim Hunt said what he said. This editor's contention that it should not (because the poor man nearly committed suicide over this) utterly lacks a grounding in policy, and no evidence was ever presented of this assertion either. It betrays an emotional investment in this incident that baffles me, frankly. I would hesitate to participate on the talk page due to this editor's past level of vitriol, and the time sink it again likely would become. I am not following this thread. If anyone has questions about what I just said, please ping me. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 12:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204016425] {{tq|I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood. Most do.}} in your on words your motives are to expose another misogynist. I am quite astounded that you'd openly mock someone driven near to suicide. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I check back at this article after taking a break from it and find the RfC has been closed, consensus established and the article fixed accordingly. Great: the journey is over, the plane has landed, and the engines are turned off .... But oddly the whining sound continues as there's one editor who [[WP:IDHT|seemingly can't move on]]. If this continues sanctions may be appropriate. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 08:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Note that the other problem editor in this mix, who was page banned from [[Tim Hunt]], has now started beating the dead horse at BLPN.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214799114] [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 07:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215140427 reported] this straight to the ban-implementing administrator this time, as this is an obvious attempt at [[WP:GAMING]], [[WP:STICK]], [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. I will remember to prefer broader topic bans next time. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Given lack of response I guess this was the wrong venue. I won't be trying to get Thomas B sanctioned for this in particular any further, but should we post some sort of final warning to [[User talk:Thomas B]]? [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:... and today [[User:Thomas B]] still continues to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215520494 post] about Tim Hunt on BLPN. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomas_B&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214802498 This] earlier comment &quot;{{tq|I won't be participating '''too actively'''}}&quot; (bolding mine) indicates that the user is going to continue to disrupt. So we have to upgrade Thomas B's page ban to a topic ban ''at a minimum''. But given this user's stubborn, prolonged refusal to cease disruption, an additional block from the whole Wikipedia for a few months is needed as a deterrent, in my view. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 18:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::And now the BLPN discussion forum-shopped by Thomas B resulted in yet another editor getting [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NewImpartial - BLP discussion touching GENSEX|dragged to ANI]]. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 13:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I've started a new ANI thread to expand Thomas B's sanctions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Thomas_B_forum-shopping,_circumventing_page_ban,_refusing_to_drop_the_stick]. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban, [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] and other issues. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 11:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' - Does this topic fall under GenSex? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:The overall Tim Hunt article wouldn't but the section on the controversy would fall under a GENSEX topic ban, as they are &quot;broadly construed&quot;. (So would this thread, I believe.) [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban''' for Wee Curry Monster. WCM had numerous opportunities to change course. All this has been sinking our time for over a month already. Since the editor is not willing to drop the stick, a sufficiently broad sanction is the only remaining solution. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban'''. Please somebody make it stop. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban''' per the really excruciating refusal to drop the stick or adjust behavior in any way. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' Pretty shameful episode for WP and ANI. [[WP:CIR]], and the lack of such competence is what created this mess. It's very clear that some editors pushed content, got an editor banned from the article, and opined in the RfC without first bothering to read the sources. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 18:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{ping|fiveby}} Your latest contribution on the talk-page is a bit cryptic, and invoking CIR here is bizarre, but I'm quite sure that if you were to participate in the constructive content discussions (i.e., the ones that don't involve WCM or Thomas B) the result would be positive. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I try and limit my participation to finding and providing sources for other editors, how is it constructive and why would i participate when the remaining editors, those who survived ANI, are those which have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to read those sources? I'll try and explain my 'cryptic' comment on the talk page. It was just a suggestion to WCM that what he is doing might be futile. You cannot force editors to read sources. An editor familiar with the reading may have reverted that content, but would never have called it &quot;disingenuous&quot; in the edit summary. As far as [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-kokomo-tribune-but-i-cant-fix-stup/34981880/ &quot;can't fix stupid&quot;] goes, tho it is couched in terms of the content generated by conflict rather than collaboration, did not my choice to use that particular phrase make my opinion clear enough? [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::There is a reason that WCM's edits to the article get reverted but your edits a couple weeks ago did not, and it's not about the unwillingness of people to read sources. I mean obviously if you change your mind but decide that what you have to add is a bunch of comments about other editors not reading the sources then I don't think that will go great. But ''almost'' everyone who has contributed in the discussions on the talk-page has shown a willingness to listen to others as part of developing a consensus. Anyhow, don't mind me, do what you want! --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban'''. This is just blatant [[WP:STICK]] and [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. The consensus in the RFC was clear. The consensus on talk about how to implement the RFC is reasonably clear. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1213533575&amp;oldid=1213481488&amp;title=Talk:Tim_Hunt comments] after the RFC were full of aspersions and battlefield behavior, ending with {{tq|Feel free to disabuse me of the presumption that having &quot;won&quot; and righted a great wrong to expose the terribly sexist misognynist that you don't intend to do that.}} --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban'''. WCM has been popping up at literally anywhere on Wikipedia this is being discussed to re-litigate a view of the RFC that literally nobody else holds. The RFC close even mentions him showing up at the close request I made to pressure whoever was going to close it. Even after the close he's totally failed to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], and thus unfortunately we've got to force the issue with a topic ban. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Comment ===<br /> <br /> [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Wee+Curry+Monster&amp;page=Tim_Hunt&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max=] My contribution history on [[Tim Hunt]]. 100% of it reverted. 0.7% of all contributions on the article.<br /> <br /> Note 2 tags added 13 March 2024. 25 March 2024 - series of edits adding context and information in [[WP:RS]] per [[WP:NPOV]].<br /> <br /> That is all of my contributions.<br /> <br /> [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Wee+Curry+Monster&amp;page=Talk%3ATim_Hunt&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max=] My contribution history on [[Talk:Tim Hunt]].<br /> <br /> Note:<br /> 13 March 2024 - comment on NPOV tags, 17 March 2024 - Further comment, 25 March 2024 - Comment on revert of my contribution.<br /> <br /> In the last month, I've made 3 comments in talk, 2 contributions to the article in total. Hardly the actions of someone who can't drop the stick.<br /> <br /> I note editors have simply alleged misconduct, largely unsupported by diffs. Addressing the talk quote taken out of context by Aquillion. This is a response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213522530&amp;oldid=1213355874], where the editors responsible for the RFC indicate they do not feel the need to respond to the closer's comments. Reference to misoginy is not mine but for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204016425] {{tq|he's just another misogynist}}.<br /> <br /> I am mentioned in the close simply because as noted {{tq|Wee Curry Monster at WP:CR, and others here, have put forth some well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy.}} I have not as claimed disputed the RFC, feel free to add a diff showing where I did but my exact comment was {{tq|a very good closure of that malformed RFC}}. I have commented, because as noted by the closer, I have raised relevant objections to what is proposed. Reference to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] isn't relevant here but [[WP:IDONTHEARTHAT]] certainly is.<br /> <br /> [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]? I haven't raised the topic in any forums. Check my contribution history. This is the one and only time I've gone to a board, in response to an attempt to bait me into an edit war so the connection to the article is tangential. My comments at [[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37#Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks]] were simply to alert any closer to what they were walking into. <br /> <br /> A number of editors have commented that the text isn't neutral and doesn't reflect what neutral sources say on the topic. This is a violation of our [[WP:BLP]] policy. I did in fact seek advice on this from {{U|Drmies}} at [[User talk:Drmies/Archive 147#Question on BLP]]. Which appears to confirm my concerns were well founded.<br /> <br /> Fiveby appears to have given up on commenting because he recognises its futile and I agree its futile. So having raised the issue, I think its time for me to simply walk away. I'm taking this off my watch list, mainly for the good of my own mental health and taking a wikibreak. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:AndyFielding]] - failure to address community concerns ==<br /> <br /> Longterm disruptive removals of birth place/date from Early life sections (examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._J._Novak&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1152634988 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna_Paquin&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1160004138 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_Poulter&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1164808003 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rainn_Wilson&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1199183562 4]). User never responds to talk page warnings (or any talk page comments at all) --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 15:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :This editor began editing in 2007, has made ~17k edits, the vast majority of which are almost certainly good, and has never been blocked. Since the start of his editing he has been using talk pages and has around 1300 edits in talk spaces. On [[Special:Diff/833988692|3 April 2018]] he wrote on his user page: {{tqq|If you disagree with any of my changes, or have questions about them, please don't hesitate to contact me}}.{{pb}}Very disappointingly, on [[Special:Diff/967772956|15 July 2020]], he changed this to {{tqq|I'm afraid I don't have time to engage in debates about my changes. If you disagree with some, undo them if you must— ...}} Since then, he has not stopped being communicative, and has, for example, made more edits to talk pages in 2022 then in all of the previous years combined.{{pb}}So this editor definitely talks in general, but consciously refuses to engage when editors inform him that some of his edits are wrong. Which is not collaborative. AndyFielding should commit to engage in consensus building, and that he understands that receiving feedback from other editors and participating in ocassional disputes does not have to be a &quot;debate&quot; every time. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :See also this announcement on the editor's talk page: {{Talk quote block|text={{fake heading|sub=3|Attention to reversals, feedback, etc.}}I'm sorry I don't have more time to attend to this page. If you feel compelled to undo any of my edits, it's your prerogative—although for the most part, only factual oversights should need correction, as my primary focus is on simpler language. (In reference works, “less is more”.){{br}}As a career writer and copy editor, I'm reasonably confident my contributions benefit WP's readers. Thus I'll continue to follow founder Jimmy Wales's injunction to [[Wikipedia:Be_bold|be bold]]. As he said: “If you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough.”{{br}}Cheers, A.|by=AndyFielding|ts=01:50, 9 January 2019|oldid=877500650}}—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> The core issue here seems to be a content issue. Have they been reverting at all to enforce their preferred version? A quick look at the diffs above shows several constructive changes mixed in with the clearly controversial birth date removals, which they're saying is based on redundancy grounds. Is he just doing step one of [[WP:BRD]], and then simply conceding any subsequent discussion? They do have several edits to article talk pages recently, but at first glance nearly all of those appear to be [[WP:FORUM]] discussions rather than anything editing related. So clearly they have time to be engaging in consensus building and simply choose not to, which ain't great even if it's unclear whether that's actually disrupting anything. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 18:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :On 29 November &lt;big&gt;''2022''&lt;/big&gt;, [[User:FMSky|FMSky]] writes the following to [[User:AndyFielding|AndyFielding]] ([[special:diff/1124561606|diff]], emphasis added):<br /> <br /> ::{{Talk quote block|text=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reese_Witherspoon&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1109721746&lt;br&gt;stop making these kinds of '''idiotic''' edits. the point of having the full name/birth date there is that you can put a source behind it --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 09:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)}} <br /> <br /> :Prior to that, FMSky's added an inappropriate {{tl|uw-vandalism2}} warning issued on 3 October 2022, with an added {{tq|''STOP REMOVING BIRTH NAMES/BIRTH DATES okay??''}} ([[special:diff/1113796103|diff]]), but I now see that it all started on Sept 24, with an identical message as the Nov one, except supplant ''idiotic'' with &quot;nonsensical&quot; and a different url cited ([[special:diff/1112035011|diff]]). And now, here we are: March 2024.<br /> <br /> :What I don't understand, so maybe FMSky can explain this, is the problem with removing the full birth date and names from the body when that info is already mentioned in the lead (AndyFielding's 'redundancy,' 'simplicity,' etc.)? What makes these {{tq|''disruptive removals''}}? Because a reference could be added to a lead, especially as a single footnote as opposed to a normal ref (i.e. so as to prevent the littering the lead with refs). But as much as I disapprove of how FMSky conducted themselves here, AndyFielding stonewalling the issue and continuing to do so for additional pages, even if not reverting anything, might not be ideal. But how intensive and extensive is it? Who knows. And it's not like there's a rule, for or against, such removals. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 08:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Maybe read what other users have posted on his talk page instead of analysing a post by me made 2 years ago. The better question is why do you think its fine to have a sentence that reads &quot;{{tq|Poulter was born{{Dummy reference}}{{Dummy reference|2}}{{Dummy reference|3}}{{Dummy reference|4}}}}&quot;. Also tagging {{ping|Soetermans}} who also left a number of talk page messages on the user's page [[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 11:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[[User:FMSky|FMSky]], I will analyze and review what I see fit and in the manner and pace I see fit. And I find your own misconduct is pertinent. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Ok, thanks for feedback on my behaviour 2 years. Now, whats actually relevant: Why do you think its fine to have a sentence that reads &quot;{{tq|Poulter was born{{Dummy reference}}{{Dummy reference|2}}{{Dummy reference|3}}{{Dummy reference|4}}}}&quot; and what do you think about the comments by other users on his page? --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 11:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::[[User:FMSky|FMSky]], I have no opinion on that, but you need to take it down a notch, or I will block you from this noticeboard. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Yes my bad, I wont post in this thread any further. I feel uncomfortable being on this page anyway (that was originally the reason why I didnt made a report earlier) --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 12:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::That might be best for now. Your reports generally tend to be subpar (lacking context and depth), I'm sorry to say. And same for the history of your interactions with the user whom you've reported. Certainly room for improvement. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Hi {{u|El_C}}, perhaps other people disagree about repeating a date of birth and that's fine. This is a collaborative effort and we try to find a consensus. But as I read [[WP:LEAD]], it is the summation of the article. Any information there should be in the article as well. We try to keep references out of the lead too ([[WP:REFLEAD]]). So it makes perfect sense to mention a date of birth in the lead ''and'' mention it in an early life section, if there is one. AndyFielding has been asked repeatedly to stop and hasn't communicated a bit about the issue. But after so many talk page messages and formal warnings, you can't feign ignorance and leave edit summaries like:<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniella_Pineda&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212952166 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity, WP style (surname except to avoid ambiguity), omitting redundant detail (birth date in lede)&quot;]<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Tucci&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212892529 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity (birth date in lede)]<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lily_Collins&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213830000 &quot;I don't know what it is about celebrity articles that induces so many WP writers to redundantly repeat these details from the lede. Fan overenthusiasm, I'm guessing. (Also, &quot;redundantly repeat&quot; is probably itself redundant—so let's face it, you can't win.) Anyone with reference experience would agree, though: It's sloppy. I just wish we didn't have to fix it one article at a time. 🤷‍♂️&quot;] from three days ago. Fan enthusiasm, really?<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Gosling&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213827719 &quot;I don't know why people do this so often in celebrity bios, but it's redundant and, frankly, seems like fawning. 🤷‍♂️&quot;], from two days ago. First fan enthusiasm, now it's 'fawning' to mention a date of birth?<br /> :So in my eyes, AndyFielding isn't just not aware of consensus, but willfully ignores it, with subtle jabs in their edit summaries. No replies on talk pages, but still going on little rants? That, combined with not communicating, sounds like disruptive behaviour to me. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I don't consider all aspects of the MOS to be mandatory, including this, but from your evidence, it does increasingly appear as a [[WP:POINT]] exercize. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Bit off topic, I was checking their edits if they've done the same. They recently made some smart-assed comments on talk pages. To an honest question, asked nearly seven years ago, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lock_%27n%27_Chase&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214144966 they responded] with &quot;Yes, tricky isn't it? Personally, I won't post videogame records unless they've been verified by space aliens.&quot; Kinda uncivil, unnecessary regardless. In a 10 year old discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Germanic_Reich&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214145396 they replied] &quot;Gee! I'll have some of whatever you were having&quot;, an inappropriate response.<br /> :::The last reply ''on their own talk page'' was in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyFielding&amp;diff=927091593&amp;oldid=927091413 November 2019]. They won't to communicate there or here - but years old discussions not a problem? [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 21:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Hi {{u|El_C}}, did you see my previous message? To be clear, those were after FMSky's note on their talk page. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Understood, {{u|Soetermans}}. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 07:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Another inappropriate edit summary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek:_Enterprise&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214614065 &quot; reckon this is what the writer meant, as &quot;conservatively modest&quot; would mean he was bashful about wearing more individualistic clothing. (By sheer coincidence, many conservatives are morons too, but that's beyond the scope of this comment.)&quot;] [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 20:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benedict_Wong&amp;diff=1214808189&amp;oldid=1214808155 More of the same]. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Take some sort of action'''. Maybe FMSky could have been more polite, but they're 100% correct on the merits. The lede is meant to be a summary of the body, so repetition between the lede and the body is ''expected'' and ''valid''. A check of some random diffs leaves me unimpressed with AndyFielding's copyediting - they appear to be, at best, enforcing a style preference on text that should honor the main contributor's style preference, and at worst making actively bad changes and being a net negative. There have been studies on this: readers do not read articles like they're novels and carefully remember every bit of information from before, but rather bounce around from section to section. So for an example other than removing birth dates from the body, despite his edit summary saying that &quot;most [readers] aren't amnesiacs—pronouns are fine&quot;, no, actually, using a last name again for clarity often makes a sentence read much simpler and work better as an excerpt, without requiring consulting earlier as to who exactly is being referred to. This could be resolved very simply by AndyFielding simply resolving and agreeing to not do things like this, but if he's going to refuse to engage or to communicate despite being reported at ANI five days ago, then a sanction is all we have. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Again: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zawe_Ashton&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214958054 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity, style, omitting redundant detail (in lede)]. I'd also like to point out that I've reverted those edits. {{u|AndyFielding}} can't feign missing notifications like this. It is disruptive. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 10:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Upgrade to ban'''. This is the dumbest and most avoidable reason for a ban, but AndyFielding seems to be of the opinion that talking with other editors is a trap or is too stressful or beneath his notice. Who knows. But simply 100% refusing to engage with legitimate concerns of other editors is not how this works. I placed a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndyFielding&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215004537 direct request] on his talk page to say something, anything, to acknowledge he is actually reading what other editors say. He's ignored it and continued to edit instead. To be sure, some of AndyFielding's copyediting seems fine, and it would be a shame to ban an editor over something so minor, but... come on. No complaint about instantly accepting any unblock request that simply promises to communicate, but communication is not optional on a collaborative project. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 16:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Block instead'''. A long-term, constant stream of bad edits mixed with a larger volume of good edits coming from an otherwise respected and trusted editor is more damaging than your daily vandal. AndyFielding's mission statement when he turned back on the idea of consensus (copied above) is against the philosophy of Wikipedia, and he has stayed on this non-collaborative track ever since. He must have understood what this would lead to and that this moment would come. It doesn't matter that most of his edits are fine when the bad edits will be repeated and there is nothing anyone can do about it but follow him around and detect and revert each one of them. And no one wants to do that and no one should be expected to do that. Alternatively, he could actually even keep not discussing as long as he remembers not to repeat the types of edits that are disputed, and for that he would at least need to read requests on his talk page not to repeat certain things and not repeat them—regardless if he thinks that the request is wrong. If he wants to prove that those particular edits are right, he would have to engage. It should be extremely easy for AndyFielding to be unblocked based on this. He can commit to respond to feedback on his talk page at least a little bit and commit not to do things that others ask him not to do without participating in dispute resolution. Therefore, an indefinite block is entirely preventative and is the only thing that can make this editor realign.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 20:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:no admin hasn’t taken any action yet [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 06:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Another odd edit summary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=District_Municipality_of_Muskoka&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215321136 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity (e.g., contrary to the apparent notion that WP readers are amnesiacs and must be continually reminded what the topic is—LOL)&quot;]. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::That's a fantastic edit with a fine edit summary. Fixing repetitive references to the subject, fixing &quot;located in&quot;, removing unprofessional wording like &quot;from generation to generation&quot;, and other needed copyediting is obviously something that this editor excels at. The problem are the bad edits, not the good edits like this one. The summary is humorous and sufficiently accurately describes the edit. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I find it odd and unnecessary to suggest &quot;contrary to the apparent notion that WP readers are amnesiacs&quot;, but maybe that's just me. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I wouldn't say it's just you. I'd say that's [[WP:UNCIVIL|uncivil]] language on AndyFielding's part. There's no need to {{tq|LOL}} at other editors' best efforts. Pointy word choice about language and style is especially troubling, since some editors are contributing with English proficiencies that are sufficient for encyclopedic language but may fall short of the high-level prose AndyFielding believes they're implementing. Improving on language isn't wrong, but [[WP:BRIE|being right isn't enough]] to justify talking down to other editors through snippy summaries and flatly ignoring collaborative feedback. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 08:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Harvey&amp;diff=1215459940&amp;oldid=1215099122 Behaviour continues]. Now the reference isn't used to source ''when'' Harvey was born, but ''that he was born''. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Someone who removes text so that the only thing left is &quot;XY was born&quot;, and does so in hundrets of articles, should be blocked per [[WP:CIR]] --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 08:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' something, whether a block or ban, or at least a formal sanction of some sort. SnowFire and Soetermans sum up well what's in the linked diffs, and the behavior continuing even with the ANI notice demonstrates how a block or ban would be preventative, as behavior will continue otherwise. Copyediting and editing for concision isn't irreplaceable. Articles will be legible in AndyFieldings's absence—and may well be more legible. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyFielding&amp;diff=1215004537&amp;oldid=1214027386 SnowFire's description of AndyFieldings's approach as constituting {{tq|code golf}} is apt]. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 08:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::And the beat [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mira_Murati&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215811451 goes on]. When is it enough to perform some kind of action? [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Could anyone do anything by any chance? 😃 --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 02:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have drafted a polite &quot;Final warning&quot; message for {{u|AndyFielding}} but I am wondering if tolerating an idiosyncratic editor might be worthwhile. The problem for me is that AndyFielding is producing good edits and it's possible that cleaning up after him might be the way to go. For example, [[Special:Diff/1215998066|this diff]] has a glitch presumably from the visual editor (search for &quot;&lt;code&gt;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&lt;/code&gt;&quot;). That glitch needs to be fixed. Would similarly cleaning up the pointy edits that remove the birth date from the article body be best for the encyclopedia? Any thoughts? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If an editor needs a minder stalking their contribution history forever, there's a problem. As I wrote above, this is the dumbest and most avoidable reason for a block ever - all AndyFielding has to do is literally just acknowledge the feedback and tone down the concision-above-all-else edits to a point that's a mere disagreement on style rather than clearly over the line. It could be done in seconds and by simply doing ''less'' work in his edits. But he isn't doing that no matter how much people have asked him to. There is a solution that doesn't involve a block and doesn't involve expecting other volunteers to clean up after him - it's just him communicating and discussing his edits, or at least just stopping the problematic behavior if he truly can't handle discussions. But if he isn't going to do that... [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 05:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Likewise, I am not proposing an indef block or a ban, but I would like to see this behaviour to stop. This discussion was started nearly two weeks ago. There have been talk page messages, direct mentions (for good measure, {{u|AndyFielding}}, please stop this and maybe reply?) and their removal of date births in early life sections have been reverted. AndyFielding has been notified repeatedly. [[WP:COMMUNICATION|Communication is required]]. Instead, they have a habit of commenting through edit summaries, like I've shown before and which continues still (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holiday_Hell&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215642671 &quot;Let's just assume from now on that, unless there's some obvious ambiguity, &quot;it&quot;, &quot;he&quot;, &quot;she&quot; or &quot;they&quot; refers by default to the article's subject. This will save us all a lot of trouble and save WP untold storage and bandwidth fees. Don't thank me.&quot;] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montegrossi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215817242 &quot;Imagine, we could use this concise format on all WP town articles. Imagine. I imagine many things like this&quot;]). Maybe it's a [[WP:CIR|competence]] issue or just a plain [[WP:IDHT|refusal to want to listen]]. Isn't a temporary edit block an option? They edit frequently, on a near daily basis. A block, say 48 hours or even a week, to prevent this disruptive editing and force them to change their attitude? If the block's over and they changed their ways there is still a competent editor, if they can continue a more drastic step can be taken. Thoughts? [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I admit I'm not very optimistic about how effective a 48-hour block will be—ignoring so much feedback over such a long period of time suggests entrenchment—but it does make sense to start with a temporary sanction and only escalate if really necessary. No need for the project to act on my lack of optimism when we could lead out with a generous attitude toward AndyFielding. All that to say, I '''support''' a temporary edit block as the step to take at this time. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 08:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Could try an escalating scheme. 31h, 72h, week, month, three months, six months, indef. with each block at least a week to a month apart (in spite of the undesirable edits reoccurring) to be able to see if the editing has changed. The [[WP:PREVENTATIVE]] grounds is that the shortest block should be tried first, then the second-shortest etc. instead of immediately indef, or 48h -&gt; indef. Instead of stalking his contributions and cleaning up after him, any editor could identify one (one is enough) undesirable edit of the type identified in this discussion, and ask any admin to implement the next block in the scheme, which that admin should do.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 09:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Please ban Fabrickator from interacting with me. ==<br /> <br /> [Edit: I have copyedited this post in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.] <br /> <br /> I'm not the only user that thinks Fabricator should be banned from interacting with me. In fact, I got the idea from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204671092 this] comment by Asparagusus on my talk page. <br /> <br /> Also, Graham Beards implied [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graham_Beards&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197633758 here] that Fabrickator and I should stop interacting with each other, which I agreed with, and Fabrickator did not agree with.<br /> <br /> I believe Fabrickator has been guilty of hounding me on Wikipedia, and has been incivil about it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196740157 Here] he sarcastically referred to an edit of mine that he disapproved of as &quot;brilliant&quot;. Something went wrong with the formatting (I think Fabrickator caused this somehow, but I'm not sure), but who said what and when is still fairly clear, I think. <br /> <br /> Fabrickator has persisted in communicating with me despite my requests that he leave me alone, and has also repeatedly ignored my questions about why he so interested in me, and in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204670096 one case], cryptically said, &quot;I'm not going to directly respond to your question.&quot; when I politely asked, yet again, why he was so interested in me.<br /> <br /> Fabrickator has reverted several good edits of mine, seemingly after following me to an article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathology&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1182405204 Here] is just one such reversion. It is notable, because firstly, it was re-reverted by Graham Beards, and secondly, Fabrickator did his reversion quietly. He did not tell me what he had done, which is remarkable, given how much irrelevant material he has posted on my talk page . I only found out he had done it much later, after Graham Beards had unreverted it. Thirdly, it is *clearly* a remarkably incompetent and fairly harmful reversion.<br /> <br /> So Fabrickator has not just been wasting *my* time, and a few other editors who have kindly taken some interest in this matter, such as Graham Beards and Asparagusus, but, more importantly, has directly harmed Wikipedia and Wikipedia's readers.<br /> <br /> I think Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, while I am not banned from interacting with him. Having said that, I would be content (delighted, in fact) with a two-way ban, if it is permanent. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 20:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :A few points here. If you want someone to stop posting on your talk page, you should make a clear request. This also means do not ask the editor any questions or otherwise talk about them on your talk page. Such a request should be respected with the exception of essential notices etc per [[WP:USERTALKSTOP]]. If [[User:Fabrickator]] had continued to continued to post on your talk page despite you asked them to stop, I think we would now be at the stage where they received a final warning before an indefinite block. I think your requests were a lot less clear than they should have been. Still I'll warn them. As for your iban proposal, that is a lot more involved and we'd need to see evidence of something more than simply posting on your talk page when you asked them to stop. If they're indefinitely blocked there's no need for an iban. A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 22:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::In [[User_talk:Polar_Apposite#sigmoid_colon_redux]], I offered to abide by an informal 60-day interaction ban. That was on February 8. I asked him to clarify whether he accepted that, he did not &quot;formally&quot; respond to that, but he did acknowledge it, and stated that he was interested in either a temporary or permanent ban. I did not ask for further clarification (the intent being to ''avoid'' interaction). So for about the last 35 days, I have refrained from any interaction with Polar (obviously, aside from this interaction, which I presume that I am obliged to respond to).<br /> ::I viewed this informal approach as having certain advantages:<br /> ::* Save administrators from having to become involved in adjudicating the dispute.<br /> ::* Also save them the trouble of officially tracking the ban, assuming it were to have been granted.<br /> ::If I were to have violated that ban, the voluntary ban would likely be viewed as a &quot;confession of fault&quot;.<br /> ::* There is neither an official determination of fault, nor an admission of fault'<br /> ::* Upon successful completion of this voluntary ban, future requests for a ban should not be based on events that happened prior to the voluntary ban.<br /> ::For the last 35 days, I have avoided any interaction with Polar. OTOH, in spite of Polar's seemingly implied commitment to avoid any interaction with me and 35 days without any interaction, he now submits this IBAN request. I request that it be denied, on the basis of this informal interaction ban. <br /> ::We should be very careful about the restriction of mere communication between users, recognizing in particular that the imposition of a ban places the banned party at a greatly heightened risk as well as creating what can be a problematic situation if (by some coincidence) they both happen to be &quot;participating&quot; in editing or commenting on the same article.<br /> ::Respectfully, [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 22:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 22:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::In point of fact, I had avoided communicating with you for 35 days. FWIW, though, you cannot reasonably avoid criticism by insisting that criticism of you (by myself and/or by somebody else) is not permitted. In any case, the appropriate place for such a discussion would be on one of the participant's own talk pages. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 23:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::If you avoided communicating with me for 35 days, and didn't revert any good edits of mine during that time, I thank you for that. But I want to *never* hear from you again, and *know* that I will never hear from you again, The only way that is possible is with a permanent interaction ban. In my opinion you should be blocked indefinitely (from Wikipedia), but I won't ask for that. You should be very grateful to if you only get a permanent one-way interaction ban. As I see it, you have nearly always wasted my time with your comments, and your reverts of my good edits is even worse, especially since you quietly followed me around Wikipedia reverting good edits of mine without even telling me. And in my humble opinion you have been uncivil while at it. It discouraged me from editing Wikipedia.<br /> :::::And you have, yet again, avoided answering my very reasonable and polite question. So I will repeat it. Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 02:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]], this is very stale. The most recent diff you provide is over a month old. <br /> :An admin should close this. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm glad you've brought this up. I've been busy with some things in real life for the last month or so, that's all. As you can see, I have almost no edits to Wikipedia during the last month. I have in a sense, been away from Wikipedia, to some extent, for the last month. <br /> ::I don't think there's any reason to believe that the situation has changed during the last month. Whether it's &quot;stale&quot; is not a real issue. In fact, the fact that I have been away actually reduces the significance of the fact that Fabricator has not posted on my user page during the last month or so. I don't know whether he has quietly reverted some more good edits of mine. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 02:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] we're supposed to [[WP:AGF]], not [[WP:ABF]]. If you had evidence of them reverted good edits of yours recently then you ought to provide evidence not state that you don't evidence that they haven't done it. The fact that you haven't provided any recent evidence of anything speaks very heavily to this being stale. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I think this is stale as well, but if the consensus is that this is not he the case, I think any interaction ban, if necessary, ought to be two-way. Fabrickator has done a poor job reading the tea leaves and should have backed off even if the request to stay off the talk was not explicit, but Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally. They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly ''announcing'' that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like &quot;harmful&quot; and &quot;incompetent&quot; needlessly in conversations.<br /> :In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 04:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Agreed. I really can't see this going anywhere. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Well I would ask that the implicit agreement of the &quot;voluntary iban&quot; (which was effectively &quot;completed&quot; by virtue of this incident being opened) should be abided by, i.e. that there shouldn't be an iban. It's not that I anticipate a desire to interact with Polar, but it will be counter-productive to have to think about this every time I edit an article or participate in some discussion. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Simply put, it's clear that Polar Apposite does not want you to post on their Talk page. You should abide by that. However, that does not mean you must avoid them on article Talk pages, and conversely Polar Apposite can't just ignore you on article Talk pages when you bring up an issue.<br /> ::::''If'' things escalate, we can start considering a two-way iban, but for now this should suffice. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :[Edit: I have copyedited this post (like I did with the OP a few hours ago) in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.] <br /> :I'll reply to myself to avoid &quot;bludgeoning&quot; anyone :)<br /> :331dot [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214161032 told me] on my talk page that, &quot;It's not bludgeoning to civilly respond to arguments/posts made in and of itself; it might be if, say, if you had a snarky response to every comment about you. I would make a single, calm comment responding to claims made about you. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)&quot;.<br /> :Accordingly, I will respond to everyone's posts in a single (hopefully calm, ha ha) comment.<br /> :I don't know whether Fabrickator should be blocked from Wikipedia, because I don't know how valuable his other contributions have been. Looking at his contributions for the first time (I was not interested until now) just now, in search of reversions of my edits, I see that he has made a lot of edits purportedly fixing broken links, which sounds good. Why stop him from doing that, if it is good work? Banning him from interacting with me would not affect, I would have thought, his ability to fix broken links. His work in general may be valuable. All I am sure of is that his interactions with me have been a huge waste of time, and quite harmful at times.<br /> :I'd like to clarify that I don't think it was ever my intention to tell Fabrickator not to post on my talk page, as that would give him an excuse to continue reverting good edits of mine without proper discussion or even notification. Also, doing so could be seen as uncivil according to the summary of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Keep_off_my_talk_page this] Wikipedia page which says, <br /> :&quot;This page in a nutshell: Editors can request that other editors keep off their user talk page. However, such demands may be considered uncivil. Disobeying such a request may or may not result in sanctions, depending on the circumstances.&quot; <br /> :I didn't want him to never post on my page, just to stop wasting my time with useless posts that seemed aimed at socializing with me, possibly trying to befriend me (we have never been friends, BTW), or to harass me, or possibly some &quot;frenemy&quot;-style mixture of the two. When I asked him why he wanted to communicate with me, and what he found so interesting about me, I really was sincerely interested in learning why. He has always chosen not to answer my question.<br /> :@[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] I thought you might want more examples of bad reversions of my work by Fabricator (I found three more) when you wrote, <br /> :&quot;A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough.&quot; <br /> :Here goes. The egregious pathology article reversion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathology&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1182405204], was not the only bad reversion of one of my edits. Another example would be @[[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] 's reversion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo_Koy&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194372531 here] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo_Koy&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194340489 this other good edit of mine] to the Jo Koy article. Notice how there's no &quot;reverted&quot; tag on my edit, making it harder for me or anyone else to notice that my edit had been reverted. His edit summary says, &quot;revert of 14:10 and 14:41 edits of 8 January 2024: both &quot;Filipino&quot; and &quot;Filipina&quot; are acceptable forms when used with &quot;mother&quot;; remove extraneous space at end of line&quot;. Wikipedia rules say that only positively harmful edits should be reverted, and so this justification makes no sense, because it acknowledges that my edit was harmless at worst. Secondly, even if both forms are acceptable (debatable, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jo_Koy#%22Filipina_mother%22_vs_%22Filipino_mother%22. my comments] on the article talk page, that doesn't mean that they are equally suited to an encyclopedia article, so, again, the edit summary is nonsensical. I argued on the talk page that &quot;Filipina&quot; is foreign or slang, or at least has that vibe about it, and therefore &quot;Filipino&quot; is more encyclopedic. I also argued that &quot;Filipina&quot; is confusing, because then what does &quot;Filipino&quot; mean? Does it refer only to males? English doesn't have this final a vs final o male/female system. But Fabrickator has not addressed any of these objections to his reversion. I have no objection to his deletion of the whitespace character I added to allow a dummy edit (an accepted technique on Wikipedia which Fabrickator seems not to have heard of, leading to his taking me to task for this elsewhere, wasting everyone's time yet again). OTOH, there was no need for him to do that, as it was harmless. If he wanted to do it, I think he should have quietly deleted the white-space in a separate edit, and marked his edit as minor, instead of making a fuss about it.<br /> :To sum up, Fabrickator has done four reversions of my edits that I know about, having looked through all his contributions in the last seven months: 1. the egregious, bizarre, and outrageous, pathology article reversion, 2. the absurd and absurdly defended Jo Koy article reversion, 3. the useless (albeit harmless) and timewasting fuss-laden reversion of a whitespace character, also in the Jo Koy article, and 4. the absurd reversion of my edit adding a citation needed tag and substituting a failed verification tag [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interdental_consonant&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1193331577 here]. Fabrickator's reversion was later unreverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interdental_consonant&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1193331860 here] by Nardog, with an edit summary saying, &quot;Reverted 1 edit by Fabrickator (talk): CN is correct, it's not cited to any source&quot;. To sum up, Fabrickator's four reversions of edits of mine comprise one outrageous one, one absurd one, one bad one, and one theoretically harmless one but accompanied by a lot of time-wasting fuss based on his not knowing what a dummy edit is and his not simply asking my why I added the white-space before berating me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196740157 here] (in quite an uncivil way, I might add. He calls the whitespace character an &quot;extraneous space&quot;.<br /> :Out of four reversions, zero were useful, two were unreverted by other editors, three were harmful, and one was quite harmful indeed. And he followed me to all those articles, it seems, in order to do what he did. And his subsequent discussion has been either zero, ignoring me, or useless and uncivil. He seems to think he is competent to overrule me without discussion, but I think he is wrong about this. I saw that some of his copyedits to the work of some other editors were good, so he should probably continue copyediting, but overzealously trying to correct *me* has led to his getting out of his depth, perhaps. That seems a charitable way of looking at this, and assumes good faith. Let him try his luck with someone else, as long as it doesn't become hounding and incivility, as I would suggest has been my experience with Fabrickator.<br /> :@[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] You wrote,&quot;Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally&quot; First, whether I have a history of &quot;bludgeoning conversations&quot; at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it? Second, could be specific about what I actually did wrong at those pages? &quot;Flooding&quot; is a bit vague. What I did in the latter case *could* be seen as simply making my case in a very thorough way, with appropriate attention to detail. As for the former, I thought I was allowed to ask as many questions as I wanted. It seems I was wrong about that, but since no one had told me about that rule, &quot;flooding&quot; seems a bit over the top, no pun intended. A giant puddle of tea come to mind :)<br /> :You wrote, &quot;They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly announcing that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like &quot;harmful&quot; and &quot;incompetent&quot; needlessly in conversations.&quot; Again, how about being specific? I think I am allowed to use &quot;harmful&quot; and &quot;incompetent&quot; needlessly on Wikipedia, am I not? And you have made no mention of any of the rude things Fabrickator has said to me. That's interesting, isn't it? You don't look very impartial right now.<br /> :You wrote, &quot;In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud.&quot; Again, are you able to be specific? What specifically did I say (you have no excuse for not being specific, as everything is there in black and white) that warrants a reprimand (light or not) to remind me that &quot;every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud&quot;? When did I ever say anything that indicates that I think that? Genuinely curious now.<br /> :@&lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; I'm actually primarily concerned about his reversions of my good edits. Out of a total of four that I could find, zero were useful, three were harmful, two were undone by other editors, and one was egregious. All of them were bizarre, and the result of following me around Wikipedia. And there was no proper discussion or notification to me. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::When people are griping about you bludgeoning discussion, posting massive, badly-formatted walls of text only vindicates those concerns. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I did what I was told to do. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'd be glad to try improve the format. What specifically did you not like about it? [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 20:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thanks for the constructive feedback. The links should have been inside words, and I put them all inside words just now. Was that what you had in mind? What else, if anything made call it &quot;badly-formatted&quot;? Cheers. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 01:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm certainly not going to read all of that. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I wasn't going to speak up in favor of any administrator(s) taking action regarding either you or Fabrickator, but as you continue to [[WP:BLUDGEON]] while ignoring [[WP:AGF]], I'm starting to wonder if you're willing to collaborate with people who disagree with you. It's really unhelpful when you post a giant wall of text, especially when a huge chunk of it is an off-topic wall of text in which you explain that you have your own guidelines that somehow override Wikipedia's at [[MOS:PHIL]]. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 04:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|First, whether I have a history of &quot;bludgeoning conversations&quot; at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it?}}<br /> ::I'm going to single this out, because the rest of that wall of text is just rambling. Yes, it does have bearing because it can indicate that the problem isn't Fabrickator, it's the fact you keep throwing these lengthy diatriabes up instead of concisely making your points. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 20:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I am just appending this comment at the bottom, I'll remind people that (if you're not subscribed to this specific discussion), it's hard to see the edits that have been made at various places in the text. You might want to look at the &quot;diffs&quot; if it matters to you<br /> :::Second, I will note that Polar has stated that he never asked me not to post to his &quot;talk&quot; page, so the fact that I made posts to his &quot;talk&quot; page is not ''per se'' an issue.<br /> :::Third, as Polar has pointed out, the Wiki software doesn't allow you to add an edit summary without making some kind of change. If you try to do this, it just silently discards the edit summary provided, so inserting a space character is just a way to get around this behavior. This was something I had been unaware of, so my criticism that he added an extraneous space was unwarranted, and I apologize for that. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 15:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Apology accepted, but I still want a permanent interaction ban, ideally one way. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 12:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I don't think it's you that should be accepting apologies or demanding things, especially not a one-way interaction ban. You really need to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] on this before it turns into a boomerang in the form of a motion from an uninvolved editor. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Okay, another minor point. The interaction ban had been proposed by [[User:Graham Beards]] in January (though it's in Graham's talk page archives for 2023 ... see [[User talk:Graham_Beards/Archives/2023#Please advise me regarding dealing with Fabrickator.]]). As is clear from this discussion, I do not go along with this proposal. I interpreted this as Graham's attempt to gracefully bow out of the dispute, but I mention it here just because I want to set the record straight. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks for being so reasonable. I think you might want to consider at least acknowledging that you were wrong in thinking that he was bowing out, and maybe apologize to him (optionally). [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You need to stop this, right now. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]], no one, I mean NO ONE, is going to read that wall of text you posted. And they are unlikely to participate in this discussion. And the one thing I remember when I was a regular here at ANI years ago is that you will never get an IBan or TopicBan without considerable community support which you don't have here and are unlikely to receive given these diatribes. You can't just request an IBan and magically have an admin impose it. It has to have support from your fellow editors which isn't going to happen. So, I suggest like most of us, you avoid editors you don't get along with or use Dispute Resolution if that is an appropriate forum for your disagreement. It also seems like this is not a current, intractible dispute but something that has bothered you in the past which makes it even more unlikely that any admin wandering through here will take action. Just my 2 cents. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;&quot;&gt;[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;&quot;&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm appending this to the end, like Fabrickator did with his comment. I'm also omitting all pings. Hoping not to be accused of &quot;bludgeoning&quot;.<br /> *:Although it is true that &quot;I've been busy with some things in real life&quot;, as I said above, it's also true that I was quite discouraged by the hostility that I've experienced on Wikpedia, and that my fellow editors seemed not to care about what Fabrickator (and some other editors, but that's another matter) had done to me. That's maybe *why* I busied myself with real life matters for a month or so. So calling the matter &quot;stale&quot; because I took a month break is not appropriate, I think.<br /> *:Did I do something wrong that can't be said out loud? Why are so many people being so hostile to me? I feel like people don't care or even would be glad to see stop copyediting Wikipedia.<br /> *:Why should Fabrickator continue to get away with wasting my time and worse, reverting my good edits, just because I got in trouble long ago as a newbie, in an unrelated matter? How long am I supposed to be punished for that? Didn't I pay my debt to Wikipedia by being blocked, so to speak?<br /> *:And anyway, shouldn't we be prioritizing the project? Good edits are good edits, regardless of who does them, or even why, right? And there's also the time wasted by third parties who undo Fabrickator's reversions of my good edits, which has happened in two out of the four cases. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 12:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::You've not provided any additional evidence or reasoning with this comment. What is the point of this? You've just repeated yourself. Stop now before this becomes a motion about you. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I was told [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214804087&lt;nowiki&gt; here]: &quot;Shorter is always better. If you feel that you have something new which will positively contribute to a discussion, you should do so. If you have been warned against excessively posting, though, consider whether you &lt;/nowiki&gt;''need'' to post it.&quot;<br /> *:::What I posted was shorter. I felt that I had something new that would be a positive contribution. I considered whether I needed to post it (and concluded that I did). I did exactly what I was I told to do. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 13:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::No, you really didn't. You posted another evidence-free diatribe. This is becoming disruptive. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 16:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Here is a [[Special:diff/1197560620/1197786525|pertinent portion]] of the discussion with Graham Beards, in which I described Graham's proposal as a way of &quot;graciously bowing out&quot; of the dispute. Fairly shortly after posting this message, I received a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&amp;user=User%3AGraham+Beards&amp;page=User%3AFabrickator&amp;wpdate=&amp;tagfilter=&amp;wpfilters%5B%5D=thanks&amp;wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist thanks from Graham]. It would be pretty juvenile to go around parading the fact of having received a &quot;thanks&quot; from somebody, but it is significant here because it seriously contrasts with Polar's interpretation of the situation. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 20:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]]... Before this thread gets closed down, I feel &quot;inspired&quot; to come back to the discussion you and I were having several weeks ago regarding the [[Special:Permalink/1203193236#Length of sigmoid colon in the diagram is not 35-40 cm. |length of the sigmoid colon]].<br /> ::I realize this is very much a sore spot for you, but I felt it showed that you had a blind spot with regard to editing Wikipedia. In this discussion, you expressed doubt about information in the article indicating the length of the sigmoid colon was 35-40 cm., based on your belief that this length was not plausible. The question I asked you was how you would advise an editor asking you this same question, but that had seemed to get you all riled up.<br /> ::I'm here now, and I'm again asking this question. Seriously, if it's not apparent which Wikipedia principle(s) should inform you on how to resolve this concern, then that casts doubt as to whether your continued editing of WP is appropriate. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 06:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'd drop this attempt at discussion. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You wrote, &quot;I don't think it's you that should be accepting apologies [...]&quot;. Did I actually get blamed for accepting an apology? That would be Kafkaesque&quot;. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 15:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::It often takes two to tango. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 23:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::A lot of editors here like to speak in riddles, I see. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::That's not a riddle. It's a [https://www.google.com/search?q=it+takes+two+to+tango+meaning&amp;rlz=1C1SQJL_enAU1053AU1053&amp;oq=it+takes+two+to+tango&amp;gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgBEAAYgAQyCQgAEEUYORiABDIHCAEQABiABDIHCAIQLhiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCjEyMTgxajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8 common saying where I'm from]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Nevertheless, it does kind of ''sound like'' a riddle. I like riddles! [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 19:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Monarchy of Canada ==<br /> <br /> I propose that [[User:Miesianiacal]] be topic banned from [[monarchy of Canada]], either broadly or more narrowly from the base article. It shouldn't require a minimum of two RfCs ([[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Meaning of reside]] and [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?]]) to insert the simple, obvious and uncontentious fact that the Canadian monarch lives in the UK. Yet, we are forced to endure [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] of debates[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213869997], [[WP:DISRUPTSIGNS|disruptive cite tagging]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213576471][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213574889][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211996854] and [[WP:POINT]]y [[tendentious editing]] from this single editor every time any other editor tries to edit an article [[WP:OWN|owned]] by Miesianiacal, who is responsible for more than 75% of edits to the page.[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Monarchy_of_Canada] The article is a farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research perpetuating a ridiculous myth that the King of Canada is Canadian. It will only improve when the influence of this editor is removed. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 21:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> - I would just like to add that, as we can see [[Monarchy of Canada#Consensus|here]], there seems to have been a productive consensus arrived at, and this without any negative behaviour that I can see. I will not pretend to be aware or delved into the material prior to my own involvement, so will not judge specific behaviour of individual editors for which I'm not aware, I only note that from my point of view, it seems that the Talk process worked and is working, and all in a respectful and positive way at Monarchy of Canada Talk and Main Space. Again, maybe there had been a bit of a breakdown warranting something, not sure, I'm only speaking to what I've seen since myself becoming a member of the discussion at that Talk page. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 16:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::If there is a consensus in that article it has been arrived at during Miesianiacal's current absence (and during his temporary ban from editing the article). [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Okay thankyou. What was his main point that was not valid? Which I mean, what part of what he was advocating for is not reflected in the current consensus? I'm having a hard time figuring out what exact statement was meriting a block. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :There seems to be two allegations here. There's bludgeoning etc at [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?]]. This has diffs and looking at the thread seems to have a basis. But the second half of the post broadens out to a [[WP:OWN]] accusation and being responsible for &quot;a farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research&quot;, but there are no diffs for that. The former (for a longstanding editor) deserves a warning. The latter needs more evidence to be actioned to a full TBAN or even a PBAN. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Not long ago, this editor searched out articles with royal-sounding names, and then added that these article were ''named after royalty''. I reverted most of the edits, as they were unsourced and probably not true, but not without pushback. You can see one of the discussions at [[Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty?]]. --[[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|DeCausa}} It took me ages to track down, but I recently removed 3 bits of original research not found in the citations from the article, and they were all added by Miesianiacal or his previous account: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213654233 Removed citation] added by Miesianiacal's old account: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=220192125]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213654233 Removed citation] added by Miesianiacal's old account: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=232790056]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213654776 Removed unverified claim] added by Miesianiacal: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=317637578]. I've only really looked at the first two paragraphs of the Residences section, so there could be more elsewhere. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Those edits are from 14/15 years ago. I don't think they would or could be used to support action now. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::The 'age' of an edit does not necessarily matter, given that there's always the possibility of erroneous information remaining in an article for years to come. &lt;span style=&quot;font:'Pristina'&quot;&gt;[[user:Keivan.f|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #1E7HDC&quot;&gt;Keivan.f&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font:'Pristina'&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:Keivan.f|&lt;span style=&quot;color: purple&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 23:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Is this editor not already block from [[Monarchy of Canada]] articles? &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight:bold;color:darkblue&quot;&gt;[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]&lt;/span&gt;🍁 04:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::He was banned on March 13 for two weeks. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{reply to|DeCausa}} The named after royalty edits were just a few months ago. There's a long-standing issue of problematic editing wrt the monarchy. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 18:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I don't really understand what's meant by &quot;The named after royalty edits were just a few months ago&quot;. All I was saying is that edits from 14/15 years won't be taken into account. I dont think that's much in doubt. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 20:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Magnolia677's post preceding post included &quot;Not long ago, this editor searched out articles with royal-sounding names, and then added that these article were ''named after royalty'' &quot;. That's why I wrote {{tq|There's a long-standing issue of problematic editing wrt the monarchy.}} [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::I did not add &quot;[this was] named after royalty&quot; to any articles, unless with a reliable source. What Magnolia677 is referring to is my adding to articles on places listed at [[Royal eponyms in Canada]] a link to that article in the &quot;See also&quot; section, a number of which were removed and I didn't dispute the deletion. I think [[Victoria Park Collegiate Institute]] is the only article on which I argued for reinsertion and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Park_Collegiate_Institute&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1172829023 found cited info] to support the connection to [[Royal eponyms in Canada]]. It was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Park_Collegiate_Institute&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1172849549 deleted] two and a half hours later and that's the way it's remained ever since. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 02:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support sanctions''', if not an article or topic ban then a revert restriction or talk page interaction ban. I don't think a warning will be adequate. This is essentially the same issue that I raised at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive467#User:Miesianiacal reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: No violation)]] and that was raised at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III]]. Miesianiacal gets away with his behaviour because he acts within the letter of the rules while ignoring their spirit; he knows how to [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|game the system]]. When challenged, he goes on the attack instead of addressing his own behaviour: for example accusing me of harassment even though I was required to notify him[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1152176368] or refusing to listen when challenged on civility: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1151467664][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1151694138]. Before [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III|IncidentArchive1127]] there were multiple requests for comment at Charles III, which closed against him; he then went to third opinion, which was rejected, and then to the dispute resolution noticeboard, which was rejected (diffs are all at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III|IncidentArchive1127]]). So, he went forum-shopping to the administrators' noticeboard with a cherry-picked selection of edits that were better than his own behaviour. That is his typical operating style: delay, dismiss, attack, and never surrender. The tactic is to pursue endless circular debate, blame everyone else, and refuse to listen to or accept any counter-argument or advice. The same thing that happened at Charles III is happening at Monarchy of Canada: we are forced to go through multiple requests for comment to make the simplest change (with the result that editors wonder what we're doing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214219395]). Once the discussion starts, we then suffer through his sabotage of the debate, such as refusing to accept sources that disprove his argument, for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214382428] backtracking from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213733542]. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> I believe there are also [[WP:OWN]] issues at [[Monarchism in Canada]] and [[Republicanism in Canada]], particularly the former. Miesianiacal has strenuously objected to updating the articles to include references to opinion polls taken in the past two years that show there is greater support for removing the monarchy than there is for retaining it. (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchism_in_Canada&amp;diff=1214387299&amp;oldid=1214075662]) and [[Republicanism in Canada]] (see [[Talk:Republicanism in Canada]]). At present the polls cited in Monarchism in Canada are at least 15 years old.<br /> <br /> In Republicanism in Canada he claimed this wording was not neutral: &quot;&quot;Polls conducted on the subject of abolition of the Canadian Crown in 2022 and 2023, following the accession of Charles III, suggested that a majority of Canadians think there should be a referendum on the future of the monarchy and that more Canadians favour becoming a republic than do retaining the monarchy&quot; (he reverted similar wording in the monarchism article.) Instead, he wrote this wording which mentions only that polling occurred without any reference to the polling result. His &quot;neutral&quot; wording was:&quot;[[Debate on the monarchy in Canada#Polls|Polls have been conducted]] on the subject of abolition of the Canadian Crown.&quot;[[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 17:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :What, if any, administrative or community action would you support? [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' - the ban could be reconsidered at a later point but at present the editor shows no capacity to negotiate or seek or accept compromise, or collaborate, let alone accept a consensus view he disagrees with. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]){{pb<br /> }}'''Supplemental''' - there are still plenty of pages regarding the monarchy in the UK and other [[Commonwealth realm]]s that Miesianiacal would be able to edit. If he can demonstrate a collaborative approach on those pages, then the Canadian monarchy topic ban can be revisited. Alternatively, if his approach does not change, the topic ban could spread to cover all articles regarding the British and Commonwealth monarchy (for lack of a better term). In any case, this topic ban wouldn't be the end of the road and he would have avenues where he could prove himself. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 16:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> * I read [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?]] and my brain attempted to leave my skull. I have ''never'' seen such a nonsensical collection of distorted logic, and yes, a narrow article ban should be considered for at least one editor (the one mentioned in the lead here). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban for Miesianiacal from the Canadian monarchy, broadly construed. If this type of behavior migrates to other topic areas, broader restrictions may be required. This is classic POV pushing. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Do not support''' There are a multitude of pieces including several articles and different conversations in this accusation, however, I did read one (the question of residency), and I am not comfortable with the idea of sanctioning a long-time editor with considerable expertise in the area simply for being firm on a specific point on a Talk page which would seem to me to undermine the point of the Talk page in the first place, and in the spirit of lively debate with a minimum standard of decorum, as that's how we elucidate (ideally) the best way forward in good-faith, as opposed to single-editor dictatorship or mob-rule, both of which are to be strenuously avoided. {{pb<br /> }}Second, the article states that Charles III lives in the UK last I checked, so I'm not quite sure what the core issue is. Clearly no one is currently standing in the way of portraying that fact.{{pb<br /> }}In this case's Talk Page, there is a valid logical argument to made on the important distinction on the separation of office from an individual person. A slightly humorous example would be that, just because the current Prime Minister is Justin Trudeau, the official residence of the Prime Minister is 24 Sussex, and Justin Trudeau is also the coach of the little league team the Ottawa Cubs, that does ''not'' mean that the official residence of the Coach of the Ottawa Cubs is 24 Sussex, nor even that Justin Trudeau even lives at 24 Sussex. So, in this case, the monarch of the UK is, from Canada's point of view, a foreign head of state. The King of Canada does not have any official residences in the UK, but the King of Canada does have official residences in Canada. Where Charles III sleeps at night, or where the King of the UK as a foreign head of state lives has no bearing on the status or the location of a Canadian official residence. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that was the sticking point or the point that was trying to me made, and as I said, I think such a point is valid as is the logic behind it. And so the consensus I believe that is reflected in the article, or should be, is that the King of Canada has official residences in Canada, and that Charles III himself predominantly lives in the UK. No one should be censured for contributing to that consensus. {{pb<br /> }}Is it a little bit arcane and pedantic? Yes. But that is often the nature of deep-dive discussions of certain topics, particularly ones swirling around constitutional politics. {{pb<br /> }}As there was a bit of a swirl of allegations, please feel free to be more specific if you feel I've missed the most salient or fundamental issue under discussion here. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 18:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I take it all are aware these are called &quot;Canada’s Official Residences&quot; would be best if terms are not madeup. Would help things alot I think. &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight:bold;color:darkblue&quot;&gt;[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]&lt;/span&gt;🍁 18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' topic ban per Cullen328. The bludgeoning has to stop. Look, I understand the kind of pedantry that surrounds the issue. My first few years on this project were almost solely devoted to peerage matters. But this is too much. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 19:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support some sort of action if''' Miesianical doesn't strongly commit to accepting feedback and accepting consensus does not always line up with his personal slant. On one hand, Miesianiacal has contributed a lot of content on royalty in Canada, which is mostly good, and deserves some shout-outs for that. And... I get it. There are some articles on Wiki where having a &quot;guard dog&quot; editor hazing new edits closely can actually be a good thing (medical articles most famously, perhaps). If Miesianiacal was providing &quot;stewardship&quot; that occasionally was a tad tendentious, I get it. However... I'm not sure that's really the case here, and rather Miesianiacal himself is the issue, inserting POV slants in articles that do not accord with the sources, which makes any OWNership concerns much more pressing. So yes, this is ANI not a content board, but it's relevant, so let's look at Miesianiacal's grasp of content. Take a look at this old revision of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchies_in_the_Americas&amp;oldid=258665472 Monarchies in the Americas] for example: it distinguishes &quot;American monarchies&quot; from &quot;Foreign monarchies&quot; as if there was some sort of substantive difference between the King of Denmark ruling Greenland from afar and Charles III ruling Jamaica from afar. Which, strictly speaking, there is a difference of course, but a wildly overblown one that is hardly section-heading level worthy. Or take the line &quot;Most pre-Columbian cultures of the Americas developed and flourished for centuries under monarchical systems of government.&quot; Totally bonkers and unsourced, and tying the &quot;flourishing&quot; to the monarchial system of government. More generally, we simply ''do not know'' the details of the government system of &quot;most pre-Columbian cultures.&quot; It's just wild speculation. That's just the start of the problems with the old article. (I'm picking on it specifically because it was at GAR a bit ago and I took a look into it, where it was wildly overplaying certain &quot;monarchies&quot; and their level of support, like treating Arucania &amp; Patagonia as if it were a real state and not a fantasy.) I'd argue that all of the provincial level &quot;Monarchies of XYZ&quot; are problematic for example, with the possible exception of [[Monarchy in Quebec]] (although... I'd really want to triple-check all the sources talking about just how much the Quebecois loved their monarch back in the day as being valid and not Anglophone Canada wishful thinking.) Take a look at [[Monarchy in Alberta]], for example, which should probably be reformulated into something else as it's a lot of talking about nothing in particular. A very small number of people turned out for some event honoring the Queen? Stop the presses. Okay, back to conduct: Miesianical being a Canadian monarchist isn't a ''problem'', exactly. But going against their wishes is really not worth it due to the risk of bludgeoning talk page conversations or edit wars (the one time I did, on something I considered a slam dunk on sourcing grounds, felt like pulling teeth, but also happened ages ago at this point, so not worth rehashing). If Miesianiacal can just seriously commit to toning it down a bit and being willing to take the L when others disagree, then no need to do anything other than verify he's keeping the commitment. But otherwise, yeah, maybe time for a topic ban. (And per above, if a topic ban happened, I'd strongly encourage Miesianiacal not to continue the exact same behavior at other Commonwealth monarchies- going around to give the same treatment to Monarchy of The Bahamas subarticles would not really solve the problems here.) [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Upgrade to support topic ban, broadly construed'''. Miesianical's response below is that actually, there is no problem and everyone is getting upset over nothing, because there's no proof of anything. I guess all the editors here taking exception to his collaboration style don't count as proof either? If he doesn't think there's a problem, then he can't fix it, so we are left with this. It's really not that hard to commit to accepting feedback, but he isn't even bothering to try. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:I ''literally'' said that I'm open to accepting I've done wrong. But, since my analysis of the evidence (spelled out below) doesn't show me how I bludgeoned or abused tags, I'm ''asking'' (like, three times now) for clarification, so I can see what I might currently be missing or reevaluate what I see. Telling me &quot;you did bad&quot; tells me nothing about what exactly I did that was bad and, therefore, gives me no idea of how I'm supposed to modify my behaviour. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 20:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:* {{ping|Miesianiacal}} I believe you that was your intent. But intentions don't matter. Just as I'm sure you thought you were making a peace offering good faith, you have to believe everyone else that what ''actually comes across'' in your posts below is a desire to continue axe-grinding and bludgeoning with DrKay. As if that was the only problem, which it isn't, nor is it even the most important problem - it's your interaction with other editors in general.<br /> **:* You mentioned below that you need to work on brevity. I can't speak for others, but for me, I'd have been willing to change my vote to avoid a formal sanction with just three sentences or so. Something like &quot;While I stand by my edits, I understand that consensus will sometimes be against me. I'll discuss these matters on the talk page rather than revert war, keep it to just a few paragraphs or so on the talk page, and let the matter drop if it seems like a one-against-many situation.&quot; And then actually do that. Something to keep in mind for your future editing. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 20:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Perhaps I'm misunderstanding AN/I, then. It appears to me it sometimes, as in this instance, acts as a quasi-court. Someone's laid a charge against me. Unrelated, some misrepresented, incidents from months or years ago have been dragged in. To my mind, ''that'', collectively, is ''all'' I'll be judged on, if I don't mount some kind of defence. Yet, at the same time, I don't want to be adamantly defens''ive''--I want to say I don't see the charges as valid, here's why, but, I still accept they could be valid and I'm open to hearing--no, literally asking to hear--how so. Up to now, I would've thought something like your suggested statement would've been taken as a kind of flippant disregard of everyone's criticisms and ''that'' would be used against me. But, what you've said has made me question my interpretation of this as a trial.<br /> :::::Alright. Well, I have no idea how long something like this goes on for. But, I hope there's time for me to reconsider my main response; I mean, what I've already written is there and, well, the consequences will be the consequences. But, my feelings and opinions aren't immutable. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 21:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Also support some sort of action''' if Miesianical doesn't make efforts to be more collaborative. I haven't had any run-ins with them in quite some time because, frankly, I have very limited interest in monarchy. However my past interactions with them are very much in line with what others have said here - a tendency toward [[WP:OWN]], bludgeoning on talk page and walking right to the edge of [[WP:3RR]]. If they're still up to these antics nearly a decade on then I'd say they should be invited to consider making some changes to their editing behaviour. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' from anything to do with the Canadian monarchy &amp; perhaps the monarchies of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms (past &amp; current) broadly construed. Indeed, ''two'' RFCs shouldn't have been required at [[Monarchy of Canada]], but I didn't know what else to do to stop the disruption. Also see [[Talk:British royal family#RfC on lede|this RfC at British royal family]], from about a year ago. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban per [[user:Cullen]]. Off the top of my head I don't remember noticing this editor's work in other areas, but certainly the Canadian area is an issue. I don't believe this editor's bludgeoning is made in good faith. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 18:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' - As mentioned, my experience at [[Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty?]] and similar articles was not positive. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 20:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' - The response by Miesianical below speaks for itself. In the RFC I asked for Miesianical to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK|drop the stick]] and the response was baffling. Hopefully the editor learns something from this discussion so the behavior doesn't spread elsewhere. - [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 20:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' on Canadian monarchy and perhaps on the Commonwealth monarchy per above. Clearly a widespread and longstanding complex of issues. Especially the apparent suppression of information regarding support for republicanism in Canada, that's the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Enough of the bias, I'll support the topic ban. [[User:JM2023|JM]] ([[User talk:JM2023|talk]]) 03:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' on all Commonwealth monarchies. I feel like a more &quot;broadly construed&quot; topic ban would be best suited here, because of how inter-connected everything is. Charles, the King of Canada, is ''legally'' distinct from Charles, the King of the UK, but I fear a &quot;Canada only&quot; topic ban would lead Miesianiacal to bring their issues to other pages like [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom]], [[Monarchy of Australia]], etc... under the guise of the fact that they are ''technically'' not discussing the &quot;Canadian royal family&quot; anymore. &lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;Canuck&lt;/span&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;89&lt;/span&gt; [[User talk:Canuckian89|(Converse with me)]] or visit [[User:Canuckian89|my user page]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; &lt;small&gt;09:04, March 26, 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> As the person who started this is pointing specifically to [[Monarchy of Canada]] and disputing something is not a crime (if it were, all those here referencing the disputes they were engaged in with me on other articles over many months through the past would be guilty of it, as well), I'm only going to address matters at [[Monarchy of Canada]]; for now, anyway. Alone, I can only deal with one thing at a time.<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213869997 This] is not ''proof'' of bludgeoning. It's one person's opinion and one can see, preceding the person's remark, they asserted, &quot;you've said your piece,&quot; when I hadn't actually said any piece, I'd [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213733542 asked a question]: &quot;So, what now?&quot; That's an invitation to move forward toward a resolution. Indeed, in the preamble to that question, I ''acknowledged'' [https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2022/10/falqs-canada-and-the-monarchy/ the source] DrKay provided and the fact it supported the statement, &quot;the Canadian monarch lives in the United Kingdom&quot;. I even made the point of the question clear: &quot;there are now two takes on this: 'the monarch is represented by viceroys in Canada because he lives in the UK' and 'the monarch is represented by viceroys in Canada because he is monarch of 14 other countries and his principal residence is in the UK', each supported by one RS.&quot; That very evidenlty ''accepts'' DrKay's source, as it sought to find a way to deal with two sources--DrKay's one and [https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pch/documents/services/royal-symbols-titles/crnMpls-eng.pdf this one]--saying two not necessarily mutually exclusive, but, different things. DrKay chose never to answer the question, thereby exacerbating dispute, rather than working toward a resolution.<br /> <br /> That continues in the same vein:<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213624979 This] is a question<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214382428 This] is agreeing with someone<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214398286 This] isn't pushing anything; it's a comment on DrKay's misunderstanding of the dispute ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214166029 he thinks] I (and at least one other) want to have the article say the monarch lives in Canada, when I never, ever (and I mean ever) did)<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214382671 This] is again agreeing with someone<br /> * [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Discussion|This]] is a civil attempt to get a reverting editor to explain his edits and/or desired edits<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214384628 This] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214396977 this] were part of an agreeable discussion<br /> <br /> And that's the sum total of my contributions to the RfC, aside from my own answer to it. If anyone can explain how that meets the definition of &quot;bludeoning&quot;, I'm truly fascinated to read it.<br /> <br /> I haven't been blocked from [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada]]. So, my absence from the discussion is only because I haven't been on Wikipedia over the past few days and correlation does not imply causation.<br /> <br /> There was more than a week between the placement of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211996854 This] tag (which was quickly thereafter [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Park_Collegiate_Institute&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1172849549 moved by me] to make clear I was ''not'' challenging the claim that the monarch resides in the UK) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213574889 these] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213576471 tags]. The latter two are two completely different tags addressing two different variations of an edited sentence. Tagging disputed material is not a crime and I clearly brought up at talk the issues the tags were flagging, exactly as one is supposed to do. Again, how that's &quot;disruptive cite tagging&quot; (even the spirit thereof) requires further explanation, including how DrKay placing numerous tags on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211858095 4 March] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211912250 5 March], employing his usual tactic of &quot;discussion by edit summary&quot;, is not.<br /> <br /> There's no proof given of &quot;WP:POINTy tendentious editing&quot;. There's no proof given of my making such edits &quot;every time any other editor tries to edit [the] article&quot;. There's no proof given of the article being a &quot;farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research perpetuating a ridiculous myth.&quot;<br /> <br /> And &quot;[this proves] how nasty and desperate you are&quot; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214420204], from DrKay on [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada]], is an overt personal attack, which a continuation of the earlier attacks from him that both crossed and didn't quite cross [[WP:NPA]]: &quot;Don't play stupid, you know damn well what's meant&quot; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1143261256]; “you are ruining more than one article on my watchlist” [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKay&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1143265674]; &quot;you don't assume good faith [...] Treat them like shit you've scraped off the bottom of your shoe and they will likely respond by blanking your messages to them and asking you not to message anymore. Please do not message me anymore&quot; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1143291211]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKay&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1152036372 this] accusation of bad faith; [[User talk:Miesianiacal/August 2022-March 2024#Accuracy of edit summaries|this]] unconstructive attempt at besmirchment; etc. There are certainly zero examples of my expressing anything to DrKay that violates WP:NPA.<br /> <br /> Again, eludication on the matters of bludgeoning and abusive cite tagging would be helpful so I can have clear understanding of the rules so I can follow them properly, if, indeed, I haven't been, so far. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 02:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :To sum up, &quot;I did nothing wrong. It's all DrKay's fault.&quot; This is a version of what I said above: blaming others and refusing to accept you've done anything wrong. You claim here that there is no evidence of bludgeoning, but then in your final link here (&quot;[[User talk:Miesianiacal/August 2022-March 2024#Accuracy of edit summaries|this]] unconstructive attempt at besmirchment&quot;) you link to a discussion where there are 13 diffs showing you making the same comment 13 times, which you claim is not bludgeoning. DrKay's behaviour is far from laudable but then you shouldn't have goaded them should you? [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 08:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I asked above for clarification on how my interactions at [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada]] constituted bludgeoning and my use of tags on [[Monarchy in Canada]] was abusive cite tagging. That is altogether different from &quot;it's all DrKay's fault&quot;. (DrKay's personal insults being my fault is an opinion I'll ignore.) DrKay making two accusations of bludgeoning against me doesn't prove I ever engaged in bludgeoning; and I need to point out here, because mention of it is absent from your remark: in response to his first accusation back in May 2023, I presented DrKay with the proof that I didn't actually &quot;[make] the same argument over and over, to different people&quot; (it was just a weeks-long and wide-ranging dispute involving many different people and some requests outside it for new people to join and possibly help break impasses). After that, he dropped the argument.<br /> ::DrKay might be at fault here; given he's violated WP:NPA numerous times to make his hatred of me clear and half of his OP at the top is unsubstantiated, negative opinion, he may possibly have revealed that his motivation is personal. He might ''not'' be at fault. It might be that he I and are ''both'' at fault, in our own ways. Even if, hypothetically, for now, DrKay did start this for the wrong reasons, that wouldn't mean I didn't actually do some of what he's accused me of. Hence, I'm requesting edification, preferrably from neutral, dispassionate parties who'll consider ''all'' the evidence in its proper contexts. Because, as I explained above, I personally, right now, don't see how the evidence backs up the charges (particularly the bludgeoning one). --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::One thing I would dispassionately recommend is to work on being more concise. These text walls contribute in part, though not in whole, to the sense of bludgeoning. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Well, I feel hung between a need to be thorough and to be concise. But, brevity is a challenge for me here and off Wikipedia; I'm working on it for reasons that exist outside of this realm. However, the walls of text contributing to a sense of bludgeoning on talk pages is a new perspective to me and interesting; I can get it. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 17:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> My edit on 4 March: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211858095], tags a self-published vanity project, an anthology of fictional works, and an official Canadian government source that says explicitly, not that the Queen resided in Canada, but that she belongs in the same category as &quot;foreign heads of state&quot; and that she &quot;visits&quot; Ottawa along with &quot;other royal visitors&quot;. The edit on 5 March: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211912250] removes an invention of Miesianiacal's that George VI's 1939 state visit to the United States was on behalf of Canada uniquely. He knows this invention is untrue because we had a long discussion about it at [[Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother/Archive 2#Royal tours]]. The same edit tags a source that does not support the material it is next to. The edits therefore demonstrate that sources are twisted and that the article includes original research. He also lists a series of uncivil edits but fails to mention that they are all in response to his baiting, which can be seen by looking at the comment(s) to which they respond or the preceding edits. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214420204] is in response to the unsubstantiated claim that I think the article used to say the Canadian monarch lives in Canada. That is untrue. I should not have taken the bait but it is difficult to avoid doing so when it is so frequently flung in my face. If Miesianiacal doesn't want to awaken bears, he shouldn't poke them with a stick. Once again in his response to this discussion, we are faced with his absolute refusal to acknowledge any bludgeoning. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 17:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' - I was not involved in this original dispute, but became involved in discussions after commenting in the second RfC. As I wasn't involved at that time, I don't think I have anything useful to add about users' conduct while the first RfC was taking place. I will say though that some of DrKay's comments since have not been particularly productive. Calling other editors comments (mine included) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215025473&amp;oldid=1215012120 &quot;Farcical garbage&quot;], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215042417&amp;oldid=1215039825 wrongly accusing them of strawman arguments], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215044541&amp;oldid=1215043365 ad hominem attacks], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215047616&amp;oldid=1215046927 deflection] aren't really helping anyone reach consensus there. It seems the temperature needs to be lowered across the board.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 19:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I withdraw &quot;farcical garbage&quot; pursuant to [[Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility]] #1d.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1216052301&amp;oldid=1216048196]. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 19:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> With all due respect. [[Talk:The Worldwide Privacy Tour#Royal family description|This discussion, concerning a cartoon episode]], was memorable. I'm not certain how to describe the content dispute that took place there, a year ago. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Okay. My apologies for the length of the following. But, there's a lot to address.<br /> <br /> I've taken some feedback and looked at the whole of what this expanded into from the initial accusations. I've been editing here for 20+ years; I have crossed paths with many, many editors. The vast majority of interactions have been without significant problem. However, I have also sometimes been a problem. Admitting as much has prompted me to improve my collaborative manner; over even eight months ago (these recent discussions--[[Talk:Royal standards of Canada#Terminology|1]], [[Talk:Republicanism in Canada#Opinion polling|2]], [[Talk:King Charles III Coronation Medal#Canadian medallions/medals|3]]--are perfectly fine). I'm okay with disagreement; I'm willing to compromise (if it's not a policy matter).<br /> <br /> But, if my self-reflection is accurate, what's still been problematic up to now is my reaction to what I perceive as not being heard; in whatever manner. I've taken it as an unnecessary drawing out of the dispute and felt an RfC will do so even more (implying an impatience on my part). I become not incivil, but... blunt in my interactions with the other party. Now I see that, ironically, my insistence on getting the other party to hear me (driven, again ironically, by a want to find a mutually agreeable resolution) often leads to an RfC, anyway. The ends truly don't always justify the means. This is not to pick on DrKay; I just think it's relevant to show that even he and I ''can'' interact in a completely decent way: [[Talk:Head of the Commonwealth#Dubious|1]], [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 20#Official lists|2]]. So, ''my'' problem must be how I've been dealing with communication breakdown; between myself and anyone I think it's happening with.<br /> <br /> Putting whatever restrictions will inevitably be imposed on me aside, going forward, I'll accept what I think are failures to communicate as soon as I believe they've happened and that the wider community then has to be brought in; I'll accept there's no deadline to complete an edit. Of course, consensus is, as always, consensus. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 05:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :In the 20+ years, there seems to be (from you) a tendency to advocate for the monarchy in Canada, to be viewed in a certain way on Wikipedia. One ''might'' see this as breaching [[WP:RGW]]. Charles III, like his mother, grandfather, etc, before him, are/were most recognized as British monarchs. That's simply how the world sees it. At [[Monarchy of Canada]] (for example), we can't be suggesting in anyway, that the monarch resides/lives in Canada. Anyways, that's my theory on what's the core of your problematic behavior. It's up to the community to decide on what to do. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If there has been [[WP:RGW]] behaviour by editors at [[Monarchy of Canada]], it appears to have occurred on both sides of the initial debate there. With all due respect, I am not sure someone calling for a Canadian Republic on their user page is the best person to cast that particular stone. It seems to me many users are talking past each other on the talk page, which seems to be continuing in the new discussions on [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Residences]]. MIESIANIACAL is one of the editors commenting in the debates there, but the persistent content dispute(s) there, and the resulting walls of text, are of many editors makings. As I said above, I think the temperature needs to be lowered across the board.-- [[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't edit as a republican &amp; have at times been considered a closet-monarchist. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::A person dusclosing a political position on their user page should not guide which pages they are permitted to edit. Only whether their edits adhere to Wikipedia standards. As an example, my strident anti-monarchism had nothing to do with my positions regarding the [[Where is Kate]] article - only BLP standards. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I think it would be dangerous if we went down the path of declaring people to be in a COI because of their ideology or belief. Monarchists (or republicans) should no more be banned from editing articles on the monarchy than Christians should be banned from editing articles on Christianity (or even articles on the church they belong to), or Liberals or Conservative supporters or members be banned from articles on the Liberal or Conservative parties or liberalism or conservatism as ideology. What we should look out for is editing conduct and POV-pushing. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 18:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Deletions of (article) talk page material ==<br /> <br /> I have a long-running dispute that has started on 8. January when [[User:Chaheel Riens]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194299127 deleted 26 KiB of talk page material]. I would like the mentioned 26 KiB of deleted talk page material to be restored (archiving it would also be fine with me). However, this dispute is interrelated with the correct interpretation of [[WP:TPO]], and it might have important consequences as such.<br /> <br /> As a justification for his actions, [[User:Chaheel Riens]] provided [[WP:FORUM]], [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:NOTHOWTO]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1194383866 here]. After some further arguments and counter-arguments, he <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1194505317 refused to properly argue]<br /> . I think that there was some amount of [[WP:LAWYERING]] involved on his part, but I don't see that as important.<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_241#Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Summary_of_the_discussion_so_far I took the issue to the DRN],<br /> but it was not successful. However, my conclusion was that DRN was not a proper venue, because the central issue is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material, which is a conduct issue.<br /> <br /> The relevant guideline related to this problem seems to be [[WP:TPO]]. Some experienced editors are interpreting it as supporting the disputed deletion, while other experienced editors are of the opposite opinion. The editors who support the deletion are referencing various parts of [[WP:OR]] to justify the disputed deletion. In my opinion, such justifications are invalid, because WP:OR clearly states: {{tq|This policy does not apply to talk pages...}} Other justifications for deletion are invalid due to similar reasons. My conclusion is that the policies are supporting my side of the argument, therefore the deleted talk page material should be restored and then archived.<br /> <br /> Currently, this dispute is stuck at some kind of status quo, as I was absent for a month, and other editors apparently refused to argue further. I think that further arguments would be futile anyway, because this dispute is essentially about two widely different interpretations of WP:TPO, as it was noticed <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Some_Follow-Up_Comments_Regarding_Removing_Material here]<br /> .<br /> <br /> This dispute is unlikely to be resolved by any kind of discussion between involved parties. I judge that WP:ANI is the relevant authority for this kind of disagreement, because deletions of talk page material are conduct issues. To escape the status quo, some definitive guidance is needed about the proper course of action in this dispute.<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Someone_has_just_deleted_all_of_my_suggestions Initial discussion at ZX Spectrum graphic modes]<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Removed_sections Link to the continuation of discussion after DRN failed].<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Removing_material_from_article_talk_pages Link to the discussion at WP:TPG talk page].<br /> <br /> - [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Is this still the same discussion where you pretty much accused me of being a scammer and a liar? I distanced myself when it because clear it was turning into a slow-motion train crash while beating the dead horse at the same time. I've given a cursory glance over it since I last commented, and you don't seem to be gaining much favour - even the editor who was critical of me seems to have washed their hands of you and the discussion. This could be a case of [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|WP:FILLIBUSTER]] where you just go on and on and on and on and on until everybody simply gives up in exasperation. I've taken the liberty of pinging the other involved editors who were missed, but the discussion is such a mess it's hard to see if all have been included. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 16:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I have never accused you, or anyone, of being scammers and liars. It is just your interpretation of one '''hypothetical statement''' of mine, which I posted in a separate discussion about copyright issues [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_136#ZX_Spectrum_graphics_(modes)] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Parrot_standard.png] that isn't really related to this one. I apologize to you any everyone involved if you were offended by a lack of clarity in my writings, because I don't think that you are a scammer or a liar.<br /> ::I argue that what you have just suggested is essentially an attempt to perpetuate the status quo. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Z80Spectrum}} You mentioned &quot;''the possbility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers''&quot;. Would you have included Chaheel Riens in that group? &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Segoe Script;&quot;&gt;''[[User:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#BC49A6&quot;&gt;City&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:Green&quot;&gt; o&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:Red&quot;&gt;f &lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]]''&lt;/b&gt; 18:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I must admit that, at that specific moment, I was quite confused about what is happening. Therefore, my statement in question did not refer to anyone in particular. The copyright issues are a serious problem, and my statement was intended to alert to the importance of those issues. I [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01#c-Z80Spectrum-20240129030400-Clindberg-20240129005500 appologized here] to another user, [[User:4throck]], who might have been most obviously affected by that unfortunate statement of mine. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This doesn't belong here or indeed anywhere. The proper path forward is to work on something else. What practical difference is there between moving this information to the talk page archive vs having it available in diffs? Unwillingness to repeat oneself endlessly is not &quot;refused to properly argue.&quot; [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 18:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Not again!''' - I tried to mediate the dispute, which was originally presented as an article content dispute, but was really mostly a dispute about the removal of talk page material. I developed [[WP:DRN Rule F|DRN Rule F]] and was preparing to mediate a discussion about the removal or restoration of the article talk page material. [[User:Z80Spectrum]] then began discussing the dispute with [[User:Ritchie333]], an end run around my mediation, so I failed the mediation. <br /> *I will comment that I started off sympathetic to [[User:Z80Spectrum]] about the talk page edits. The [[WP:TPO|guidelines on editing other editors' talk page posts]] are poorly written, and do not clarify when the removal of talk page material is in order. My opinion is that they should state that removal is only rarely appropriate, and that normally disputed talk page material should be either archived or userfied. So I started out thinking that [[User:Chaheel Riens]] had been overly aggressive, but I tried to maintain neutrality. [[User:Z80Spectrum]] soon acted aggressively, making an accusation on the talk page of [[User:Ritchie333]] that I still don't entirely understand, but that appeared to be [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]]. Two months later is late to apologize for a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] that was called out at the time. Now [[User:Z80Spectrum]] wants to reopen a dispute that had faded away more than a month ago. <br /> *This filing is a [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] thrown by [[User:Z80Spectrum]]. If the community agrees with [[User:VQuakr]] that there isn't a current issue, then the issue is what to do about this [[vexatious litigation]] by the filing editor. I think that there wasn't a current issue until this report was filed, but now this report is reopening something.<br /> *One possible resolution to this case would be a one-way [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]] on [[User:Z80Spectrum]] against interacting with or attacking [[User:Chaheel Riens]].[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm not very glad to read this opinion of yours. I would have liked it better if you had communicated it to me earlier, which wasn't the case. I'm not &quot;reopening&quot; this dispute, as the dispute was never closed. <br /> *:I would like to point out that all I want is the 26 KiB of deleted talk page material to be restored and archived (that's the primary reason for this WP:ANI report). I will accept the interaction ban on my behalf, or any similar measure, to get that deleted content restored. I also wanted to clarify the ambiguities in the WP:TPG guideline, but that is secondary. This dispute is not about opinions, it is about proper application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and those are not decided by a community vote.<br /> *:I think that your accusation of vexatious litigation is not very nice. What else should I have done to get the deleted content restored? Did I not do everything you have suggested to me? Did you communicate any other suggestions to me earlier? I do not care about any measures to [[User:Chaheel Riens]], as I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_48#ZX_Spectrum_-_additional_note said earlier on your talk page]. <br /> *:From my point of view, [[User:Chaheel Riens]] was misinterpreting my words so I felt no need to apologize on my own incentive. If he had asked me to apologize on my talk page, I would have apologized. I even apologized to one unrelated editor, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dionysius_Miller#My_aplologies]. The discussion at DRN was interrupted due to the copyright issues, and I considered those a priority over the DRN discussion. In spite of your alleged &quot;sympathetic&quot; stance towards me, your post is a one way attack against me, with not a single word said in defense of my perspective. Therefore, I doubt your neutrality.<br /> *:I certainly don't want this discussion to get derailed again by off-topic comments, so I would like to remind that the reported issue is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material. If my conduct had not been stellar, I will accept the consequences, I will accept the boomerang, but I won't accept if the reported issue is completely ignored. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 06:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': I think this boomerang has NOTHERRE written on it; way too much valuable time has been wasted on this. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 05:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ===Another Reply to [[User:Z80Spectrum]]===<br /> ::[[User:Z80Spectrum]] writes: {{tqb| I'm not very glad to read this opinion of yours. I would have liked it better if you had communicated it to me earlier, which wasn't the case. I'm not &quot;reopening&quot; this dispute, as the dispute was never closed.}}<br /> :::When earlier would you have wanted me to communicate with you? In early February? I started a discussion of talk page removals at [[WT:TPG|the Talk Page Guidelines talk page]], in which I said that the talk page guidelines about removal of talk page posts were poorly written. Between 4 March and 17 March? You took a break from editing. If you were ill, I am sorry that you were ill and hope you have recovered. If so, I apologize for any rudeness on my part. <br /> :::You say that the dispute was never closed. It was never closed at [[WT:TPG|the Talk Page Guidelines talk page]]. It was closed at [[WP:DRN|DRN]]. It appears that it was closed there because you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue, in which you said that you had evidence that some editors were scammers and liars. It was your fault that you entangled two disputes, which confused me and confused [[User:Ritchie333]], and looked to me like a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] on [[User:Chaheel Riens]]. <br /> ::It is true that I am no longer sympathetic or neutral. That is your own fault.<br /> ::If you were ill, I am sorry, and I hope that you have recovered. In any case, the talk page removal is not a conduct issue, because it is an issue of a poorly worded guideline. If there is any conduct issue, it is your conduct. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 15:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt1.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|When earlier would you have wanted me to communicate with you? }}<br /> :::For example, at any time after 21 February 2024 would have been fine, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Z80Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209366787 after I had pinged you].<br /> :::'''Pt2.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|It was closed at DRN. It appears that it was closed there because you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue [...cut...] It was your fault that you entangled two disputes [...] }}<br /> :::No, it was not my fault. Or, maybe it is my fault, if I was supposed to stop the editing completely while the DRN case was in progress. How could I had known in advance that my attempt to coordinate efforts with [[User:4throck]] would lead me to stumble upon [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:4throck&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196226931 the copyright issue] (which is at the end of a discussion with him)?<br /> :::[[User:4throck]] was previously mostly sympathetic towards me and my writings, like in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1184433585 this comment], which is a part of the 26 KiB of deleted content.<br /> :::'''Pt3.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq| [...] you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue, in which you said that you had evidence that some editors were scammers and liars. }}<br /> :::No, that is just your interpretation. I have said: &quot;You must consider the possibility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers.&quot;, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197434065 here]. There is a big difference. Notice the words &quot;'''possibility'''&quot; and &quot;'''might'''&quot;. I don't like such serious misinterpretations of my words.<br /> :::'''Pt4.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq| It is true that I am no longer sympathetic or neutral. That is your own fault. }}<br /> :::The evidence is mounting that you were never sympathetic or neutral. For example at DRN, you took no action against [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197162384 this comment], where another editor is acting contrary to your [[Wikipedia:DRN Rule F]], section 9 (also, in my opinion [[User:Chaheel Riens]] is completely misinterpreting the &quot;archiving problem&quot; there).<br /> :::Two days before that, I reported this case to WP:ANI, based on what you have said <br /> :::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1195796819 here], and based on behavior of [[User:Chaheel Riens]], where it took him 42 hours to reply with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196399728 this comment] where I was accused of making a &quot;threat&quot;.<br /> :::After I reported the case to WP:ANI, you have proposed to continue the moderated discussion, which was fine. However, after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196480778 I objected ], the case at ANI should have been reopened, and the case at DRN should have been closed, as you have previously stated. Instead, you said {{tq|I would suggest that you follow the guidance of User:Ritchie333 who closed your complaint at WP:ANI. }}, defending the inappropriate closure of my case at WP:ANI. I agreed, nonetheless. However, given all that has happened at the DRN, it was quickly getting obvious that the case has no chance of succeeding, and it was getting worse by a series of misinterpretations by [[User:Chaheel Riens]]. For example: I was the one who agreed to archiving, and I clearly stated it at least three times: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196507327 here ], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196752695 here], and much earlier, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chaheel_Riens&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194929135 here] on [[User:Chaheel Riens]] talk page. In the DRN discussion, [[User:Chaheel Riens]] was constantly making it appear as if I had something against archiving, by citing various technical trivialities, and by attempting to dodge the archiving question as long as possible.<br /> :::'''Pt5.''' However, I decided to interpret all that as a honest mistake on your part, [[User:Robert McClenon]]. I considered that the &quot;honest mistake&quot; interpretation is the most likely one.<br /> :::'''Pt6.''' By the time I raised the copyright issue, the discussion at DRN had already have failed, at least from my point of view. I also consider the legal situation with copyright to be of much higher priority.<br /> :::'''Pt7.''' I judge that all the arguments against me are either gross misinterpretations of my words or gross misinterpretations of the entire situation. From my point of view, it is now quite likely that some of those misinterpretations were intentional, and some are a consequence of common human biases (i.e. [[User:Robert McClenon]] is far from being neutral, he is just acting in support of a long term editor, and against me as a newbie). I judge that even such are a normal and expected part of discussions.<br /> ::: All the evidence shows that I was the one who had a lot of sympathy for both [[User:Robert McClenon]] and for [[User:Chaheel Riens]], and I still do. I'm willing to instantly forget all the injustices that you have done to me, under the condition that the 26 KiB of deleted material is restored. Then we can engage in a discussion whether that material is WP:OR, or not, on the &quot;ZX Spectrum graphics modes&quot; page, and any further implications of that material.<br /> :::Took me three hours to write this. I hope that you appreciate it. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 21:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Boomerang''', whether that's a [[WP:CIR]] block, or a topic ban to prevent future disruption. This should have been dropped months ago, but instead [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] has chosen to drag it out. [[WP:FORUM]] is definitely a bit vague, but this is not a good choice of edits to pick a fight over. What's more concerning is Z80Spectrum's insistence that this must be resolved to their satisfaction, after leaving it fallow for a month, as well as trying to insist the ''real'' problem is {{tq|the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material}}, rather than their dogged insistence on litigating this. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 16:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I was not &quot;insisting&quot; on anything. I don't have the power to do so. I was saying that I would very likely consider it unjust if my complaint about the deletion of the 26 KiB of deleted material is disregarded. I don't see any way in which that deletion can be justified, in the sense that I expect the deleted material to be restored.<br /> *:[[User:HandThatFeeds]] said {{tq|after leaving it fallow for a month}} ... Wikipedia is not my full-time job. As I red in one of the essays, time passes slowly here, and breaks in disputes are usually welcome. It can be easily verified that all the last comments (before I took a break in this dispute) are mine, and that it was other editors who all went silent before I took a break. I can't reply to their silence. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 22:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Z80Spectrum, I mean this with all due respect and in all good faith, but for your own good, walk away. Deciding to go to battle with Robert McClenon, who is basically Wikipedia's aptheosis of equanimity, is not going to find you favor. We know how you judge your situation, but please take into account that others may judge it differently. All the best. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 22:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Thank you for your reply, which I judge was in very good faith. Unfortunately, I habitually don't respond affirmatively to any [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority arguments from authority]. All arguments with me have to be properly justified, in a properly conducted and fair discussion. If that is unacceptable on Wikipedia, feel free to ban me. So yes, I'm going to argue against the respected [[User:Robert McClenon]], until the arguments show that I'm in the wrong, or until I'm banned. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 23:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::To be clear, I am not saying you must agree with anything Robert says. I am merely saying there is a vast swath of territory between 'disagreement' and 'picking a fight.' Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 15:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::I didn't pick a fight with him, he picked a fight with me. I didn't invite him here. I said nothing about him before he did it here first, and I only replied to his comments. I'm also giving a peaceful offer, which is the same one from the very start of this case: to forget it all, if the deleted material is restored and archieved. Perhaps I forgot to say that I will likely write about this incident on my user page, but I can try to avoid mentioning names there. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::{{tq| I'm also giving a peaceful offer[...]: to forget it all, if the deleted material is restored and archieved.}} <br /> *::::::It's [[argumentum ad baculum|either your way or total war]]?!?? &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 18:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|Wikipedia is not my full-time job.}}<br /> *::No one is saying it should be. But, after a month, the discussion is dead and over. Dragging it back out over and over to get your way is just [[WP:TEND|tendentious]]. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 15:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *{{re|Z80Spectrum}} in reviewing past interactions I was reminded of [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3AParrot_standard.png&amp;diff=843591192&amp;oldid=843256802 this] (quite specious) interaction regarding copyright. When people are talking about [[WP:CIR]] in this context, &quot;competence&quot; is regarding your ability to collaborate on a project that is defined by its collaboration. It seems to me that you have battled or argued with nearly everyone you've interacted with; is that a habit you are able to change? [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 00:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:A fair question. Primarily, Wikipedia is a system. More precisely, Wikipedia is a complex system consisting of a community of people, principles, policies and guidelines, server-side software and data.<br /> *:All complex systems have faults of significant importance, and no human-made system ever has worked without failures. I am a newbie user here. I have to defend myself from all the consequences of the Wikipedia-as-a-system, including its many faults.<br /> *:In the case you have mentioned, if the copyright information of the problematic image was invalid, then I would have been legally liable to persecution. I consider such circumstances as a physical attack on me, as a consequence of one of Wikipedia's failures. I considered it as a grave and important situation.<br /> *:Wikipedia can't claim infallibility. I can't just rely on opinions of a few editors, or on information displayed by Wikipedia. Thus I demanded an opinion of an expert. I had every right to defend myself, in my opinion. When I got a good-enough explanation, I accepted it. If I have extensively argued before that moment, it means that I always had some unanswered objections.<br /> *:'''The problem would not have existed if the disputed image was hosted on Wikipedia''', instead of a third-party website.<br /> *:Instead, Wikipedia-as-a-system forced me, under a possibility of a legal threat, to extract the necessary copyright information from Wikipedia in a somewhat aggressive way. '''No one was seriously harmed''', as far as I can tell.<br /> *:You are correct in stating that I have argued with many people on Wikipedia. '''The problem is that I joined Wikipedia with a dispute-at-hand'''. It was not just an ordinary dispute, but a dispute where [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Some_Follow-Up_Comments_Regarding_Removing_Material conflicting interpretations already existed] before I joined Wikipedia. '''That is not my fault'''.<br /> *:I would honestly suggest to Wikipedia-as-a-system to try to fix its own faults first, and to not shift blame on the users, and especially not on newbie users. Unfortunately, complex systems are similar to persons, and they don't like to be criticized, so they usually don't listen to criticisms. I would also suggest to Wikipedia-as-a-system to be more tolerant of newbies, to not try to immediately intimidate them with [[WP:LAWYER]]. When reading many pages and essays here, I came under the impression that this criticism is already well-know, and that '''the real problem is in Wikipedia's reluctance to improve itself'''. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 03:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::My thoughts:<br /> *::- There are many ways you could improve Wikipedia that don't involve trying to restore that talk page - ways which it seems to me that a lot of others in this discussion would rather be doing instead of discussing this even more. Maybe seems unfair, but it appears that that is the current state of things.<br /> *::- If you want to improve the article and discuss it in the talk page, you can still do that, if you want to look at the deleted talk page content to find ways to improve the article, you can also still do that (by looking at the talk page from before it was removed).<br /> *::- Are you right? Are you wrong? Those questions should matter a lot less than questions like &quot;How can we move on? What can we still improve? How can we discuss it in a way that won't result in someone interpreting it as violating [[WP:TALK]]?&quot;.<br /> *::The big thing here, is that this does not appear to be an issue of great significance, and the more time that is taken to either try to resolve the dispute or discuss things here in ANI (honestly, the more time that it takes to read big walls of text too) the less people are going to want to do that, because it's a lot of time for little gain.<br /> *::&lt;br&gt;<br /> *::I don't agree with people saying that you should be sanctioned for making this ANI thread and for having dug this topic after people had moved on, because you made this thread as a way to continue the dispute (which seems to have been left as a possibility in the conclusion of the the DRN discussion) and because of what your intentions appear to have been when making it, but I think that you should withdraw this ANI thread and move on from and forget this dispute before people actually do get you blocked for it.<br /> *::The value you bring to Wikipedia is directly weighed against the time that is taken away from other editors without that time being used to improve or protect the Wikipedia.<br /> *::&amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|talk]]) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::And just to be clear, since I'm unsure how aware of how things work you are, withdrawing means saying that you do, that's all. &amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|2804:F1...7E:615D]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|talk]]) 04:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::If I understand it right, you are suggesting a compromise in which I withdraw, and I also suffer no consequences. I decline such a compromise (which was provided in good faith) due to the following:<br /> *::::'''Objection 1.''' Such a compromise implies that I consent to devaluing most of my work on Wikipedia so far, in return for some kind of &quot;safety&quot;. I would turn out to be a complete coward, which I am not.<br /> *::::'''Objection 2.''' Such a compromise is not in accordance with my stated principles of justified and fair discussions. I would much rather see and suffer the consequences of the outcome which is at this moment uncertain, than to retreat without being given proper justifications.<br /> *::::'''Objection 3.''' I think that I'm fighting for the right cause. The outcome of this ANI case would likely serve as a precedent that clarifies the ambiguities of WP:TPO, which was one of my goals. One of the worst outcomes from my point of view would be the perpetuation of the status quo, in which WP:TPG remains ambiguous. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 06:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::{{tq|The outcome of this ANI case would likely serve as a precedent that clarifies the ambiguities of WP:TPO, which was one of my goals.}}<br /> *:::::You are vastly overestimating the importance of this discussion. You're also [[WP:RGW|fighting the wrong battle.]] If you want sanctions, I expect you're going to get them now. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 15:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::This isn't a battle to be won and lost based on courage or cowardice. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 00:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Z80Spectrum, if you feel being banned from the topic page or Wikipedia in general is worth making your point, then that is certainly fine. I just want to make sure you're aware that you are making the former a near certainty and the latter more and more probable. All the best however things should go. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Thank you, Dumuzid. If I'm banned, I can take it. I wasn't editing Wikipedia much before this incident, and I can certainly live without editing Wikipedia in the future. I wasn't even planning to edit Wikipedia, I was just bored, about 4 months ago. So, don't worry about me. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 01:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ===Yet Another Reply to [[User:Z80Spectrum]]===<br /> :You seem to be arguing with yourself, and one of the risks of arguing with oneself is that one may lose the argument. On the one hand, you agree that [[WP:TPO|the guideline on editing the talk page posts of other editors]] is poorly written and ambiguous. On the other hand, you say that you have reopened this [[WP:ANI]] thread because the removal of your 26K post is a conduct issue on the part of [[User:Chaheel Riens]]. If the guideline is poorly written, it is unfair to argue that there was a conduct violation, but maybe you are arguing both ways.<br /> :You have now decided that I was never neutral. You probably won't believe me, but I started out thinking that your 26K posts should be restored, because I thought and still think that deletion of talk page posts should only be done rarely. I disagreed with [[User:Chaheel Riens]], and thought that they were overreacting when they deleted your 26K post. I still think that, other things being equal, your 26K should be restored either to an article talk page archive, to your user talk page, or to a user talk page archive. I was inclined in that direction until you went to the talk page of [[User:Ritchie333]]. It appeared to me that you are asking for his help with regard to the dispute about the talk page post. I now see that you were asking for his help with regard to a copyright dispute. I still don't know what the copyright dispute was, and I am not sure whether I want to know. <br /> :You say, in '''Pt 3''', that I misunderstood what you were saying, about scammers and liars. That is probably true, but you said that you had evidence:<br /> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARitchie333&amp;diff=1197436589&amp;oldid=1197435165<br /> :You said that you had evidence. Now you say that is only my interpretation. <br /> :You write: {{tqb|I didn't pick a fight with him, he picked a fight with me. I didn't invite him here. I said nothing about him before he did it here first, and I only replied to his comments.}} If you mean me, I didn't pick a fight with you. You say that you didn't invite me here. By &quot;here&quot;, do you mean [[WP:ANI]]? It is true that you didn't ping me, but I was always here. Unlike you, I didn't take a two-week or four-week break from Wikipedia. You wrote: {{tq|I'm not &quot;reopening&quot; this dispute, as the dispute was never closed.}} So did you think that I would have forgotten about it? <br /> :I didn't pick a fight. <br /> :Thank you, [[User:Dumuzid]], for your positive comment.<br /> ====Starting Over ? ====<br /> Now, at this point, here are the issues that I think remain:<br /> *1. [[User:Z80Spectrum]] wants their 26K of deleted posts back. That material has not been [[WP:REVDEL|revision-deleted]]. Z80Spectrum can copy it to a user subpage in user space. If they want it in article talk space, they can resume the discussion of [[WP:UPG|the talk page guidelines]], but at least they will have it. A user has more control over their own user space than over article talk space. If anyone else thinks that the material is inappropriate for user space, they can nominate the material for [[WP:MFD|MFD]]. Userfication should be a satisfactory compromise that doesn't require a community decision.<br /> *2. Z80Spectrum did say that they have evidence. That was not a hypothetical statement, but an allegation against someone. They should either present the evidence, or say that they were just talking wildly. <br /> *3. Is there anything else?<br /> [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Z80Spectrum said they want {{tq|the deleted material [...] restored and archived}}, or else. &quot;Material&quot; being his [[WP:OR]]. No thanks. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 04:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I dislike your comment, Paradoctor. I repeat, again, a quote from [[WP:OR]]: {{tq|This policy does not apply to talk pages}}. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Article talk pages exist to discuss changes to the corresponding article. &quot;I dislike your comment&quot; is an oddly (bizarrely, even!) confrontational way of putting things. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 17:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Pt11.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq| You seem to be arguing with yourself ...}}<br /> :Your argument depends at least on a presumption that the property of being ambiguous can only have a yes or no answer. I argue that there exist many intermediates, or degrees, of ambiguity. WP:TPO is not ambiguous to such a degree that absolutely no conclusion can be reached. I judge that, upon careful reading, WP:TPO supports my side of the argument to a level significantly higher than the case for deletion.<br /> :I will skip the detailed justification of my previous sentence. Instead, I ask you this: '''can you quote a part of''' [[WP:TPO]] which, in your opinion, supports the case for deletion of the disputed 26 KiB? Such a quotation would be a good start of a fair discussion.<br /> :On the other hand, you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1195796819 have stated at DRN] : {{tq|However, it is my opinion that the removal of material posted by another editor to an article talk page is only allowed under unusual circumstances, and those circumstances were not present. So the removal of the large amount of talk page material was an error. }} From my point of view, it appears that you are the one who is now arguing against own previous statements.<br /> :'''Pt12.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|You probably won't believe me, but I started out thinking that your 26K posts should be restored ...}} Actually, I believe you. In the vast majority of cases, bias is sub-conscious. Biased persons are usually not aware that they are biased. Or, perhaps you were not biased, and it was some other kind of a honest mistake. Still, that DRN case was unjust towards me, primarily because it should have been closed and moved to WP:ANI when I requested it.<br /> :'''Pt13.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|I still think that, other things being equal, your 26K should be restored [...]. I was inclined in that direction until you went to the talk page of User:Ritchie333. …}}<br /> :I judge that as invalid. One thing has nothing to do with another. I see no valid logical connections between whether the content should be restored and what I said on the page of User:Ritchie333 .<br /> :'''Pt14.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|You said that you had evidence. Now you say that is only my interpretation. …}}<br /> :I have already apologized for that entire discussion on User:Ritchie333 talk page, three times: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215019037] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dionysius_Miller#My_aplologies] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01#c-Z80Spectrum-20240129030400-Clindberg-20240129005500]. I now apologize for the fourth time. I would also like to point out that I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1197467546 ended that discussion with] {{tq|You win. I've had enough. I don't even know why am I wasting time here. }}. That final post of mine was an attempt to cancel what I have said there. Obviously, it wasn't clear enough.<br /> :This insistent objections concerning those few sentences on User:Ritchie333 talk page are getting in the way of a fair discussion. I have a feeling that you and [[User:Chaheel Riens]] are trying to scare me and silence me by quoting that discussion only when I try to argue for the restoration of the deleted material. I won't search now for evidence in support of that feeling of mine, but I will do it if the issue is brought up again.<br /> :I repeat: I see no valid logical connections between restoration of the deleted material and what I have said on the page of User:Ritchie333 .<br /> :'''Pt15.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|If you mean me, I didn't pick a fight with you. […] By &quot;here&quot;, do you mean WP:ANI? }}<br /> :Yes, I mean/meant you, [[User:Robert McClenon]]. I was replying to an answer of another editor who used the phrase &quot;pick a fight&quot; first. I re-used his phrase due to concerns of clarity. Yes, I meant WP:ANI.<br /> :'''Pt16.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|Unlike you, I didn't take a two-week or four-week break from Wikipedia. }}<br /> :On WP:ANI, I have already provided an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215232772 answer to your allusion].<br /> :So, you claim that you were present on Wikipedia. Tell me, have you done something related to this dispute since February 21st? If you did, I'm still unaware of it. I was mostly absent, and I might have missed some important development, so I would like to get informed. Or, perhaps you did nothing since February 21st?<br /> :-<br /> :'''Answers to the three points titled &quot;Starting Over ?&quot;:'''<br /> :'''Pt21.''' (answer to 1.) The question is not where can I copy the deleted material, but primarily whether the deletion was justified. Perhaps you are trying to say that the deleted material belongs better to my user space, but I don't think it does. The deleted material is strongly connected to the &quot;ZX Spectrum graphics modes&quot; article, where it should be discussed. The deleted material specifically discusses improvements only to that article, and also discusses and documents methods of generating images specifically for that article.<br /> :I see no justification in the guidelines for your proposed compromise. '''Can you quote a part of''' [[WP:TPO]] that would support your proposal to move the disputed material to my user space?<br /> :A rhetorical question: '''What would you say if I proposed that every comment you wrote on any talk page should be moved to your user space, as a compromise?'''<br /> :I propose as an equally good &quot;compromise&quot; (ironically): If the 26 KB of disputed material is moved to my user space, then I should be allowed to pick 26 KB of yours and User:Chaheel Riens posts and move them to your and his user space.<br /> :'''Pt22.''' (answer to 2.) When I said &quot;I have evidence&quot;, I meant that [[User:4throck]]<br /> :a) provided me with a link to an image hosted on a third-party website<br /> :b) didn't upload the disputed image to the Commons, even after I notified him; that inaction appeared to me as a possible attempt to hide information about copyright.<br /> :c) the image he previously uploaded to the Commons was modified in a strange way, which made me extremely suspicious<br /> :'''Pt23.''' (answer to 3.) Yes, there is more. Given the totality of your objections and proposals in this discussion on WP:ANI so far, I would estimate that, generally speaking, you are not arguing properly. I ask for arguments and justifications of better quality. I especially dislike apparent constant attempts to blame me for as many things as possible, which then causes me to spend unnecessary time and space for rebuttals of each accusation (since I might be punished by WP:ANI for any single accusation of yours). To accusations, I might respond with counter-accusations, as I did. To valid arguments, I will respond with arguments.<br /> :Please, if you want to improve the quality of this discussion, then try to provide a small number of well-thought out arguments, instead of a multitude of short, but easily rebutted arguments. You can start by answering the two questions that I have partially bolded/highlighted. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Good Lord, this is becoming a veritable black hole waste of time. I didn't realise it was still ongoing, as my username was incorrectly spelled in some of the earlier pings, so I never received them. However, I'll make just a couple of observations and try to keep away in general:<br /> ::# {{tpq|I propose as an equally good &quot;compromise&quot; (ironically): If the 26 KB of disputed material is moved to my user space, then I should be allowed to pick 26 KB of yours and User:Chaheel Riens posts and move them to your and his user space}} - that depends on whether the 26Kb in question has been challenged, and the reasons behind it. As this would obviously be a [[WP:POINTY]] edit, then you would most likely find your actions had consequences that you would undoubtedly feel were unfair. (Incidentally, you state that this is a rhetorical question, but also ask for it to be answered. It can't be both, but I chose the latter.)<br /> ::# The issue here that you are still fixated on the talk page removal, and [[WP:STICK|will not let it go]] - to the extent where everything else fades out and your position ''must'' be accepted. However, to every other editor this is no longer the case - even those who supported you at first. It's now turned into a primarily a conduct issue, albeit ''your'' conduct around the original issue (even if mine was questioned at the start) - yet you refuse to accept or take advice in that respect. Even back when DRN was first mooted I was prepared to accept the outcome regardless, and recognised that {{tpq|I've interacted with Robert before in passing - he's to be respected}} [[User_talk:Chaheel_Riens/Archive_1#ZX_Spectrum_modes|here]]. I ''tried'' to support you, I really did - when you first joined I left you a [[User_talk:Z80Spectrum#Welcome!|Welcome template]] on your talk page, and recognised that you were just venting with your userpage, voting to '''keep'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Z80Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197682148], but you make it a hard row, and I feel like it's against the current. You seem to be making it personal, and that's not a good place to edit from. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt31.''' (answer to 1.) Perhaps I used a wrong word there (i.e. &quot;ironically&quot;). Precisely: that last &quot;compromise&quot; of mine should not be understood at face value. I also think that you didn't correctly identify the &quot;two questions that I have partially bolded/highlighted&quot;. It is likely a honest mistake on your part.<br /> :::Whether the disputed content should be moved to my user space is a question of justification and a question of consistence. A justification has to be found in the policies and guidelines. &quot;Consistence&quot; is about the usual and accepted ways to solve this kind of a dispute. It would be the best if both the justification and the &quot;consistence&quot; coincide into one and the same action.<br /> :::'''Pt32.''' (answer to 2.) I'll only let go if I'm provided with a valid justification (which can also be based on the concept of consistence, but such is a much more complex argument to make). &quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Without a proper justification, you can't convince me. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::[[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. If you can't convince other editors you're right, then you ''have'' to drop it. This is policy on Wikipedia. If you can't handle it, you're in the wrong place. <br /> ::::[[WP:CONSENSUS]]: {{tq|'''Consensus''' is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making [...] [[Consensus decision making|Consensus]] on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity [...] nor is the result of a [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|vote]].}} &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::No, I don't have to convince other editors. Conduct issues are decided by WP:ANI, and the deletion od 26 KB is a conduct issue. I'd like to hear the judgement of WP:ANI. I hope that it will be properly justified. Until then, I'll be posting my counter-arguments, in order to better inform the administrators at WP:ANI of my side of the argument. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 01:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|The question is not where can I copy the deleted material, but primarily whether the deletion was justified.}} This seems quite a lot like a [[WP:BATTLE|battleground mentality]].<br /> ::{{tq|...didn't upload the disputed image to the Commons, even after I notified him; that inaction appeared to me as a possible attempt to hide information about copyright....which made me extremely suspicious.}} All editing is voluntary. It is not reasonable to make demands of other editors. [[WP:AGF|Assuming good faith]], however, is not optional. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 17:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt41.''' [[User:Vquakr]] said: {{tq|All editing is voluntary. It is not reasonable to make demands of other editors. Assuming good faith, however, is not optional. }}<br /> :::OK. However, I argue that I had good reasons for being suspicious, due to the gravity (i.e. importance) of legal problems. I argue that I had the right to demand immediate clarification of the copyright problem, and that I had sufficient reasons for being suspicious. Even if it wasn't entirely so, that has no implications on the restoration of the 26 KB disputed material. The issue of my conduct is a separate issue. I can't tell how much have I overstepped, as I am a newbie here. I have already agreed to accept the boomerang. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*{{tq|'''can you quote a part of''' [[WP:TPO]] which, in your opinion, supports the case for deletion of the disputed 26 KiB?}}<br /> ::Can't speak for Robert, but ''I'' do. <br /> ::[[WP:TALKOFFTOPIC]]: {{tq|It is common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself}} <br /> ::Which OR always is, by definition. <br /> ::Which I told you more than five weeks ago, on your talk page. You have [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|hearing issues]]. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt42.''' [[User:Paradoctor]] said: {{tq| WP:TALKOFFTOPIC: It is common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself }}<br /> :::I think this is a repetition of the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Z80Spectrum#Talk_page_guidelines_vs._ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes on my talk page], in which you participated. I'll reply [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Z80Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209392534 the same as I did there], but shorter : {{tq| The deleted discussion is not a discussion about article's subject (the subject are the graphics modes), but about article content (images in the article are content). }} [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{tq|I think this is a repetition}} Uh, I literally said so. Let me repeat another bit of yours from slightly further down: {{tq|Frankly, I can't see your side of the argument at all}}. <br /> ::::Me and everyone else. So, lots of not seeing on all sides. What are we to do? The fact is, for whatever reason, and whomever you wish to blame for that, you couldn't convince anyone to accept your position. Which means your position won't result in content. <br /> ::::You dislike this, sure. I understand. But it is clear that further discussion will not lead to conversions. Attempting to continue the campaign will only waste the time of other editors. So, unless you ''wish'' to be sanctioned, it is time to [[WP:DEADHORSE|drop it]] now. Remember what Obi Wan said to Anakin on Mustafar. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 01:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I don't know what's the best way to say this, but I want to say to you that you are, by your nature, quite an amusing person. You make me smile. I would like that to be understood in a positive way. So, I can't say that I dislike your comment.<br /> :::::That was a slight digression. On the serious side, your argument is just a version of a fallacy known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Argumentum ad populum]. I would like to be given proper justifications, not fallacies. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::You know, if you try to condescend to someone, at least make sure you're right. I never said consensus makes right. I said [[WP:CONSENSUS|Wikipedia operates through consensus]], and consensus is not with you here and now. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 02:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I forgot to say that I accept only the original trilogy, so Obi Wan on Mustafar didn't happen. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :* And from [[WP:NOTFORUM]]: &quot;Per our policy on '''original research''', please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: ... #4 Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia ... bear in mind that '''article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles'''; they are '''not for general discussion''' about the subject of the article&quot; &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 18:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:'''Pt43.''' I have already discussed that in other forums. I argue that the deleted 26 KB is solely about improving the article. To verify it, you have to read the deleted 26 KB: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;oldid=1194297511#How_to_simulate_Spectrum's_PAL_output this topic (at least the first post)], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;oldid=1194297511#c-80.80.52.99-20231111154100-80.80.52.174-20231111033300 this part, which is about improving the &quot;Colour palette&quot; section of the article] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Colour_palette].<br /> :*:Also, I would like to remind that [[WP:OR]] does not apply to talk pages. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::This is your research: {{tq|Let's compute this conversion of &quot;theoretic&quot; ZX Spectrum PAL colors into sRGB color space. They are &quot;theoretic&quot; because we are assuming the maximum possible saturation that a ZX Spectrum could possibly achieve on the PAL output. The real colors produced by a ZX Spectrum on the PAL output are probably less saturated. The real colors are currently unknown, and the only way to find them out is by an oscilloscope, via the UV voltages method (by measuring amplitude-phase shift of chroma sub-carrier).}}<br /> :*::Where is the [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that says what you are saying there? <br /> :*::What do you not understand about [[WP:V]]?<br /> :*::{{tq|content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or [[Wikipedia:No original research|previously unpublished ideas or information]]. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.}} &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 01:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::I would like to remind that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::::WP:OR does not apply to normal appropriate talk page discussions, this means discussing with reliable sources improvements to the article. This type of discussion is not original research. You however are not using the talk pages for discussion within these talk page guidelines, you are using talk pages to try and publish your own thoughts, this is original research and per WP:NOTFORUM is is not allowed. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 02:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::Oh, [WP:V], sorry, here you go: {{tq|All material in Wikipedia mainspace, ...}} [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::::You are abusing talk page discussions to publish your own thoughts, these cannot be WP:V and using talk pages to try and end run around WP:V won't work. I think this is why you are so desperate to have this content put back on a talk page instead of your userspace, you can't get your WP:OR in the article directly, so the talk page is the next choice. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 02:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::::I have replied below at the start of &quot;Courtesy Break (1)&quot;. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Firstly, I'd like to clarify that I'm new to ANI, so forgive me if I miss any formalities. However, I wanted to chime in because like other editors here, I really don't see how this content dispute qualifies as a ''{{tq|chronic, intractable problem}}''. The dispute effectively amounts to a several month-old removal of talk page content, which has been dragged to death via various noticeboards. What exactly is the point of bringing this here? If it's content, this discussion does not belong here. I agree with the IP's suggestion for Z80Spectrum to withdraw this thread, before they continue to dig a hole for themselves, running the risk of potential sanctions. What I ''do'' find intractable, however, is Z80Spectrum's [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground mentality]], which has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout this thread, e.g ''{{tq|users are trying to scare and silence me}}'', (which is demonstrably false, since your own actions have led you to this point, not mine, nor anyone else's), and ''{{tq|I would turn out to be a complete coward, which I am not}}''. As @[[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] succinctly put it, this isn't a battle to be won and lost based on courage or cowardice. Irrespective of whether or not the removal was justified, I think Z80Spectrum needs to stop digging a hole for themselves. This really isn't a hill that one should die on. [[User:Bandit Heeler|Bandit Heeler]] ([[User talk:Bandit Heeler|talk]]) 22:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Courtesy Break (1)===<br /> <br /> After an approx. 15 hours break, I would like to continue the argumentation here. I'll skip the replies to all the argument so far where I estimate that they are either obviously false, fallacious, off-topic, irrelevant, or without sufficient substance. <br /> <br /> As far as I can tell, that leaves only two posts unanswered, by [[User:TimothyBlue]], where he talks about applicability of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]] policies. [[User:TimothyBlue]] said: {{tq|You are abusing talk page discussions to publish your own thoughts ... }}<br /> <br /> '''My answer is as follows.''' Generally speaking, Wikipedia talk pages contain thoughts of users. I estimate that user's thoughts form over 50% of the total Wikipedia talk page material. Wikipedia does not require user's thoughts published on talk pages to be verifiable. Upon reading the [[WP:V]] policy, it can be easily noticed that it speaks primarily about article content, and not about talk page material.<br /> <br /> Additionally, most parts of the disputed 26 KiB material are actually easily verifiable. You just need to use a calculator, and you need some introductory knowledge in the topics covered.<br /> <br /> Similar reasoning applies with regards to [[WP:OR]], which explicitly and clearly states: {{tq|This policy does not apply to talk pages... }} . If Wikipedia was to apply [[WP:OR]] to content of talk pages, it would imply that all the talk page discussions have to be just slight re-interpretations of material already published somewhere else. That would further imply the need to put inline references into all sentences published on talk pages. So, it is not any kind of a wonder that [[WP:OR]] does not apply to talk pages.<br /> <br /> [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :[[WP:PLAYPOLICY]] &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You have a right to state that opinion of yours. I argue that it is an undoubtable and obvious intention of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]] to be applicable only to mainspace (i.e. to articles, and not to talk pages). Therefore, I'm not gaming the use of policies and guidelines. Instead, I'm providing a very obvious interpretation of WP:OR and WP:V. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Topic ban===<br /> <br /> Given the above lengthy comment, which dismisses concerns as {{tq|easily rebutted arguments}} and that users {{tq|are trying to scare me and silence me}}, I can see no option besides the following:<br /> <br /> *&lt;s&gt;'''Topic ban''' [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] from [[Sinclair Research]] and related articles.&lt;/s&gt; I chose this more broad topic ban (rather than just the [[Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes]] page) as I expect this will continue at those related pages otherwise. This is the only way to put this interminable argument to rest and bring focus back to improving these articles, rather than going in circles over a months-old [[WP:FORUM]] removal from the Talk page. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 21:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|HandThatFeeds}} their area of interest/expertise is clearly linked to that subject area given their user name and editing history; topic banning them from that area rather than addressing the behavioral issues seems like an indef block by another name, and ''if'' they started editing in another area with the same behavior the same issues would arise. Put another way, this boils down to battleground mentality not the subject area so I don't think a topic ban is the right tool. As an alternative: what about a ban from arguing against or uncollapsing off-topic talk page posts, with a warning that future forum-like posts, synthetic talk page posts, or battleground behavior will likely result in a block? [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::&lt;s&gt;Z80Spectrum seems to have an interest in technology in general - a look at their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Z80Spectrum&amp;target=Z80Spectrum&amp;offset=&amp;limit=500 contributions so far] (once the talk page and ANI chaff is filtered out) shows a fairly wide breadth of computer related interests. A topic ban here would not restrict them as much as a block, indef or not. Additionally, they have made constructive edits to the [[ZX Spectrum]] article - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZX_Spectrum&amp;diff=1214435159&amp;oldid=1214433745 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZX_Spectrum&amp;diff=1211653251&amp;oldid=1211596298 here] for example. I think a topic ban would work for just the [[ZX Spectrum graphic modes]] article &amp; talk page. Not being a mop-holder, I'm also unaware, but I do - best will in the world - think that some kind of attitude warning or restriction based on the [[WP:STICK]] and battleground mentality is in order. As an involved (!) party, I'm not sure how much weight my observations carry though. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 22:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/s&gt;<br /> :::'''Indef block''' - Changed my mind based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215583779 this comment] in '''Pt32.''' (answer to 2.): {{tpq|&quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me.}} Although it's abundantly clear he has no intention of stopping, this is where he categorically states and admits it. He's not going to stop and will keep filibustering until somebody stops him instead. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 08:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::15 years, 37,619 edits, carries a bit of weight. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't think a behavioral topic ban will suit, because that's just too vague to enforce. Either an article topic ban, or a CIR block, are the only solutions I can think of to end this. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''': They really have left everyone with few options. I suppose this comes down to how much more time needs to be wasted? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215287811 Based on this] I think the underlying problem will resurface in a different form. After looking at their userpage, I think they want to be blocked to prove what they think is a point. Wikipedia has flaws large and small, but their userpage rant is even more unhinged than this discussion. However the tban is crafted, it needs to be crystal clear that if the problem repeats a block will be fast in coming. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * &lt;del&gt;'''Topic ban''' for [[ZX Spectrum graphic modes]]. I think the crux is that this is about something they put a lot of work in, and the rejection of their work has them [[WP:WIKISTRESS|running a lot hotter]] than their usual self. Let's not forget they are new here. If I'm wrong, we'll learn soon enough, but I'm willing to give them a chance to cool down.&lt;/del&gt; &lt;br&gt; '''Block indef''' Reassessed. &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paradoctor|contribs]]) 23:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt; &lt;ins&gt;; edited 02:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/ins&gt;<br /> *:However it turns out, I would like to say that I mostly enjoyed conversations with you. I'm saying this just in case that I'm banned and therefore unable to say it. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Topic ban''' or '''just block indef'''. Based on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215583779 comment in this discussion]: {{tq|&quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me.}} - it is obvious that some sort of sanction will be required. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 00:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support Indef block''': They just replied above (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;curid=5137507&amp;diff=1215583779&amp;oldid=1215582006]). They made it clear they have no intention of stopping. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' any topic ban from article space. The conduct issue here is the editor's [[WP:FILIBUSTER|filibustering]] in project space about an article talk page. I am not stating a position for or against an indefinite block or site ban, but those are not what is being considered here. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 01:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Indef block''' even now, with this discussion open, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=1215618454&amp;oldid=1215616779 just] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1215618454 can't] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1215618585 help] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1215618692 themselves]. Hopeless case of [[WP:BATTLE]]. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 07:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support Indef''' - Given the new rants and declaration they will not stop until a &quot;justification&quot; which satisfies them is presented, I'm striking my topic ban suggestion and supporting an indef block. User is [[WP:NOTHERE]] to collaboratively edit. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' a '''Site Ban''' after the subject editor wrote: {{tq|&quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Without a proper justification, you can't convince me.}}, since it is also apparent that they want to decide what is a &quot;proper justification&quot;. That insistence may be good mathematical logic, but it is not collaborative work in an electronic office. They threw a [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] at a [[kangaroo]] that wasn't there. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support site ban''' – In the course of human events, sometimes words simply fail. Here, they likely failed months ago. Z80 has been given months more time to adjust their behavior than I had initially expected—time during which they have been consistently afforded a wide variety of patient advice from fellow editors. At several points, it seemed to me that there may have been some getting through to them. Unfortunately, that no longer seems plausible. Beyond a very shallow threshold, Z80 is completely unreceptive to other editors' perspectives. This threshold is unacceptably shallow for Wikipedia. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 07:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Accusations of deception====<br /> Just a heads up that [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] is still engaging in battleground mentality, albeit on a much more low-key level over at the [[Talk:ZX Spectrum]] page, where everybody who he disagrees with is being deceptive - although it's probably an honest mistake, so he'll forgive them: (paraphrase, but also my sarcasm)<br /> *{{tpq|I also estimate that I have been deceived by Paradoctor's and VQuakr's interpretation of the situation so far, but it was probably an honest mistake on their part, so at this moment I'm willing to just forget it}}<br /> *{{tpq|This is Paradoctor's statement that I find deceptive...}}<br /> *{{tpq|This is another Paradoctor's statement that I find deceptive...}}<br /> *{{tpq|This is the VQuakr 's statement that I find slightly deceptive...}}<br /> ending with:<br /> *{{tpq|As I have said, I still consider those to be honest mistakes, provided in good faith}}<br /> The last three (and {{tpq|honest mistake}} statement) were made directly after both [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] and I asked him to stop making such comments - as Paradoctor said (I had a brain-freeze and couldn't think of the term!) they are at best condescending, and at worst insulting. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 06:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Yeah, I think at this point an admin really needs to take action here. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::[[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]]'s comment is a relatively accurate description of an issue that happened in this very recent discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum#The_leading_paragraph]. Therefore I don't have much to add there. I think that the linked discussion is quite illustrative, and I think that it speaks for itself. So I don't need to say anything additional, except my advice to read the discussion from the start to the end.<br /> ::I would like to correct myself regarding another issue here. In my reply numbered &quot;'''Pt2.'''&quot;, I said {{tq|No, it was not my fault.}} Reading it again, I think that the closure of the case at DRN might have been my fault, since my replies at User:Ritchie333's page do connect the DRN case with the copyright case. I must admit that, by the time I have posted on User:Ritchie333's page, I have probably already lost my faith in the DRN case and that I thought DRN has little chance of settling the issue. I think, as I always did, that [[User:Robert McClenon]]'s decision to close the DRN case at that time was a correct decision. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 17:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I have another correction (clarification) of another sentence of mine. In '''Pt41.''' (semicolon instead of the full-stop):<br /> ::&quot;Even if it wasn't entirely so, that has no implications on the restoration of the 26 KB disputed material''' ; t'''he issue of my conduct is a separate issue.&quot;<br /> ::I.e. the issue of my conduct is an issue separate from the issue of the 26 KB disputed material.<br /> ::Also, previously in this discussion I used the word &quot;ironically&quot; instead of &quot;sarcastically&quot; (I guess). Also, I used the word &quot;consistence&quot; instead of the word &quot;uniformity&quot;. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :The issue is battleground mentality and the inability of this editor to drop any [[WP:STICK]], ever. I think the specific concern about the connotations of the word &quot;deception&quot; are less concerning given that English isn't the user's first language, but that's just my opinion. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm not going to directly respond to VQuakr's accusation. Besides, I'm a newbie here, and I don't really know what are the accepted interpretations of Wikipedia policies. So I'll leave the judgement to others.<br /> ::Related, I would like to point out a policy of WP:HARASS, which contains a section [[WP:HOUND]]. I have no idea whether that policy applies, and what is the accepted interpretation of that policy. I'll be leaving it to others to think about it, and to respond if they think it is appropriate. Similarly, there is a guideline [[WP:CANVASS]], which might, or might not, apply in this dispute at WP:ANI. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 07:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :An editor named [[User:CodeTalker]] has just replied in the mentioned discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216223186]. I don't know whether that editor is an administrator here, and whether his answers are an official opinion from WP:ANI, or his own opinions. To be safe, at this moment I will refrain from any actions. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 20:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|Z80Spectrum}} [[WP:ADMIN|Administrators]] are not authorities that rule by decree. They are editors with extra buttons to allow technical actions. Whether they are an admin or not should have zero bearing on whether you [[WP:LISTEN]] to them. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I just figured out that better words for &quot;deceived&quot; and &quot;deceptive&quot; would have been &quot;mislead&quot; and &quot;misleading&quot;. So, I appologize for that mistake. I can correct myself, by strike-outs, on the &quot;ZX Spectrum&quot; talk page, if the offended editors agree. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 07:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::&quot;Deceive&quot; and &quot;mislead&quot; have the same negative connotations. There is no practical difference between them in this context. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 08:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::OK. I would also like to suggest &quot;misguide&quot;, &quot;misinform&quot; and &quot;misrepresent&quot; as acceptable alternatives. If, at any later time you would like me to change it, just notify me. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===ArbCom? Probably not now===<br /> There is a [[WP:RFAR|Request for Arbitration]] currently open before ArbCom that is similar to this dispute, in that it is about the deletion of questionable material from article talk pages. The filing party was in the habit of restoring talk page posts by IP addresses that were deleted by other editors. The filing party was then blocked for seven days for disruptive editing for restoring the IP posts. Having come off block, they are asking for ArbCom action. Their request is unlikely to be accepted, because several arbitrators have already voted to Decline. However, I have made a statement saying that both cases, this case and the RFAR, illustrate that a poorly written and ambiguous guideline is problematic. I don't think that ArbCom considers poorly written policies to be within their scope, but have said that some sort of statement about the guideline would be useful.<br /> [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == User:Fred Zepelin ==<br /> <br /> I am asking for [[User:Fred Zepelin]] to be indefinitely blocked from posting to my personal talk page, and for an administrator to consider appropriate action in response to his hounding and ongoing personal attacks.<br /> <br /> During a recent content dispute, he accused me of “whitewashing” and being a “white supremacist apologist”.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABlake_Masters&amp;diff=1210112045&amp;oldid=1210099756] The two other editors involved in the discussion suggested he “focus on content, not contributors” and “clear the slate with a strike and or apology”.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Zepelin#Careful]<br /> <br /> Instead, he followed me to another article where his first-ever edit there was to revert my content and source[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrei_Cherny&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210119834] and template-warned me inappropriately.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BBQboffin#February_2024]<br /> <br /> I have asked him repeatedly to stop posting on my talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABBQboffin&amp;diff=1210139356&amp;oldid=1210138700], citing [[WP:USERTALKSTOP]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABBQboffin&amp;diff=1210737930&amp;oldid=1210736842] and telling him that I would view future violations as harassment. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFred_Zepelin&amp;diff=1212439892&amp;oldid=1211599745] But days later he again posted there again, and with another personal attack.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABBQboffin&amp;diff=1214772992&amp;oldid=1212595355] [[User:BBQboffin|BBQboffin]] ([[User talk:BBQboffin|talk]]) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Which they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BBQboffin&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214772992 immediately reverted and apologized for] (and was in regards to what was not a PA at all). What are you asking us to do if the other user already self-resolved it? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 17:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Immediately reverted - yes. Apologized for casting aspersions about alleged &quot;whitewashing&quot; - no.[[User:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue&quot;&gt; ''Isaidnoway'' &lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:black&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/b&gt;]] 18:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::So what is being asked for, then? The editor immediately reverted so there's nothing to revert, though it looks like the two have had a running content dispute for the last month but not to a block-worthy extent. I just can't stand when the reporter leaves out something on purpose (the reversion) to try to have an action done, without the other in the dispute being able to respond. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&quot;I forgot&quot; is neither an excuse for harassment nor is it an apology. Posting &quot;Knock off the whitewashing&quot; and then reverting is like someone throwing a punch and pulling it back at the last minute. It doesn't &quot;self-resolve&quot; a situation; it has an intimidating effect. And this isn't the first time FZ has done this: he had been warned about respecting [[WP:USERTALKSTOP]] with another editor[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1060198549], ignored the warning, and got himself a 48-hour block[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&amp;oldid=1130765395#December_2022]. What I want is for him to just stop posting to my talk page: if he can't be banned from posting there permanently, maybe a 72-hour block would help him remember next time that harassment (of me or anyone else) is not OK. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::The edit summary on their self-revert, &quot;''forgot, this particular user asked that I not post on thier talk page,''&quot; gives me faith they'll stop posting there. Do you agree but still think they need to be blocked, or do you think if they're not blocked they'll continue messaging you there? &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Segoe Script;&quot;&gt;''[[User:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#BC49A6&quot;&gt;City&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:Green&quot;&gt; o&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:Red&quot;&gt;f &lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]]''&lt;/b&gt; 22:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I can’t know if he's going to forget again. A talk page block would make it 100% certain. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Sorry but that wasn't what I asked. And they're not going to be blocked from your talk page because it's possible they'll have messages they're required by policy to leave for you. &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Segoe Script;&quot;&gt;''[[User:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#BC49A6&quot;&gt;City&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:Green&quot;&gt; o&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:Red&quot;&gt;f &lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]]''&lt;/b&gt; 02:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::In lieu of a talk page block I would accept a promise from FZ not to post on my talk page anything beyond required-by-policy messages. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::It's been four days and they haven't posted since you took them to ANI, which is '''not''' a result I want for anyone as &quot;chilling&quot; an editor from posting again is a major reason we discourage ANI reports of this kind if an issue is easily solvable by using a talk page to discuss editing concerns. We're certainly not going to take action on the above because of that, and I truly hope you didn't needlessly scare a productive editor away because of this overreaction to an honest mistake. But in the reverse, Fred had been warned to step back from editing on a particular article on their talk page, so we're not going to warn someone either from taking a break and pausing editing, then coming back a better editor if they do so. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 16:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Fred did return and going by their response, they felt this ANI thread was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&amp;oldid=1215718380 completely frivolous (but put it more profanely)] and resumed editing elsewhere. Next time, use the user talk page first before going to ANI, because nothing is happening here. He's done with you, be done with him, and move on, BBQ. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Ok, next time I'll use the user talk page more than I did, but I don't think this is an &quot;easily solvable&quot; issue. I will move on, although on his first day back I see another editor has already become exasperated with Fred and asked him not to post to their talk page[[User talk:Alansohn#The longest quotes in references ever seen|[1]]]. Fred certainly has value to the project for his tenacity and skill in ferreting out sockpuppets and their ilk, but it would be nice if he would show mutual respect to his fellow editors. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == TonyTheTiger is gaming the WikiCup through GAN spam ==<br /> Over the course of a few days, {{user1|TonyTheTiger}} has increased the number of articles he had pending at GAN from a handful to [[Special:Diff/1214753203|nearly 70]]. When [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations|asked about it]] by {{u|Ganesha811}}, TonyTheTiger basically admitted to [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] to score [[Wikipedia:WikiCup|WikiCup]] points, saying that he'd only be willing to withdraw if another backlog drive was guaranteed to him later in the year (at which point he hoped to have date priority on nominations). Such a huge strain on the process might be understandable if his submissions were all carefully scrutinized, but the only charitable explanation is that they clearly were not. 25 of his submissions have been quickfailed by 13 separate reviewers (myself included) on several grounds, including poor sourcing, unsourced sections, poor prose, unhandled maintenance tags, lack of substantive contribution, and lack of breadth. On multiple occasions, after an article was failed, he lashed out at the reviewer before renominating the article with little substantive change. {{u|Premeditated Chaos}} rightly pointed out that this was a pretty clear abuse of the GAN process, {{u|Epicgenius}} (who is a WikiCup judge this year) warned him that his conduct could be seen as gaming, and {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} noted that he was TBANed from [[Wikipedia:Featured sounds|Featured sounds]] back in 2011 for this exact pattern of conduct.<br /> <br /> His behavior pretty much only gets worse from there. If you look at [[Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)|one of his renomination attempts]], you'll see that TonyTheTiger, who has been editing since 2006 – rather than choosing to respond to any of the admins, backlog drive coordinators, or other senior editors who had raised concerns about his conduct on his talk page in the past day – chose to go after {{u|Generalissima}}, a relatively new editor on the scene, telling her, &quot;{{tq|You are bending over backwards to fail this article... Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know.}}&quot; He then told everyone else to {{tq|Calm down and stop quickfailing stuff for no reason... If you fail a 20-25% {{sic}} of my articles that does not make me a problem editor.}} He told another quickfailing reviewer, {{u|Teratix}}, {{tq|I assume you are lieing {{sic}} to pick a fight.}} He has now claimed in multiple places that a vague group of &quot;vindictive&quot; editors [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Open season on qfing me|are conspiring to fail his articles for WikiCup points]], claiming that articles like his get through GAN in good shape all the time. If he's right, I worry. In the meantime, multiple editors have asked him to find and withdraw his poorer-quality nominations, and he has refused, while continuing to making spurious renominations. This is clearly disruptive behavior that needs to be addressed. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 22:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Proposed sanctions ===<br /> :This is really disappointing, because many of his past FAs and GAs ''are'' high quality. His [[Wikipedia:Featured topics/Four Freedoms|FT on the Four Freedoms by Rockwell]] is great work! Why he has decided to take such a big step down with his quality control in favor of mass-nomination of Start/C-class articles is beyond me; the only way many of these articles would get through GAN is if either a newbie reviewer picks them up without fully understanding the GA criteria, or if a reviewer painstakingly holds his hand the entire way from start class up to meeting the criteria. <br /> :I feel a fair response to this would involve suspension from this year's Wikicup for openly trying to game the system, alongside a tight restriction to how many GANs he can have at once, to prevent this sort of waste of reviewers' time in the future. Maybe just one GAN at a time to start out with? &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::given his past pattern of similar behavior, including disruption at FAC &amp; DYK, i worry that this kind of thing will just continue in another area of the project. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::That is fair enough. I would absolutely support a '''topic ban from Wikicup''', as I feel this is the primary cause for his behavior. However, a '''topic ban from GAN''' should be instituted if this sort of abuse continues outside of the cup. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 02:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Upon all the new evidence being brought forward of his consistent behavior in this respect, mark me down as in favor of a '''TB from GAN/DYK''' too. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 22:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *A look back to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Featured Sounds Process|this very noticeboard in 2011]]: Tony is topic banned from a) participating in the Featured Sounds process and from b) uploading pictures relating to himself (this is as absurd as it sounds, so let's ignore it). Why was he TBANned from FS? Well:<br /> **{{green|TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured...He wants to add stars to his trophy wall, and he wants to feed his ego...TTT has a strong case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and is pursuing his own self-aggrandizing agenda at the cost of significant community patience, and in this case, the quality of Featured Sounds}}<br /> **{{green|Tony previously caused similar issues at FPC, nominating pic after pic after pic relating to Chicago...He has also caused problems with mass nominations at DYK (which reflected very poorly on the WikiCup, in which he was participating)}}<br /> **{{green|TonyTheTiger seems unable to understand the ways in which he disrupts and abuses of featured content processes and other editors' time in his goal of promoting himself...he disrupted DYK in his attempt to win WikiCup, there was an issue at TFA/R, and FAC instituted a special rule to limit repeat noms because of his repeatedly using FAC as Peer review for ill-prepared articles, and bringing back ill-prepared noms the minute the previous one was archived...I don't know if topic bans are a solution, because he just moves on and does the same thing in another area}}<br /> **{{green|I am also very unimpressed with the shouting and calling of specific others &quot;liars&quot;, and would note the lack of support for his position by any other party on this page.}}<br /> *Move on 13 years, and Tony is again nominating anything that he thinks will have a remote chance of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back and immediately renominating unsuccessful nominations, clogging GAN with items that don't deserve to be GAs, disrespecting every other editor involved in the Cup and GAN, and calling other editors &quot;liars&quot; while facing unanimous disagreement, all to feed his ego. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 22:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **For the record, I support a '''TBAN from the Cup and nomination restrictions at GAN'''; hopefully that ends the disruption. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{A note}} Tony *has* withdrawn a few of his nominations since the debacle started ([[Special:Diff/1215223230|Benji (2012 film)]], [[Special:Diff/1215224630|Essex on the Park]], [[Special:Diff/1215224964|NEMA (Chicago)]] and [[Special:Diff/1215225403|The Flick]]). Everything else in your comment is spot on. – &lt;code style=&quot;background:#333;border:1px solid #999&quot;&gt;[[User:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#fff;text-shadow:0 0 5px #fff&quot;&gt;Hilst&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#090&quot;&gt;&amp;lbrack;talk&amp;rbrack;&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/code&gt; 22:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Within my areas of expertise I am still a bit unsure as to why articles are being failed. I think offensive linemen [[Michael Schofield (American football)]] and [[Heath Irwin]] compare well with my current GA for [[Patrick Omameh]]. At [[Talk:1000M/GA1]], I responded completely to the review before renominating. It was not until after a second fail when reviewers explained what the issues were. Had I understood these were the issues, I would have addressed them. Everyone thinks I understand why the articles are deficient in advance of the reviews. I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems. To people who review in any of certain fields the flaws may seem obtuse, but I did not look at the articles and realise the flaws and then nominate them. The reviews are informative to me. I don't understand why &quot;[[Humble and Kind]]&quot; is not regarded as in the general quality range of my 2022 GA &quot;[[Sheesh!]]&quot; except for a tag. I am finding the reviewer responses confusing. I have started removing some of my nominations that I are further afield from my expertises.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 22:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Tony, if you are so flabbergasted by the reviews you're getting, then that is more indicative of you ''not reading them'' than it is an indictment of over a dozen other editors' feedback. Anyways, this is not a place to air your grievances about the quality of the reviews you're receiving, this is a discussion about your ''behavior''. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 23:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Noting I have nominated Omameh for GA reassessment, as it clearly does not meet the GAC in its current state. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I think it is clear that the WikiCup is not good for TonyTheTiger (it is supposed to be a fun competition, but he seems to think it is something he needs to win) and TonyTheTiger is not good for the WikiCup (as a fun game, it really should not take such a heavy toll on the GAN backlog; abusing the general community like this endangers the Cup). A '''topic ban from the WikiCup''' is the minimum that should happen (full disclosure: this would slightly benefit me, as I am also a competitor in the Cup). However, there are wider [[WP:IDHT]] and almost [[WP:CIR]] issues related to [[WP:GAN]]: TTT has nominated (and sometimes renominated directly after a quickfail) several articles that he last edited years ago, and some of them are significantly out of date, have maintenance tags or other obvious issues (I re-quickfailed one of them, [[1000M]]). So a '''topic ban from GAN''' should be at least considered. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 23:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Mark me down in favor of a '''topic ban from GAN''' entirely, given the continued IDHT and inability to take any accountability for his actions, and repeated poor attitude towards other editors. It's clear Tony will not stop this behavior unless he is forced to. The past behavioral issues put me more firmly in support of a restriction. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 23:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *for the record, i also '''support a topic ban from both GAN and the WikiCup'''. the above-mentioned behavior is entirely disruptive, rude, and a waste of our time. the GAN process and the WikiCup do not exist to serve TTT's ego. i concur with Kusma about the IDHT &amp; potential-CIR issues; how ''anyone'' could read [[Humble and Kind]] (for example) and think it's even slightly close to GA quality is beyond me. patience has run dry. &lt;br&gt;'''edit:''' as other people have also mentioned they're competing in the Cup, i'll disclose that i am as well. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 23:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **For the record, without an explanation, I don't understand why (other than one tag) &quot;[[Humble and Kind]]&quot; is worse than &quot;[[Sheesh!]]&quot;. I believe the majority of my recent nominations were in the range of proximity to [[WP:WIAGA]] to be reasonable nominations. After hundreds of GA reviews, you should know that I am not a problem at GA in general. I feel that the intersection of the GA and the CUP is the issue. I do feel I could work productively at GA without the competitive element of the CUP.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 23:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:{{tq|After hundreds of GA reviews, you should know that I am not a problem at GA in general.}} Doug Coldwell also used his number of GAs to justify his poor behavior and shoddy work... and look where that got him. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 23:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:It didn't take long to find a [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/interview-tim-mcgraw-new-album-dueting-daughter-6753874/ half-dozen] [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/lori-mckenna-album-1988-interview-1235375769/ reliable] [https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/humble-and-kind-how-lori-mckenna-wrote-tim-mcgraws-hit-single/ sources] [https://www.tennessean.com/story/entertainment/music/story-behind-the-song/2021/01/25/story-behind-song-tim-mcgraws-humble-and-kind/4228236001/ covering] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/12/22/why-humble-and-kind-was-the-hit-song-we-really-needed-this-year/ the song's] [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/tim-mcgraw-humble-and-kind-video-oprah-6851683/ production], some in great detail, that just aren't being used. Even [https://cmt.com/news/dqi1jz/humble-and-kind-meant-spaghetti-day-for-lori-mckenna the CMT piece] has a lot of untapped material. The fact that I can find this many sources for one section of the article reflects poorly on the rest. To put it bluntly, &quot;[[Sheesh!]]&quot; covers all the major aspects of its topic, &quot;[[Humble and Kind]]&quot; does not. An editor as experienced as you should realize this. [[User:Averageuntitleduser|Averageuntitleduser]] ([[User talk:Averageuntitleduser|talk]]) 00:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **addendum, after reading others' comments: i don't think a time-based restriction will work. his history of disruption goes all the way back to 2011. while i support a full TBAN from GAN (and certainly from the Cup), i would also be supportive of a strict limit on how many GANs he can make at a time, should a full TBAN not gain consensus here. i think his entitled attitude is the single biggest problem here, as PMC pointed out below. i don't see why we have to give him so much more leeway than he has given his fellow editors. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * [[User:TonyTheTiger|Tony]], would you be willing to go through all your pending GA noms and withdraw all except those of ''exceptional'' quality (or just all). Its looking like you could be heading for a GA topic ban, something I'd think would be a shame since you seem to have a great record of producing good content. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 23:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Topic ban from GAN and the WikiCup''', with regret. TonyTheTiger has [[Special:Diff/1215170109|continued (re)nominating]] articles with issues today, well after many editors have expressed both general and specific feedback about the inappropriateness of his mass nominations. His reaction to this feedback has been to deny or underplay issues and shows a lack of regard for other editors' time and the research required for ensuring his nominations are [[WP:GA?|broad in their coverage (#3)]]. Overall, his recent activity has been detrimental to the processes and to the task of building a high-quality encyclopedia. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|&lt;span style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]''') 23:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''No ban on anything''', Wikipedia eating its own? Assume good faith is a thing. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:with all due respect, did you read the thread? every avenue has been tried before ANI - [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations|his talk page]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Open season on qfing me|the WikiCup talk page]], [[User talk:Teratix#Heath Irwin review|Teratix' talk page]], the [[Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2024#Reason for &quot;backward&quot; progress|GAN drive talk page]], and numerous individual reviews. he has been uncivil, [[WP:IDHT|refused to listen]], and continued to engage in the same disruptive behavior after over a dozen editors, including multiple admins, have asked him to stop. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Yes, I read the thread before responding. Have now read Tony's talk page, and there seems a mix of failed and under review Good articles. He now is pulling some back, as mentioned above. My comment was only about jumping from concerns to banning TtT from GAN, where he has excelled for years. Wikipedia eating its own is a thing, as seen many times on this page when that kind of jump is made from discussion to &quot;Get 'em!&quot;. But good faith is one of the best things, so let's use that one instead. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Tony has not assumed good faith of those who have reviewed his articles. he said to Generalissima &quot;{{tq|You are bending over backwards to fail this article... Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know.}}&quot; he claimed &quot;{{tq|There is an overzealous posse of editors quickfailing my articles.}}&quot; at the Cup talk page. he accused Teratix of &quot;{{tq|lieing to pick a fight.}}&quot; i could go on; what else is there to do at this point? &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic bans from GAN and the WikiCup''' (disclosure: I'm technically still a contestant in the Cup but I have no hope of progressing to the next round). There are seven distinct grounds:<br /> #Mass-nominating GANs to an extent that would be absurd and disrespectful of volunteers' time ''even if'' all nominations were impeccable.<br /> #Mass-nominating GANs with especially obvious, gaping flaws, indicating Tony either does not read the articles he is nominating or fails to understand the GAC. [[Talk:1000M/GA1]] is a representative example (where Tony either didn't notice or didn't care about an entirely promotional and unsourced section) but I recommend reading his other quickfailed articles for the full perspective.<br /> #Renominating GANs after quickfails without fixing the article's problems. See [[Talk:1000M/GA2]], [[Talk:Kenny Demens/GA2]], etc.<br /> #Openly admitting this behaviour is motivated by tactical concerns related to his WikiCup performance. See [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations]]<br /> #Displaying an appalling attitude towards how the GAN process runs, believing the project should bend over backwards to schedule backlog drives and grant special exemptions from date priority for his benefit. Read his replies to Ganesha811 on [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations]]. I have never seen more entitled behaviour.<br /> #Behaving uncivilly towards reviewers and critics. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATonyTheTiger&amp;diff=1215214325&amp;oldid=1215211986 Thebiguglyalien's summary], I'm by no means sure this is comprehensive.<br /> #Not recognising and in many cases doubling down on this bad behaviour.<br /> *&lt;li style=&quot;list-style:none;&quot;&gt;To be clear, I see the GAN and WikiCup bans as inseparable – neither sanction on its own would adequately address these problems. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/li&gt;<br /> *:Tony's behaviour has been appalling enough already but I want to add an eighth ground – openly admitting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215238004&amp;oldid=1215237796 &quot;I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems&quot;]. Or, in other words, '''&quot;I nominate articles in areas where I know I cannot competently assess whether they have issues and rely on volunteer reviewers to inform me of obvious inadequacies&quot;'''. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support GAN nomination ban, temporary or indef''' (edit: or a wider ban that includes GAN) GAN reviewers' time is precious. Wasting it is disruptive. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &amp;#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;buidhe&lt;/span&gt;]]''' 02:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from GAN and WikiCup'''. Buidhe and Teratix have both put it very well. Frankly at this point I'm inclined to support a block. This is not the first time Tony has gamed Wikipedia processes for his own arbitrary personal goals, but it is the first time he's been quite so nakedly honest about what he's doing. No one who would make a statement like {{tq|I am willing to stop nominating new articles until April 1 if you can promise that there will be another backlog drive in October}} is operating in good faith. That's right everyone, if we can '''promise''' Tony that we'll organize an entire backlog drive on '''his''' schedule, he'll stop mass-nominating garbage. '''For now'''. Oh, how kind of him! The level of entitlement he feels to other peoples' effort so that he can have points for a '''game''' fucking boils my blood. &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 02:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:For the record, I'm fine with a limited TBAN from GAN (ie X number of noms at once, or for X number of months, or whatever). &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 03:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *There's rightly been a lot of outrage about Tony's abuse of process, both here and elsewhere. Surely a GAN/WC ban is an inadequate response to a very serious conduct issue? Tony's behaviour is a very clear case of [[WP:NOTHERE]] and [[WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT]]. His abuse of process is borderline vandalistic and certainly disruptive edit-warring. His personal attacks on other editors have been unwarranted and severe. He seems to have no intention of changing his behaviour and continues to persevere with a perverse victim mentality. Other editors have been blocked for less. I don't understand why editors in this discussion are not considering a harsher response. '''[[User:–C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 02:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **'''Project block''', minimum one month, preferably indefinite. Per my comment above. Editors in this discussion are ''far'' to eager to excuse serious, sustained, and deliberate misconduct from an editor with an obvious NOTHERE attitude who really ought to know better. If unblocked, permanent ban from WC, GAN, FAC, and DYK. All the red flags have been there for years now. '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 02:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***Tony hasn't got the message – he's written a reply apologising for his abuse of process, but not for his abuse of other editors. I do not believe that his misconduct towards other volunteer members of the project have been properly addressed, either by other editors here or by Tony himself. As such I continue to support a minimum one month block from the enwiki project, just to make sure the message finally gets through that this behaviour will not be tolerated, even from people who have produced good content in the past. '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 13:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Can anyone show that Tony is like this when ''not'' participating in the WikiCup? I don't understand how {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} has turned up quotes from 13 years ago that basically could have been written yesterday. Has everything been fine in the intervening 13 years? Is this a case of someone losing their senses specifically because of the WikiCup competition and otherwise being mostly normal? What is even going on here? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{tq|Has everything been fine in the intervening 13 years?}} No, there was also a debacle last August when he tried to make a special date request for his sister's article (that he wrote) to appear on DYK on her birthday. Discussion is here: [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#COI issue at Carla Vernón]]. &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 02:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::That is just bizarre. He did not see to understand why we don't do any of that, including pictures of himself. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 12:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]]: I can say that I think Tony [[WP:BLUDGEONING|bludgeoning the process]] isn't limited to the Cup or GAN. My first interactions with him were on the [[Wikipedia:Vital articles|vital articles]] project, where my impression of him quickly became that he would relentlessly [[WP:BADGER|badger]] anybody (and sometimes everybody) that disagreed with one of his proposals. I don't have the energy to revisit all of it, as this was a big reason why I left the VA project, but I recall [[Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Archive_2#Add_Anna_Kournikova|one particularly bad thread]] in which he (in the words of [[User:The Blue Rider|The Blue Rider]]) {{tq|&quot;[came] after everyone who hasn't supported his proposals enough times&quot;}}. In this same thread, I also expressed discomfort over what I felt were some ''very'' inappropriate remarks about a woman athlete, which he doubled down on. In [[Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Archive_4#Add_Ed_Asner/Remove_Leslie_Nielsen|an earlier thread]], only a few days before this, Tony opened a comment saying {{tq|&quot;Forgive me if it seems I am badgering the voters, which does not seem to be something that we do here&quot;}} before going on to badger the two users that opposed his proposal. <br /> *:I'm not going to comment one what I believe should be done, as I'm not an admin so I don't think this is my place, I'm just recounting some of my past experiences with him. -- [[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk:Grnrchst|talk]]) 14:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::@[[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] it now looks like it isn't limited to bludgeoning, either. The bottom of this thread is in conspiracy theory territory. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 00:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from both GAN and WikiCup''' – Before continuing, I will disclose that I am also a contestant of the WikiCup like others have listed above, so therefore something like this would effect me. At first glance, I didn't think these mass nominations were ''that'' bad, many editors keep a backlog on a backburner. I didn't think it was much of an issue until realizing the quality of them and noticing TTT's behavior beyond this. I view the comments he made towards Generalissima and other editors, as well as the ones he has used to defend himself or make demands (ex. demanding a backlog drive) as unacceptable. I simply can not understand how any editor with good intentions can blatantly attack other users over a game. Hell, knowing his previous topic bans for similar reasons, this is something where the punishment could go beyond a topic ban, and if this discussion escalated to that I'd support that such action be taken. Absolutely egregious. &lt;span style=&quot;border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px&quot;&gt;'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#264e85&quot;&gt;'''Negative'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#7d43b5&quot;&gt;'''MP1'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 03:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from GAN and Wikicup, at the very least''': I was there for the featured sound debacle and well remember it. This is just history repeating again. I'd also support anything from a ban from all article nomination processes up to a block of any length, including indefinite. Enough is enough. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 03:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Weak oppose an outright GAN TBAN'''. While The Tiger's recent acting is...erm...concerning, to say the least, we should not ignore his previous great work, including a bazillion actually good GAs, and an outright TBAN is too much over a single incident with an otherwise constructive editor. I don't have the energy to workshop it, but I would support a proposal that limits how many GANs he can submit per day/week/month and/or a limit on how fast he can renominate GANs. No opinion on a WC TBAN; for disclosure's sake, I participated in round 1 of the cup, but was eliminated. {{not watching}} [[User:Queen of Hearts|queen of 🖤]] (they/them; [[User talk:Queen of Hearts|chat]]) 04:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I would be willing to drop down to just a tban from the cup if Tony would actually take responsibility and agree to only nominate a few articles at a time, articles which he has actually put serious work into (and I think we all know he is perfectly capable of writing quite good articles when he puts his mind to it). But I have not seen that just far, only demands for us to bend our backs for him because he feels entitled to spam half-baked nominations for the sake of a contest where the prize for winning is nothing more than bragging rights. He has yet to even show he understands ''why'' his nominations are being failed despite the reviewers offering clear reasons and actionable feedback. Bottom line, Tony did this to himself despite being given multiple opportunities to self-correct and avoid any sanctions. I don't take any pleasure in supporting a TBAN from creating quality content, but this has gone well past the line of acceptable behavior. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose TBAN from GAN''', but like queen of 🖤, I would also support an alternate proposal for some limitations on how many he can submit in a given time frame. This thread has only been open for a few hours, and going from zero to sixty seems kind of extreme in my view. No opinion on WikiCup.[[User:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue&quot;&gt; ''Isaidnoway'' &lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:black&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/b&gt;]] 05:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * ''' support CUP tban '''. If [[User:TonyTheTiger]] apologises for lashing out at reviewers, I think a cap of 1 open nomination at GAN may work. TTT has engaged well with the process in the past, and if seems the intersection between the competition and the uneven GAN process is driving his behaviour. Without recognition that his behaviour towards reviewers was unacceptable, I do not have trust in TTT engaging with the process. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm also happy to support Schrocats suggestion below, except for the fact that I would like to put the max 5 nominations as part of the restriction to give clarity to TTT. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 09:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Five nominations sounds too many. I think stick to your suggestion of 1. This isn't just about flooding GAN, it's the personal attacks that have come with it. Editors have a right not to face that kind of chilling behaviour. Tony will be lucky to escape a GAN outright ban here so allowing one at a time seems reasonable to me. &amp;nbsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You're right, I was too hasty: any rope here should be accompanied by TTT showing they understand why their behaviour was unacceptable. A cap of up to 3 would still seem reasonable to me after a 3-month ban, 5 indeed stretches it. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 10:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::What about a limit of 1 to start with, and if those have a decent 75% rate of passing after [some unit of time] it could maybe creep up to 3. That’s just my idea reading this, let me know if this makes no sense. [[User:Geardona|Geardona]] ([[User talk:Geardona|talk to me?]]) 10:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::75% is quite a low pass rate. I expect a near 100% pass rate for experienced nominators. Otherwise, this makes sense. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 11:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::It's one thing to have a pass rate of less than 100% (though I'd be embarrassed if my pass rate dropped below near 100%, personally). It is another ''entirely'' to have nominations so poor they are being routinely quickfailed. We are dealing with the latter here. I would support Femke's proposal if Tony would take feedback seriously, but thus far he has refused to do so, leaving us with only sanctions as an option to change his behavior. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 15:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from the cup; three month ban from GAN'''. The cup seems to be the driver for the disruption, so ban from that. GAN is where the disruption is taking place, so a more limited ban from that (on condition that all nominations are withdrawn). There’s no point in pushing a harder ban that’s harms the encyclopaedia and punishes TTT after the cause of the disruption has been sorted. He has three months to be able to work on whatever he wants, but a similar mass nomination at GAN (more than five articles in the process at any one time), should be a trigger for further time out off the process. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 08:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from the cup; three month ban from GAN''' per SchroCat. Let's keep remedies simple. I want to address the question of good faith. It's an inevitable feature of the discussions around erring senior editors that we must assume the good faith of an editor who has declined to do the same in return. Good faith really has nothing to do with it. Tony's behavior is disruptive regardless of his intentions. The question is whether Tony is prepared to acknowledge that other editors have a problem with his conduct and change his behavior. That's your standard feedback cycle. Editors get shown the door when they can't or won't change. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 10:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from the cup and remove all his current nominations'''. Tony knows perfectly well how to nominate good quality articles at GAN; if he continues to nominate clearly unready articles that's a problem we can address then, perhaps with a short GAN ban, but I see no reason why he would without the cup as motivation. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 11:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *There is a narrative emerging among a couple of editors' comments here along the lines of &quot;Tony is basically competent to submit GANs but in this case he went too far because he was competing in the WikiCup&quot;. I want to push back on that a little and draw these editors' attention specifically to Tony's comment earlier in this thread, where he says {{tq|Within my areas of expertise I am still a bit unsure as to why articles are being failed.}} That is, he looks at a review like [[Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1]], and actually can't understand what the problem with the article is. And that's in an area he claims to be comfortable editing in. {{pb<br /> }}When it comes to areas he describes as outside his expertise, it gets worse: {{tq|Everyone thinks I understand why the articles are deficient in advance of the reviews. I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems.}} That is, he nominates articles to GAN, outside his experience, knowing he lacks the ability to tell whether the articles contain basic deficiencies or not, and uses volunteer reviewers as a crutch to paper over the gaps.{{pb<br /> }}I understand these sort of discussions balloon very rapidly, and there are a lot of comments to read through. But if your position is &quot;support an indefinite Cup ban but more hesitant on an indefinite GAN ban&quot;, Tony's comment here should be ringing alarm bells. It speaks not just to a specific incompetence to edit under competitive pressure, but a more fundamental lack of understanding about GAN. It has definitely pushed me to favour an indefinite ban from GAN over a time-limited ban or restrictions on the number of simultaneous nominations. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 11:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;s&gt;i'm inclined to agree with this, unfortunate as it is. an indefinite ban is not necessarily permanent, and if Tony can demonstrate that he can once again produce quality work, i see no reason why he couldn't be unbanned. i do think that the Cup is the inciting factor here, but Teratix is right that he seems to not understand GAN itself, which is very strange.&lt;/s&gt; yeah upon further thought now that i'm more awake, one really can't have gotten multiple FAs and not understand GAN &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I think I disagree here. If somebody has multiple FAs, they know full well what to do for a GA, but choose not to, and perhaps overplay ignorance as an excuse not to prepare their nominations sufficiently, or an unwillingness to take the time to take in reviewers comments. I think the issue is primarily behavioural, rather than competence. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 16:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Agree that seeing this as a competence issue makes no sense, and it's strange that Tony appears to be trying to spin it as one. Someone who keeps a writing habit doesn't just spontaneously forget how to write, barring literal brain damage. Something else is obviously going on. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::good point. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 20:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Femke, you may be interested in reading Gog the Mild's comments on his behaviour at FAC – he hasn't had an article promoted in ten years and his last ten nominations have been archived without success. I'm speculating here, but it could be a case of the project's standard for quality content advancing over time while Tony's writing standard remains the same, resulting in a misperception of what's required. It is difficult for me to explain Tony's comments here as merely the product of Cup pressure. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 01:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{u|Teratix}}, you're right that Tony has engaged in problematic behaviour at GAN, but I think it's clear that the current issue is related to the WikiCup, and since there is ample evidence that he does know how to write good articles, I think we ought to limit the response here. This thread is already giving him ample warning about future GA nominations. I don't think more is needed. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Tony's longer statements have slightly changed my view. My speculation on a mismatch between Tony's and GAN's writing standards was wrong, he is still capable of submitting GANs of acceptable quality in some cases. However, he still doesn't seem to understand that excessive mass nominations can be problematic independent of article quality. To me it seems a one-GAN limit could be a good solution, allowing Tony to continue submitting his absolute best content but also protecting GAN reviewers' time and energy. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 06:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''TBAN from the cup and GAN''' GAN reviewing can be hard enough even when the article is relatively high-quality; you're reading through an entire bibliography and acting as a copyeditor for a basically thankless job. It is not reasonable to expect GAN reviewers to hand-hold somebody who's been around here for so long through writing a GA-quality article; if you don't understand what makes a GA in a certain topic, ''don't nominate 70 of them to figure it out''. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 12:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:In case it matters: I'm participating in the WikiCup and will probably qualify for the next round. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 12:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I'd support a Wikicup ban without question at this point, as it seems like per the above any reward-based area seems to bring out the worst in him. I'm not opposed to an outright GAN ban, but I'd perhaps prefer an indefinite strict nomination limit, no more than 3 so that the articles can actually be properly written. A three month ban stated above isn't going to work since the mass-nomming of articles that don't meet GA standards will just continue. [[User:Wizardman|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#030&quot;&gt;'''''Wizardman'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Changing my stance to '''Support Cup/GAN/DYK ban''' per the added evidence, it's clear that he's not getting it, and seems to think this is a game that he has to win at all costs rather than just writing article to write them. [[User:Wizardman|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#030&quot;&gt;'''''Wizardman'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' I'll note we've seen similar behavior at DYK, including [[Special:Diff/1194391967|arguing about his apparent interest in gaming of DYK rules]] by saying, {{xt|All rules are made to be broken and gamed.}} {{pb<br /> }}Example of how he intends to game [[Special:Diff/1198340366|here]]: {{xt|As I think of my next potential DYK candidate, Joanne McCarthy (basketball) that I have 5xed over the weekend, the new set of rules allows two alternatives. 1. I could DYK now and GA-DYK in 5 years with minimal change 2. I could GA now and DYK within 7 days after it gets approved with a 2nd DYK only possible with another 5x in 5 years.}} This was in a discussion of whether DYK should allow repeat appearances. Tony literally is planning 5 years out so he can get repeat DYK credits. {{pb<br /> }}I'm actually a little concerned that a tban from GAN/WikiCup might just transfer the issue to DYK full time. Tony seems to be extremely interested in scorekeeping. Which of course can be a motivator for some people, and he's certainly created or improved a lot of articles. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 13:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&quot;All rules are made to be broken and gamed&quot; that is absolutely ridiculous, and i think you're right that this disruption will just move over to DYK. his idea of &quot;GA-DYKing in 5 years with minimal change&quot; says to me that he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about how GAN works. probably both. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::He didn't do that, though: [[Talk:Joanne McCarthy (basketball)/GA1]]. Also, in the [[Joanne McCarthy (basketball)]] review, the CUP points gaming again comes up as an issue in a couple of ways. He requests the reviewer promote in a specified time frame ({{tq|Also, be advised that I am competing in the [[WP:CUP]]. Do not promote on Feb 28 or 29.}}) and in response to a sourcing concern about the subject's Polish heritage, a source is quickly added to the article that likely does not meet [[WP:BLP]]. The McCarthy article is not a problematic page (loads of pages have small sections or a few missing sources), but Tony is clearly capable of better writing ([[Juwan Howard]]) outside of this CUP context. [[User:Rjjiii|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps;&quot;&gt;Rjj&lt;sup&gt;iii&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 15:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::i'm not entirely sure if you're disagreeing with me (or if you were intending to respond directly to Valereee's comment?) but i agree with the substance of what you're saying &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 19:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Not so much disagreeing with either of you, but pointing out the nuance that even though his talk page comment was regarding DYK, the actual disruptive edits (overloading GA and placing a bizarre citation into a BLP) were again done in the context of the CUP. To be clear: I would '''support a WikiCup TBAN''', but I'm not speculating on how he'll react. I empathize with the frustration from editors in this discussion about the need for this discussion to get this far, but don't see the need to impose the various restrictions mentioned in this thread all at once. Apologies if I was opaque before, [[User:Rjjiii|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps;&quot;&gt;Rjj&lt;sup&gt;iii&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 02:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::no worries! i just wasn't entirely clear on your position. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 02:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I am not familiar enough with the WikiCup situation to have any firm opinion on it, but '''when it comes to GAN I support, at minimum, the removal of all outstanding nominations'''. I noticed the nomination of [[Malcolm (Macbeth)]], which is very obviously very far from GA standards even at a quick glance. An editor with both hundreds of successful GA nominations of their own and hundreds of reviews of other people's nominations surely knows better; on the off chance that they genuinely do not, I think it's reasonable to conclude that they likely never will. Nominating articles that are not ready would appear to be a pattern; looking at the user's talk page, I saw that during the course of a 24-hour time period (20:25 UTC on 22 March to 20:25 UTC on 23 March), no fewer than 25 &quot;Failed GA&quot; messages were left by ({{u|ChristieBot}} on behalf of) ten different reviewers. This indicates to me that leaving the remainder of the (rather large number of) nominations up would not be a good use of the community's time. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 14:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I think part of the problem is with the editor but part of it is with the WikiCup... Its not set up for an honest editor to win, its set up for the winner to be the person who games the system the hardest without betting disqualified. The WikiCup clearly encourages gaming the system because a significant number of the recent winners won that way. The difference is that most of those editors were more subtle about it than this one. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:This is a valid criticism, and indeed is why I declined to participate in the cup this year. My suggestions to balance scoring to stop this have yet to be adopted. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 16:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::For the curious, can you link to those suggestions? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::The suggestions are at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2023/1#Points for next year]]. For what it's worth, any Wikipedia contest such as the Cup will by its very nature be competitive and could be considered by some as gaming; however, the vast majority of editors don't also violate Wikipedia guidelines or policies while participating. &amp;ndash; [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 18:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I agree that the WikiCup encourages users to time their nominations for maximum score (instead of nominating when the article is ready). I'm not sure that this is a huge problem; different people have won the Cup using different strategies over the last years, and some of them increased my respect for the winners, others did not. The issue here is that TTT did not just try to score WikiCup points with little effort, but disrupted other processes while doing so. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 16:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I agree its not generally a problem, its kind of a poster child for something that is objectively a net positive... But that doesn't mean it doesn't have downsides. But on the other hand these are issues the community should never be having to deal with, the whole point of the game having referees/managers is to prevent this sort of community disruption and time wasting from happening. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I checked the past four WikiCups and you can't say any of the winners were gaming; they all did a fair number of FACs and otherwise earned their points in a lot of ways, from doing lots of GANRs to making large GTs to ITN. Only one winner mainly relied on points from GAs, and nominating 60 articles you've worked on over the course of the year over two months is hardly gaming. This is poor decision-making on TTT's part and not something that's a trend with the cup. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::More than one way to game the system. Agree to disagree on whether this is a trend, but note that it would be remarkable if a competition like the wikicup didn't come with the negatives normally associated with open entry organized competitions. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *For the sake of completion I note that TTT's last ten nominations at FAC have all been archived. Nine are from 2014–2016 and one from 2023. This included five nominations of [[Emily Ratajkowski]]; in the last of these TTT received a coordinator warning &quot;Tony, I'm not prepared to allow accusations of bad faith leveled at reviewers without substantive evidence. Please strike these immediately and keep your comments focused on the content, not the editor. This isn't the venue. Additionally, there are many occasions when nominators and reviewers come to an impasse about content. I'd prefer you let [the FAC coordinators] weigh the matter rather than posting repeated pings and harangues when the reviewer has disengaged.&quot; TTT [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FEmily_Ratajkowski%2Farchive5&amp;diff=727511236&amp;oldid=727508803 kicked back]. (Disclosure: I have been a FAC coordinator since 2020 and closed TTT's 2023 FAC nomination.) [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 17:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Based on the assembled examples of tendentious behavior in relation not only to GAN/WikiCup, but also DYK, FAC, and COI editing, I think that a GAN/WikiCup ban is the bare minimum sanction, and that a broad WP-space ban may in fact be more appropriate (although this is somewhat complicated by the fact that these various processes exist across multiple Wikipedia namespaces). What I see here is a pattern of behavior for over a decade of consistently engaging with quality-control/content-promotion processes in an entirely self-serving fashion, conveniently ignoring guidelines when it suits them, and accusations of bad faith against editors who don't provide review results to their liking. There's little reason to believe that this behavior will change other than by barring them from engaging with such processes. &lt;sub&gt;signed, &lt;/sub&gt;[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from WikiCup and GAN'''. TTT has an ''extensive'' history of NOTHERE gaming the system for Wikipedia points and self-promotion. I would support further bans as well. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support WikiCup TBAN''' I don't like commenting at ANI, but this seems like a good time to step in as someone who has experience with Tony from the Vital Articles project. Sadly, it would appear that a TBAN from the WikiCup is needed to deal with disruption, but I believe that he can be productive. I also '''weakly support a restriction on open GANs''' as a fair step to prevent disruption without barring him from making good content entirely. I '''oppose an indefinite ban''' because he has shown himself to be a quality contributor who can contribute productively when not doing stuff like this. I believe a WikiCup TBAN and a restriction on GANs will solve the problem while allowing him to continue to contribute productively. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 18:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support WikiCup TBAN''' with the suggestion of leaving our snarky remarks at the door in the future. [[User:Panini!|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#F40&quot;&gt;Panini!&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;span style=&quot;color:#F40&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; [[User talk:Panini!|🥪]] 20:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support permanent WikiCup TBAN and temporary GA and DYK TBAN''', as a minimum. I was prepared to limit my support only to a TBAN from WikiCup, as the current locus of disruption, until I saw Valeree's comment quoting TTT as very recently saying &quot;All rules are made to be broken and gamed&quot;. No. That is not the sort of collegiality and cooperation that we should be bringing to Wikipedia editing. Some rules are obstructions but almost all were created as a response to a specific problem, and TTT's behavior is a problem that is currently producing a push for more obstructive rules at [[WT:GAN]] that could slow down the whole GA system for everyone. If we take away WikiCup, it seems likely that GA badge counts will become the next personal contest to game. The GA process needs time away from TTT's disruption, for one thing to evaluate what is to be done to distinguish TTT's many valid Good Articles from those that may need reconsideration (with at least two currently under formal reassessment). Valeree's comment raises DYK as another very likely locus of disruption and a temporary TBAN could well head that off. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I'm going to stay neutral on the GAN and CUP topic ban proposals, since I don't think I have anything more to add to those discussions, but I '''oppose a topic ban from DYK''' in any form, at least for now. TonyTheTiger's conduct at DYK has only peripherally been discussed in this thread, and while there would be some more to unpack if it were focused on, I'm unconvinced that the DYK-specific evidence could necessitate action at this time. TBANs are preventative, but they're &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; preemptive. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 22:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I agree with tlc. I wasn't intending to suggest a ban from DYK just because if banned from GA/cup, that's the only place left to keep score. It might even be good to allow that one last place for TTT to show us they can learn from this. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support permanent WikiCup TBan'''. TonyTheTiger's participation in the WikiCup has caused problems since at least 2010 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&amp;oldid=386613217 &quot;Michigan basketball overload&quot;, 2 sections at [[WT:DYK]]). I also '''propose topic ban on solo nominations in any article recognition venue''': FA, GA, FP, FL, DYK&amp;nbsp;... anything. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194391967 &quot;All rules are made to be broken and gamed&quot;] on January 8, 2024 (after repeated discussion of his gaming and overwhelming at review venues, including sanctions applying to specific venues); the attempts to bargain by making new demands on backlog drive dates, also recent; and the admissions of insufficient knowledge about topics on which he is submitting articles for GA consideration. The COI promotional submission at DYK is the cherry on top. He's too focused on collecting accolades and evidently will continue clogging any recognition process in which he participates. If he wants to create and improve articles for the benefit of the encyclopedia, let him collaborate with other editors on nominations. Otherwise, do without the potential recognition. (And yes, I recommend a procedural quickfail of all his current GA nominations. Someone else can further improve an article they believe has GA potential and renominate it; at GA level there's always room for further improvement, and the list can be a useful source of improvement candidates.) (I have not participated in the WikiCup for many years, or in DYK for a similar number of years, except for a couple of nominations of articles I'd worked on by someone else.) [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 23:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from GAN and DYK, also remove all his current GANs'''. This diff in particular is just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194391967 shameless], also given past incidents of gaming the system.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 01:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Block''' from any &quot;awards&quot; whether GAN, WikiCup, DYK or what have you. Should have been when he tried to get his sister onto the fromt page with blatant disregard for COI. [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_195#COI_issue_at_Carla_Vernón]] but escaped it then. Clear history of acting in his own interest and not that of the project. [[User:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#be33ff;&quot;&gt;Star&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#ff33da;&quot;&gt;Mississippi&lt;/span&gt;]] 01:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:He tried to get his SISTER on the front page? Jesus Christ. I've collaborated with him on some FAs, but no one with the interests of the encyclopedia in mind would dare to pull that. Chalk me up as well as advocating a '''Block from all &quot;awards&quot;''' as per Star Mississippi. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''&lt;span style=&quot;background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF&quot;&gt; '' Ravenswing '' &lt;/span&gt;''' ]] 06:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::and this wasn't even, &quot;I know this is not the right course, but here's my case for why she deserves it&quot; but rather &quot;I don't see what your issue is.&quot; That was the most problematic especially from someone of his tenure. Besides the WT:DYK, the discussion is also on the article talk. [[User:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#be33ff;&quot;&gt;Star&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#ff33da;&quot;&gt;Mississippi&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Quite. If he was lying about that, that's a [[WP:BADFAITH|massive downcheck]]. If he ''wasn't'', that's a massive [[WP:CIR|competency issue]]. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''&lt;span style=&quot;background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF&quot;&gt; '' Ravenswing '' &lt;/span&gt;''' ]] 00:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *(Disclaimer: I first heard about the situation involving Tony on Discord a few days ago, when it came up in a discussion among GAN reviewers, but I wasn't canvassed or asked to participate in any discussion, and my views here are purely my own.) Having reviewed the different discussions that have taken place at Tony's talk page and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup]], I think a '''permanent topic ban for TonyTheTiger from the [[WP:CUP|WikiCup]] is warranted'''. Tony has repeatedly [[WP:IDHT|refused to get the point]] that their conduct has been disruptive and a drain on other editors who are trying to participate in the WikiCup in good faith. Some of Tony's remarks that were directed towards other editors, especially Generalissima, are also pretty subpar and fall below the expectations I would have of somebody who has been editing Wikipedia for nearly 18 years. As for a topic ban from GAN or other featured content processes, I am more neutral; I think Tony could contribute to these areas constructively provided that he no longer participates in the WikiCup, but I understand why others feel that a broader topic ban or restriction might be necessary to address Tony's conduct. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 02:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Having read Tony's statement below, my opinion hasn't changed too much. I think an indefinite topic ban from the WikiCup is the bare minimum required to prevent further disruption. I am still not really in favor of an indefinite topic ban from featured content creation processes (e.g., GAN, DYK) ''at this time'', but I think the removal of any of Tony's recent GANs which have not yet been reviewed or are not currently being reviewed is acceptable. However, it is evident that there have been issues in the past with Tony and featured content processes (i.e., the issues with Featured Sounds and the DYK conflict of interest incident that have been mentioned by others). If anything comes up again in the future with Tony's conduct in featured content processes on this noticeboard, I will be far less likely to give Tony the benefit of the doubt if a topic ban or more severe sanctions are on the table. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from GAN''' and removal of current GANs. His current behavior is disruptive to the GA process, as many have stated above; a TBAN from GAN is sufficient to prevent that disruption. I very much doubt the disruption will stop until TTT recognizes why his behavior is disruptive and commits to changing it (I have seen evidence of neither). An indefinite TBAN until he's prepared to make such a commitment seems appropriate. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 02:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Given TTT's apology below, a GAN limit of 1 nomination at a time is also fine with me. If he shows he can handle that, I'm sure folks would be willing to increase that nomination limit before too long. Also just a note that I think we should clear his current unreviewed nominations -- which basically everyone seems to agree are problematic -- from the GAN queue. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 12:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''No bans''' {{ec}}I am not sure why every solution to problems must include onerous sanctions. As {{u|Starship.paint}} has said below, we are in the middle of things... and IMO there is not an immediate need to stop a disruption. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 02:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:So, just to be clear, you don't feel there's any problem with Tony's behavior here at all? &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 05:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support limitation on active GA noms, no bans''' - Limiting the amount of active GA noms Tony is allowed to have seems to take care of the immediate problem at hand. Not sure why we are ready to throw prolific content creators off a cliff when they are just going through a bad phase. He does good work overall, and long-term bans here are detrimental to our readers. To be clear, he has acted questionably in some of the diffs mentioned here, but not quite enough to be permanently put away.--''[[User:MaranoFan|&lt;b style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;N&lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:MaranoFan|&lt;b style=&quot;color:teal&quot;&gt;Ø&lt;/b&gt;]]'' 08:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:What makes you think this is just a &quot;bad phase&quot;? TTT has been engaging in this behavior since at least 2010. And by &quot;this behavior&quot; I mean relentlessly pursuing &quot;awards&quot; collection and self-promotion to the detriment of the encyclopedia. He was banned from Featured Sounds for the same reasons outlined in this RfC. Last year he tried to get an article he wrote on his sister onto the front page on her birthday, accompanied by a picture with him in it (despite a previous ban on uploading pictures of himself!). He has been [[User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 86#Blocked|blocked]] [[User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 71#Blocked 48h|multiple]] times for baselessly accusing editors who didn't support his TFA/FS requests of racism. At what point does this become a pattern? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Remember kids, you can get away with anything so long as you're a &quot;prolific content creator&quot;. They live by an entirely different set of standards. We are approaching Coldwellian levels of misconduct (and apologism for said misconduct), along with total refusal to accept any responsibility for one's actions here, and that is ''not'' something I say lightly, given my prominent involvement in that saga. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 20:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from Cup, limitation on active GA noms''' preferably to one active nomination at a time. If the disruptive behavior relocates itself to DYK, we can deal with it there, but I feel a sanction for that would be premature at this stage. [[User:Lepricavark|L&lt;small&gt;EPRICAVARK&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;]]) 15:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from WikiCup''', support '''limitation on active GA noms''' (I'd prefer something between three and five), '''oppose DYK ban'''. '''Oppose ''indefinite'' GA TBAN''', but not opposed to a three-month GA ban (with the carveout that he can continue any GA work that is currently being reviewed or that he is reviewing). The WikiCup seems to be the main driver of the disruption – if the disruption continues outside the Cup then we could revisit. Also not seeing enough for a DYK ban. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' Tony has been removed from the cup by the judges.<br /> *'''Support indefinite TBAN from WikiCup, support limitation on active GA noms (I'd prefer one), support DYK ban.''' &lt;b&gt;[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]&lt;/b&gt; 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support indefinite ban from Cup, limitation on GA noms''' The gaming has been quite breathtaking, and TTT seems unrepentant. I would suggest no more than 1 GA nom at a time. -- [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 19:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support indefinate TBAN from WikiCup, low limitation on GA noms''' (three seems reasonable), '''removal of all current GANs where a review is not yet posted, and a minimum three-month gap between a failed GA review and renominating the article''': TTT has been renominating quickfails after edits that only address a small portion of the issues raised, which is one reason why I think he needs limits on his participation at GAN. If the community insists on a TBAN there, I won't oppose that, though it's a second choice. If he persists in nominating articles that don't meet the GA criteria per the GAN instructions, then a TBAN there seems inevitable (and may be so already). [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support indefinite TBAN from Cup and GAN limits''' Most of the problems seem to stem out of WikiCup gaming, but I think TTT could still be a useful contributor at GA. (I wouldn't mind a 3 month GA TBAN though, but I have no strong thoughts one way or the other.) If abuse continues, I would be open to a harder GAN limit or Star Mississippi's proposal. [[user:HistoryTheorist|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;color:#2F7E98&quot;&gt;❤History&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:HistoryTheorist|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;color:lightpurple&quot;&gt;Theorist❤&lt;/span&gt;]] 00:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''&lt;s&gt;Support indefinite ban from GAN&lt;/s&gt;''' (EDIT: See below), second choice a nomination limit of ''one'' (but would honestly be healthier just to leave it at zero IMO). Did not want to pile on until Tony made a statement, but... that was the wrong statement. Notably there doesn't appear to be an &quot;In deference to GA norms, I'll withdraw some/most of my nominations on my own&quot; in it, and I still see the spam sitting in WP:GAN. That is table stakes in any statement given that he's been told to do this, repeatedly, bluntly, and now en masse at ANI, and the fact that he hasn't done it himself speaks poorly of him getting the point. If Tony didn't &quot;consider [it] would be a problem&quot; at first, how come he didn't trust his fellow editors when they told him that yes, it was a problem? To state what's been said many times before... GAN is not some sort of content assessment service to drop off articles you've worked on. It's more like trading peer reviews, and it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what GA nomination &amp; reviewing is to spam it so blatantly just to &quot;use the further polish of GAN attention&quot;. And ''everyone'' has waited a long time for GA reviews before, it's not unique to Tony, and shouldn't it be obvious that this kind of spam makes that problem ''worse''? Tony can be a great content creator; it's time to rekindle the love of doing it just to do it, no stars and no icons attached. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 07:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** As a side note: &quot;I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light&quot; is wishful thinking. Many of the cited GA quickfails should not have passed GA even with 2010 standards. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 07:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:I'm not sure it ''is'' wishful thinking, but unlike Tony I think that's a problem. I think if he hadn't drawn the attention of several experienced reviewers by submitting such a high volume at once, many of the articles that were QF'd would have instead been reviewed by reviewers more prone to looking at the list of GA icons he has on his user page and deciding that ''they'' (ie, the reviewers) were in the wrong, not him. &quot;He must know what he's doing... I guess I don't really understand the standards,&quot; etc. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 14:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Upgrade to full ban from all content review processes''' with narrow exception of GANs currently under review and GAR / FAR of TTT's content. I was unimpressed with Tony's original reply and not withdrawing his noms (I'm not demanding mind control, it'd have been fine to say &quot;I strenuously disagree but if the community considers such mass nominations a problem, fine, I won't do that&quot;), and his later comments appear to be from a different planet, seemingly still defending miles-off nominations like Heath Irwin and viewing himself as the victim, rather than the aggressor. GAN is to take a mostly-there article and make it better. Maybe there's some other process for articles wildly far off from GA status, like a Tony-specific &quot;this month's article to help me improve&quot;, but it ain't GAN, and this isn't hard to understand. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 20:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose sanction''' The entire point of the WikiCup is to encourage editors to do more in order to score points as a form of [[gamification]]. The participants will, of course, game this and competitive pressure will then generate this sort of excess. If this seems problematic then the rules of the competition should be adjusted. For example, if a GAN is quickfailed, the nominator might lose points as a penalty. So, fix the game, don't punish the players. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 08:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** &quot;Gamification made me do it&quot; is not an excuse, and the WikiCup rules are already very blunt that editors who worsen Wikipedia in an attempt to win will be kicked out. As indeed happened in this case. There's no need to create [[Wikipedia:Asshole John rule]]s which will be a feel-bad for good faith editors who get a nom'd quickfailed for standard and legitimate reasons. I would suggest striking your rather bold claim that Wikicup &quot;participants&quot; in general behave this badly, which is obviously false - nobody else in the WikiCup harassed valid reviewers like TTT did. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 13:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:See similar comments above such as &quot;''The WikiCup clearly encourages gaming the system because a significant number of the recent winners won that way. ... This is a valid criticism, and indeed is why I declined to participate in the cup this year. ... any Wikipedia contest such as the Cup will by its very nature be competitive and could be considered by some as gaming.''&quot;<br /> **:As TTT has been disqualified now by a WikiCup judge, that seems adequate to correct the immediate issue. My point is that the contest's checks and balances should be left to work themselves out without ANI piling in too.<br /> **:[[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 08:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''SUPPORT BAN from all content review processes''': (saw this while I was here for another thread above). TTT's abuse of content review processes for personal reward-seeking reasons is a problem more than a decade old, where the FAC page and FA process was seriously misused, mostly fed by TTT's desire to win WikiCup, with most of TTT's articles having be extensively re-worked by other editors. TTT has continuously and constantly abused content review processes (FAC, GAN) to gain rewards at WikiCup and DYk, while content produced has been initially marginal and sapped reviewer time to bring pages to standard, and Wikipedia will not lose if this problem can be removed from the pages it is draining. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support ban from all content review processes''': I've experienced Tony's combative behaviors around not-ready content at FAC, and it's clear that it's an issue at DYK and GAN too. With such an egregious track record going back years across all areas, this seems to be the minimum to save everyone else time and frustration. &quot;The Wikicup made me do it&quot; is not a valid reason to defend this. [[User:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support ban from all content-related Wikipedia contests''', but not from GAN. Tony does good work, they just need to focus on improving Wikipedia instead of getting high scores. I had to go looking a long way back to find the dispute that caused me to remember TonyTheTiger's name. Way back in 2014, TTT created a content fork on the high school career of a professional basketball player, and it was deleted at AFD. Tony challenged at DRV where it was endorsed, and then it was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination)|nominated for deletion a second time]] after Tony recreated it anyway. Tony's bludgeoning and assumptions of bad faith in that discussion included a bizarre conspiracy of Canadian editors being secret members of [[WP:HOCKEY|WikiProject Hockey]] working against coverage of basketball topics, and spawned an [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:TonyTheTiger gaming AfD, bludgeoning and personal attacks against multiple editors|ANI thread]] in which Tony was warned to back off. The article was then salted, which led Tony to start [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262|''another'' AN thread]] requesting its restoration, which was a rather transparent attempt to set up for recreating the deleted article a third time. The player's high school career was later expanded in the main article, which is what should have happened in the first place without all the drama, but Tony was after points for the WikiCup or the [[WP:FOUR|Four award]] or some other contest so we got to play this game for a few months instead. What's happening with GAN spamming isn't the same issue but it's the same root cause, and it's disappointing that the same problem persists a decade after our spat: Tony is editing to score points, and improving content only because it scores points. [[WP:CIR|As the essay says]], &quot;a mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up.&quot; Tony is a prolific and valuable editor who just needs to refocus on content and stop making messes, and a ban from participating in these contests and awards will help. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]&lt;/sub&gt;) 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{u|Ivanvector}}, just to clarify, are you also wanting Tony to be banned from claiming [[WP:Four Awards]]? &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Would you say that's not covered by &quot;all content-related Wikipedia contests&quot;? [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]&lt;/sub&gt;) 21:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Yes, that's why I wanted to clarify. I don't view 4A as a contest, as you're not competing against other people for a prize in a limited timeframe. (I know there have historically been issues with Tony and 4A, and I'm not trying to say he ''shouldn't'' necessarily be banned from 4A, just clarifying your stance). &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Fair question, then. Yes, I think he should be banned from seeking those awards, but that does raise an issue of enforcement since we can't stop other editors handing them out. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]&lt;/sub&gt;) 21:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from both GAN and WikiCup''' per Ivanvecor, PMC and Buidhe. Bling is one thing, but active disruption (and the complete wasting of people's time that has with it!) brings behavior into the community's purview. &lt;small&gt;...and PMC, particularly, oozes a degree of sarcasm that I can only dream of.&lt;/small&gt; [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from WikiCup and content review processes''' per PMC, Sandy, DWF, my previous comments on the WikiCup talk page, and Tony's recent comments below (starting with {{tq|In the back of my mind...}}) which amount to a conspiracy theory about other editors. (Disclosure: I am currently competing in the WikiCup.) [[User:Dylan620|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;Dylan&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;620&lt;/span&gt;]] (he/him • [[User talk:Dylan620|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|edits]]) 23:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Appeal for GAN TBAN exception for already actively reviewed GANs===<br /> <br /> I see that there are GANs already actively being reviewed '''before''' the start of this ANI. One is &lt;s&gt;[[Talk:3:16 game/GA1]]&lt;/s&gt; (closed now) where Tony is the reviewer. Another is [[Talk:In a World.../GA1]] where Tony's article is being reviewed. Others include [[Talk:2018–19 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1]], [[Talk:Wait a Minute (The Pussycat Dolls song)/GA3]] and [[Talk:Joanne McCarthy (basketball)/GA1]]. Perhaps there are more such GANs that I missed. In the interests of being reasonable, having courtesy and respect for Tony and the other reviewer/reviewed editors of these GANs, I suggest a carve-out to allow Tony to participate in these if he receives a GAN TBAN. This does '''not''' apply to GANs Tony nominated but no one has reviewed yet. This would also not apply to any GAN review Tony started after the ANI began. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :In the case of GANs where Tony is the reviewer, that seems fair enough. In the case of GANs where Tony is the nominator, the reviewer should be made aware of the situation here (if they aren't already) and given the option to discontinue the review. But if they're happy to continue, giving Tony a carve-out seems fair enough. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 06:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Yes, if the other reviewers wish to stop for any reason, then that is the end for that nomination. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 09:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I missed &lt;S&gt;[[Talk:Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention/GA1]]&lt;/S&gt; (closed now), [[Talk:A Christmas Story: The Musical/GA1]], [[Talk:Chris Hill (basketball)/GA1]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 12:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Junk the Wikicup===<br /> {{hat|1=Proposal SNOW closed and wrong venue. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])'''}}<br /> {{atop|Closing this per [[WP:SNOW]] and (more importantly) the wrong venue to request a project be closed. {{nac}} — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 21:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> ...because it regularly leads to this kind of trouble. It's long outlived its usefulness. [[User:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:red;&quot;&gt;E&lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:blue;&quot;&gt;Eng&lt;/b&gt;]] 16:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Really? When was the last time? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' due to being obviously incorrect. The purpose/&quot;usefulness&quot; of the cup is to encourage users to improve content, which it does. One person possibly trying to game the system isn't a valid rationale to junk the entire competition. It's silly to suggest we do so just because of one person. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose'''. Clearly not the correct outcome. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 17:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I really don't think this is the right conclusion to draw from the discussions above. The vast majority of WikiCup participants don't violate any Wikipedia guidelines or policies, and when they do, they get disqualified from the competition (as Tony was just recently). As for {{tq|It's long outlived its usefulness}}, it's inspired people to expand or create hundreds of articles over the years, the vast majority of which, again, have no issues. I'm going to say that ''any'' type of competition is liable to have issues like this come up; it's just a matter of how well the problem is handled by the judges of such contests. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Junk and never replace... Or junk until we can come up with something better? Not super open to the first but could see the second being valuable. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' I feel the fact that the community is so eager to sanction someone gaming the cup in this way is a good sign that Wikicup participants not want this sort of incident to occur again. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::People want to sanction them for gaming wikipedia, not for gaming the cup... As far as I know that would be up to the Cup's organizers and I don't think they've chosen to take any action here. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Tony's already been kicked out of the cup. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 17:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ec}} {{tq|I don't think they've chosen to take any action here.}} - I disqualified him from the cup earlier today, once I got to my computer. I had limited internet access over the weekend, so I couldn't do it earlier. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you, I didn't know that you were the only organizer who could do that. Is there a reason they're recorded as withdrawn rather than eliminated on the project page? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{u|Horse Eye's Back}}, if this is an underhanded comment directed at {{u|Cwmhiraeth}} and {{u|Frostly}}, you're still required to notify them as you're now discussing their conduct at ANI. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::It isn't, I wasn't aware who the organizers were or how many there were when I made the original comment. If that is not the case I apologize, but then I don't really understand why Epicgenius having limited internet access is relevant. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::While Cwmhiraeth and Frostly are also judges, I'm currently acting as the ''de facto'' main organizer of this competition. Hence, I made the decision to withdraw them as soon as I was able. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Noting here that I support the decision to withdraw.&lt;span id=&quot;Frostly:1711397869258:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&amp;apos;_noticeboard/Incidents&quot; class=&quot;FTTCmt&quot;&gt; —&amp;nbsp;[[User:Frostly|Frostly]] ([[User talk:Frostly|talk]]) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/span&gt;<br /> :::::::{{ec}}Cwmhiraeth is now largely retired from WP, and is there to help Epicgenius and Frostly, who are both new to the role. So far (in the 30% of a cup we've had), Epicgenius has done the work of setting up/eliminating contestants. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::It's largely a technical distinction. Contestants are marked in red if, at the end of the round, they don't have enough points to qualify for the next round. Contestants are marked in purple if they are removed or if they withdraw from the competition in the middle of the round. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose''' because despite the extra drama it really is needed to help reduce backlogs (at GA, for instance) and would have done so this time if not for TTT's gaming. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 17:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::It still does, even with TTT considered. [https://wikicup.toolforge.org/index.php?year=2024 So far this year], Cup competitors have contributed 316 GA reviews and 108 featured article/list reviews, against 141 GAs and 26 FAs/FLs promoted. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I stand corrected, thanks. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''', unsourced claim. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' – I'm really really mad I got knocked out in the first round. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{smiley}} [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' drastic proposal without even an attempt to provide evidence. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''oppose''' per Epicgenius &amp; Gog &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 20:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' - It’s been a long time since I had available time to participate in the WikiCup, but the year that I did, it encouraged me to keep putting in effort and working on the encyclopedia. I kind of like that. It’s a shame some people have to game, like robbing the bank in Monopoly, but proper enforcement by the coordinators and responding to gaming complaints seems like a small price to pay for a positive force for editing. I may want to see some reforms personally that continue to encourage contributions from those eliminated early on, but nothing wrong with the concept as a whole. [[User:Red Phoenix|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#FF0000&quot;&gt;Red Phoenix&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Red Phoenix|&lt;sup style=&quot;color: #FFA500&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 20:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose'''. It's not really my cup of tea but it prompts people to improve the encyclopaedia and they have fun while doing it so it's harmless at worst. It has been known to cause some problems with backlogs at review processes but I believe steps have been taken in recent years to mitigate that. It's unfortunate that one editor took things too far and didn't participate on the principle that it was fun, but I see no reason to think that's typical of editors participating in the cup. [[User:HJ Mitchell|&lt;b style=&quot;color: teal; font-family: Tahoma&quot;&gt;HJ&amp;nbsp;Mitchell&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman&quot; title=&quot;(Talk page)&quot;&gt;Penny for your thoughts?&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *This is daft, even by your standards, EEng. '''Oppose''', obviously. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 20:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' - no real evidence has been provided that the WikiCup {{tq|regularly leads to this kind of trouble}} or has {{tq|long outlived its usefulness}}. I don't think we need to get rid of something that most people seem to be able to constructively participate in just because a few don't. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> {{hab}}<br /> <br /> ===TonyTheTiger's statement===<br /> Today, I stumbled upon a User talk page of a user who had been blocked, with instructions on how to appeal a block [[User_talk:Ptb1997#September_2023]]. It gives the directive that <br /> <br /> To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that<br /> <br /> *the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or<br /> *the block is no longer necessary because you<br /> *#understand what you have been blocked for,<br /> *#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and<br /> *#will make useful contributions instead.<br /> <br /> I know bans are different than blocks, but the spirit of the directive is relevant here. I have tried to not say anything that I would regret for the last few days. I will be making a statement in the next 6 hours.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 00:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I joined the [[WP:CUP]] this year. I remember finishing 2nd in the 2010 CUP and had honestly forgotten about [[WP:FS]] topic ban surrounding the 2011 CUP. Knowing myself, I probably figured out a strategy that if allowed to run its course would have given me a good chance to finish at least 2nd again without recognition of the broader implications of the strategy to WP in general and to the CUP. I apologize for whatever happened then (again, if I have already done so &amp;mdash; finally, if I have not).<br /> <br /> This year, I entered the CUP on a whim. As it progressed, I regained some editorial vigor that I had had before and during the 2010 CUP. I started feeling competitive. First, I started thinking about making the finals again and before you know it I was trying to strategize a podium finish. In the CUP great [[WP:FA|Featured Articles]] producers have an advantage. I am not such an editor. I have a pretty low success rate at [[WP:FAC]] for the number of FAs that I have. I large percentage of my FAs are the results of co-nominators or co-editors who are far better copyeditors than I. However, I have a long history of success at GA and DYK. So I decided to focus my efforts on those two methods of scoring CUP points. <br /> <br /> There were two main impediments to my prospects for success in the 2024 CUP. First, the way I have been keeping the bills paid is highly seasonal. Last year, I earned over 82% of my income between May and October. The busy season is usually May through September and it can roll into October depending on certain factors. I needed a strategy that would enable me to compete even when I get busy with work. Second, I don’t tend to get reviewed very quickly on GA. Recent history will show you that I don’t get the fastest GA reviews (probably because I don’t do a lot of reviews anymore). See the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations&amp;oldid=1168120698 GAN queue before last year’s August backlog drive]. I took a look at the rules and figured a way that I could have a good chance at continuing to score a lot of GA points while I am very busy and while my review lag tends to be high. I figured, that if I could put a lot of articles in the queue in a way that they would have date priority at GAN I would be able to score enough cup points in rounds 3 and 4 to have a good chance to make the finals. Since I have had hundreds of DYK promotions since my last run at the CUP, I felt that many of them were a good way up the hill toward GA. Cramming them into GAN all at once without significant recent editorial activity was not something I considered would be a problem.<br /> <br /> GA evaluation is a very subjective process. Artilcles that might meet with good favor under the right sunlight may suffer a bad fate under a cloud of darkness. Although I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light, they were reviewed at a time when I had upset a lot of active GA reviewers with my GA strategy. Ex post, it looks like I submit a lot of crappy articles to GAN. My long history at GAN probably says otherwise. However, I am not here to debate the quality of recently reviewed articles. <br /> <br /> I do understand that a common theme among the reviews for the old DYK nominations at GAN is that they have not aged well. Some have become out of date. Others have evolved into states where maintenance tags should have been or were added to the articles. I think in the neighborhood of 2 dozen (if not more) of my GAN articles have been quickfailed at in recent days. All but one of these have been DYKs from past years. There has been little issue with my recent editorial activity. I’ll try to give you a list here for comparison with those that have been rejected. You will probably agree that my most recent work upholds the standards of GA that all interested parties are concerned about. The following are current nominations (all sports articles except for one and mostly basketball) from recent work: [[Gary Bossert]], [[Andrew Dakich]], [[Jennifer Martz]], [[Sean Jackson (basketball)]], [[Dave Jamerson]], [[Billy Garrett Jr.]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;The most recent lead hook at [[WP:DYK]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;, [[Todd Leslie]], [[Peter Patton (basketball)]] and [[Eustace Tilley]]. Additionally, the following recent works were going to be heading into the GAN queue soon: [[Kobe Bufkin]], [[Will Tschetter]], [[Drew Golz]], [[Draft:Kasey Morlock]], and [[Draft:Alia Fischer]].<br /> <br /> I realize that it would be easier on reviewers and better for the GAN system if I refrained from nominating stale, atrophied and otherwise less exemplary articles. However, I do believe that things that I have recently researched continue to be of benefit to the WP readership and could use the further polish of GAN attention. Although I continue to have faults as an editor in need of correction, none of my recent works (mostly created from scratch) should have much in common with the recent batch of quickfails.<br /> <br /> I probably should not be involved in the CUP since I have twice gotten too competitive in ways that are adverse to the general mission of WP. I don’t really think the GA ban is entirely necessary. My current work at GAN is probably not as problematic as the topics that have been distant from my attention for years. The real problems that I am having with GAN are not so much as my general lack of understanding of what is deserving of review attention, but my competitive CUP juices compelling me to nominate articles with very slight consideration and minimal recent editorial involvement.<br /> <br /> I consider it highly unlikely that you will ever see a slew of articles with prominent blemishes if my GAN privileges were allowed to continue in general. It would be fair to all to remove all nominations stemming from my historical DYK activity, but nominations related to recent editorial efforts would probably benefit WP without burdening the GAN reviewers any more than normal.<br /> <br /> My apologies to all of the hardworking GA reviewers and all participants that keep the GAN system going. I apologize to all CUP contestants and judges. In addition, I apologize for all the time that I took away from other activities by necessitating discussant activity here and elsewhere on WP. Furthermore, my competitive juices also warrant an apology to several DYK parties as well for actions not at issue here, but not so remote from them either. However, I don’t really think that a person who gets too competitive with the CUP needs much more than to be removed from the CUP to continue to be an asset to WP.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Thank you Tony. I have a few follow-up questions.<br /> :#{{tq|Since I have had hundreds of DYK promotions since my last run at the CUP, I felt that many of them were a good way up the hill toward GA}} What inspired this feeling? Did you read back over the DYK promotions and feel each one was worth a shot at GAN? Or was it a more general feeling that if you'd managed to get an article through DYK, it was probably worth giving it a shot at GAN?<br /> :#:Read back over would definitely be a wrong description. Basically, I took a quick glance at every [[User:TonyTheTiger/DYK|DYK I have had since mid 2010]] and some related articles. E.g. Some Big Ten or Ivy League seasons as well as Michigan and Princeton seasons may have been before that cutoff, but I looked at all of those similar article types with a quick glance. I eliminated all short DYKs. I think anything that was not at least 2800-3000 characters was cut. I glanced for citation needed templates, but surely missed some. If it had a top maintenance tag, it probably got cut. No real scientific process. I probably cut a list of 550 down to about 100. Then I looked at the ones I had to work on before nominating and the ones that I thought were close enough to be shaped up. I think I looked to see if I was the top 3 or 4 editors on each page as well, but confess I did not pay much attention to my percentage contribution. --[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#{{tq|Cramming them into GAN all at once without significant recent editorial activity was not something I considered would be a problem.}} That's a comment on your past mental state. Do you, as of now, consider the number of GANs you submitted at once to have been a problem?<br /> :#:The GAN process is set up to have hundreds of simultaneous nominations at once. I would not be surprised if the GAN could present 1000 at once. I have in the past had upwards of 30 simultaneous nominations at once I believe. GAN is an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor. The 70ish number is not a problem on its face. The problem is that I have never dug up articles from the past and nominated them. I have always nominated articles that I have recently honed and crafted. As I mentioned above, I stand behind all of the DYK creations from the past few months as viable GAN candidates. I should have given more serious consideration to which types of topics tend to atrophy over time. Many of the subjects that I submitted were BLPS of subjects I last paid close attention to on the order of a decade ago. They either had or should have had significant changes that I was not involved in editorially. I think I placed too much faith in added contributions with [[WP:IC]]s. I think I sort of felt if all the added stuff had ICs, it was an article that was probably up to snuff, which is not really a valid check. My process was flawed and that was a sort of a problem.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#{{tq|Although I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light, they were reviewed at a time when I had upset a lot of active GA reviewers}} To be more specific, do you believe e.g. [[Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1]] would have passed or had a significantly improved chance of passing had you not &quot;upset a lot of active GA reviewers&quot; at the time? Are there specific failed GANs you believe would not have been failed had you not &quot;upset a lot of active GA reviewers&quot;?<br /> :#:There was definitely a time when the current version of [[Heath Irwin]] would have passed as is. For an offensive lineman who has not met with [[Pro Bowl]]-level or [[Super Bowl]]-level success, his article has some heft. I have had hundreds of successful GAs and don't remember a quickfail. I may have had some though, but I doubt I have had even 1 per 100 nominations if I have had any. A huge percentage of my GAs are American football and basketball related. So, I feel that I do have an understanding of what is a GA-caliber article for these sports. If there is a new 2024 standard for GA articles, I am not familiar with it. To my recollection, [[WP:WIAGA]] seems relatively unchanged. I use to be a lot more active with football nominations. 10 or 15 years ago when I was more active with football nominations, my rep might have kept me from having a nom quickfailed in the past and helped with some promotions. I concede that the percentage of football reviewers who even know me from Adam nowadays is much smaller. Nonetheless, I can see the patience that I have had as a reviewer at [[Talk:3:16 game/GA1]] for an article that was not well formed and immediately nomed at [[WP:AFD]] when I began my review. I am also aware of the skill and patience of many reviewers. I believe that there are many reviewers who would have had the patience and skill to coax me into recrafting [[Heath Irwin]] as a GA.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:Skill in this sense is meant to be a combination of wikipedia institutional expertise and subject matter expertise.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 12:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:I mentioned above that only one of my recent DYK creations met with the quickfail hatchet. In the past, I have presented several precollegiate athletes for GAN. I believe myself to have been one of, if not, the groundbreaker on producing pre-collegiate basketball GAs. When I started producing a lot of pre-collegiate basketball (and football) GAs over a decade ago many of them may have been a bit longer than [[Olivia Olson (basketball)]]. In some regards, I still was quite surprised that Olson was quickfailed. I find it hard to believe that you could expect so much more than was presented for this subject that what was presented was so remote from that expectation that it deserved a quickfail.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 06:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::You've been informed many times that high school athletes have to meet much higher standards for notability, otherwise we would have articles on literally every DI and DII football recruit. We sometimes don't even consider NFL draftees notable despite their garnering national coverage. This article is sourced almost exclusively to local and non-independent or primary media hype, which per NSPORT do not contribute to notability at least partly because they inherently fail to demonstrate breadth and depth of coverage and are routine for the topic. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 08:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::[[User:JoelleJay]], to be more specific to this article. [[WP:LOCAL]]'s nutshell summary states: &quot;This page in a nutshell: An article about a local place or person may be created if there is enough referenced information to make it encyclopedic.&quot; Furthermore, although like all pre-collegiate athletes Olson does not meet [[WP:NHOOPS]], further up that page [[WP:SPORTBASIC]] says &quot;A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.&quot; Furthermore, in regard to the numerous discussions regarding pre-collegiate athletes and this issue of local vs. national coverage, the general agreement was that only a very few and possibly a singular national level source would suffice to meet this standard. In this case we have [chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://playeroftheyear.gatorade.com/poy/assets/writable/84707/2024_GK_OOlson.pdf Gatorade.com], [https://michigan.rivals.com/news/five-star-point-guard-olivia-olson-commits-to-michigan Rivals.com], [https://www.aol.com/news/state-top-senior-girls-basketball-145400425.html AOL.com] and [https://www.si.com/fannation/bringmethesports/mn-high-school-sports/2-minnesota-girls-basketball-stars-named-mcdonalds-all-americans Sports Illustrated albeit a locally targeted offshoot]. With that support a QF was quite surprising. I don't think I have had a pre-collegiate athlete nomination with two or more national articles fail (let alone quickfail) in the past. It would not have been unreasonable for a patient reviewer to ask me if I could beef up the international section and personal life.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 12:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::I and others have pointed you to [[Wikipedia:YOUNGATH]] several times. &lt;br&gt;Gatorade is obviously not an independent source, the AOL piece is from the Star Tribune, the Rivals source is the offshoot specific to Michigan sports, and the SI piece is as you say a local offshoot. None of these are sufficient. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 16:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::: &lt;small&gt;FWIW, not all local sources should be discounted, especially major papers like the ''Star Tribune''. The only requirement is that it needs to be &quot;[[WP:YOUNGATH|clearly beyond routine coverage]]&quot; – though I admit I haven't analyzed the sources. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :#::::::Just dropping into this subthread to add that GA reviews don't take a position on notability. If there isn't sigcov in reliable sources it may be quite hard to write a GA-review-passing article, but at no point is the reviewer asked to make a notability call. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::What? The [[WP:GAN/I#R1|instructions]] for reviewers: {{tq|Ensure all articles meet [[Wikipedia:PG|Wikipedia policies and guidelines]] as expected of any article, including [[Wikipedia:NPOV|neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:V|verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:NOR|no original research]], and [[Wikipedia:N|notability]].}} [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 21:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::It isn't one of the criteria, and you'll find it explicitly listed at [[WP:GACN#Beyond the scope]]. AfD, not GAN, is the place to decide notability. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::::It's not one of the criteria, but it is explicitly in the instructions for GAN reviewers so there should be an expectation of notability. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 22:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::::{{reply to|JoelleJay}} It was added without consensus when the same wording was added the nomination instructions. Discussions on the GA talk page have generally held that notability is not part of a GA review and should be handled at [[WP:AFD]]. [[User:Rjjiii|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps;&quot;&gt;Rjj&lt;sup&gt;iii&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 05:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::Indeed. On occasion FACs are queried re notability. In principle, there is no reason why an FA couldn't be AfDed. I don't know if this has ever happened. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::It has! I recall at least one. A baseball player, I think? Nominated by its main author, actually. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::::{{ping|Gog the Mild|Asilvering}} I believe you are thinking of [[Lewis (baseball)]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination)|AfD]], [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lewis (baseball)/archive1|FAR]]). [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::::Yes, that's it for sure. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination)]]. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 01:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#{{tq|It would be fair to all to remove all nominations stemming from my historical DYK activity, but nominations related to recent editorial efforts would probably benefit WP}} Which specific GANs do you stand by? Which specific GANs should be withdrawn?<br /> :– [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 14:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Just a quick comment based on Teratix's #4, I've removed that set of nominations from the GAN queue (i.e. nominations that you haven't edited substantively in over a year, and that hadn't been reviewed yet). If you, or anyone else, thinks I hit a false positive, you are of course welcome to revert. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 18:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Aside from those articles that I have created or 5xed in the last 6 months or so, there are not too many that I can really stand solidly behind with confidence. Given the time between my past DYKs and now, I have to develop an understanding of how GAN evaluates formerly prominent athletes who have been less interesting for quite some time. Basically, anything that I have not worked on in the last 6 months is a candidate for removal.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 06:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :If I may add one question. You seem to apologize for nominating a large slate of underprepared GA noms. Can you also talk to your behaviour towards editors, where you failed to assume good faith, and what you would do differently in the future? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::WP is a community of people with different backgrounds, interests, expertises, skills, and roles. We are all here to help present knowledge to the world. It certainly works best if we always assume good faith. As I have stated above, I get a bit competitive about the cup. If I could turn back the clock (now that I am reassessing my overlycompetitive nature), I would have taken the CUP less seriously, which in turn would have caused me to be less in your face. I think I am having something akin to a WP midlife crisis in which my worth as a WPian is tied up in making the finals of the CUP. I am no longer one of the great editors and need to stop competing with ghosts of my past. Trying to figure out how to play the game to make the finals the way that I did was not fair to other editors who were working hard to reduce the GAN backlog, to achieve their own success in the CUP, to maintain the integrity of GA, and to keep things going. What I should have done is just participated in the CUP with things I had worked on recently. In the future, all of my GANs will have at least a recent flourish of activity or a solid reaffirmation based on close inspection.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::These aren't recent, but it may be relevant that Tony has had issues at ANI about bad faith accusations [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive811#Continued policy violations from User:TonyTheTiger at WT:FOUR (close requested)|in 2013 where he was indeffed]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:TonyTheTiger gaming AfD, bludgeoning and personal attacks against multiple editors|in 2014 where he was warned]]. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 19:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{re|TonyTheTiger}} Do you have any intention of apologising directly to the editors who you cast aspersions on? Further, if a new editor behaved as you did, do you believe they would have been offered the leniency this discussion has afforded you? '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 12:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Above when I stated &quot;My apologies to all of the hardworking GA reviewers and all participants that keep the GAN system going. I apologize to all CUP contestants and judges. In addition, I apologize for all the time that I took away from other activities by necessitating discussant activity here and elsewhere on WP. Furthermore, my competitive juices also warrant an apology to several DYK parties as well for actions not at issue here, but not so remote from them either.&quot; it was certainly intended to include them. If any of them do not feel covered by that statement, I do apologize for casting aspersions on anyone who felt thusly treated and anyone in any way offended by my CUP related behavior. In regards to leniency, I believe anyone brought up at [[WP:ANI]] is allowed to make a statement. I did not mean to abuse the system or seek special treatement by making mine, if that is the perception. I believe a new editor would be allowed to make any statement that they want.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 12:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::That's a blanket apology Tony, not a direct apology which is what is owed to Generalissima, Teratix, the editors at WT:CUP and on your talk page, and probably elsewhere. This is not a matter of them &quot;feeling thusly treated&quot;, it's a matter of you having made direct and explicit allegations of bad faith on their part. Perhaps you can present your mass nomination as a misjudgement or misunderstanding, but the statements you made towards other editors cannot be so excused. Regarding my second question, let me rephrase it: had you been a new editor who flooded GAN with obviously un-passably bad articles and then proceeded to make numerous allegations of bad faith against other editors, do you believe you would have been afforded the opportunity to continue editing with an ANI discussion being the most serious consequence for your actions? '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 13:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I took a long time to make an extensive statement because I am trying to remain level headed. I meant to make an apology that was sincere to all individuals whom I behaved inappropriately with. I feel the heat getting turned up a bit here and I am not trying to do [[Twelve-step_program#Twelve_Steps|steps 8 and 9 of the 12 steps]]. This is especially so as I see the line forming below for #MeToo apologies. In my time on WP, I have offended many (surely dozens). In the past week, I have offended several. Wrongly, I took offense to extremely negative reviews. I do not have any right to positive reviews regardless of my process, role, contribution, or performance. All reviewers have a right to give any review that they feel they can justify. All reviews are largely subjective, and I can not disprove any review. So, I must accept all reviews assuming good faith by their reviewers. Thus, all derisive responses to individual reviewers and even secondary discussants beg for apologies. Derisive and possibly hurtful statements to Teratix are at the top of my list of things I mean to apologize for and I do so here directly. Generalissima is likely the leading scorer in CUP points for quickfailing my reviews, but only one of these was particularly contentious to me. I actually think many of these points were well-deserved. Regardless of my contentions (is that a word) regarding any single review, I need to remain professional. I went beyond any acceptable manner of decorum with Generalissima. In fact, my interactions with Generalissima are correctly a huge part of an intervention like this. I apologize for the lack of respect conveyed in my interactions with Generalissima.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I too had hoped for a direct apology. Tony, you may want to read the lead of [[non-apology apology]] and the section {{section link|non-apology apology#Ifpology}}. The way you apologized is quite common, but not that convincing. I'm still hoping we can end this discussion with you continuing to contribute to GAN, but me at least need to be convinced you are willing to mend trust. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I don't recall interacting with you at any other page in relation to this $#!T storm. I went back about 10 days in your contributions to double check. By my investigation our first interactaion in what is at issue was 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC). So are you asking for a direct apology to you? Or are you seconding 5225C above? -[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::: I was seconding 5225C above. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Since following the thread is already a tad confusing, moving this below, but re Tony's in-line replies to the list above:<br /> *: {{green|GAN is an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor. The 70ish number is not a problem on its face.}}<br /> * You've been told this repeatedly already, but just to say so again: Yes, it is a problem, on its face. Past a certain point, it's not on everyone else to explain why it's a problem to your personal satisfaction, you just need to accept that it is. It would have been a problem even if all your mass noms were perfect, no notes, ship it productions. It is a far worse problem when - as you yourself admitted you knew - you were seeking some &quot;polish&quot; from nomination review. Just as AFD isn't a way to demand other editors do cleanup, GAN isn't a way to demand other editors fix up an article for you. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **[[User:SnowFire]], my point was that I felt it was the quality of the submissions more than the quantity. That was of course only my opinion. It may be that the quantity was more of a problem than the quality and I was wrong. It is likely that each individual here assigns a different weight to how much of this issue is related to quantity and how much is related to quality. As I have stated, in the past I have had dozens of simultaneous nominations without issue. But as we are here there is some element of the problem related to quantity and some related to quality. Clearly you assign a higher proportion of the problem to quantity.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *** ''Both'' quantity ''and'' quality were problematic. It's just that you seem to grudgingly accept that the quality was an issue, but still don't seem to get that the quantity was an issue, too. And frankly I'm skeptical that your previous activities were truly &quot;without issue&quot; given that you've proven not particularly perceptive to the time of other editors.<br /> *** Hypothetical situation: an eccentric millionaire reveals that he's paid a team of independent researchers to create 1,000 new articles on notable topics, that are mostly about GA quality or close. This person is ''awesome''. They deserve a barnstar, a Signpost article, a shout-out, whatever. However, the contracts are up so the researchers can't really do any good peer reviews themselves. Should our millionaire - who has done a fantastic service to Wikipedia (just as you have) - submit all 1,000 of these articles to GAN, because it's &quot;an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor&quot;? The answer is ''emphatically not''. The awesome part was the GA-level articles themselves, not the green icon which readers neither recognize nor care about. GAN is useful as a mechanism of trading around peer reviews and second opinions, not about classifying the very best articles, and our millionaire can't possibly do their side of the equation for 1,000 articles. Which is fine. It just means that GA status is not in the cards. Basically, even in the scenario where the articles you nominated were in significantly better shape, this sort of mass nom is not a thing. The &quot;reward&quot; of your work is the articles having better content. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:Personally as both a GA contributor and a millionaire, I consider your hypothetical to be ridiculous.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 11:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::I'm just taking what you wrote seriously and where that would go in an extreme situation. You've completely dodged responding to the merits of the question - you ''still'' think that nominating 70 or 1,000 or whatever articles at once is no problem? I guess I should have listened to my own advice and not bothered to attempt to even convince you. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::You dig yourself a deeper hole with every reply here, Tony. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 22:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:There's an [[Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposals_to_address_the_backlog|ongoing discussion about ways of improving the GA process]] to better cope with the growing backlog of reviews. One idea is to formalise a limit of 20 nominations per person and it's surprising that this hasn't been done before. A QPQ system is obviously needed too. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 09:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::I already linked Asshole John rule above to you. If someone is abusing the process, just ban them from the process, which you opposed above. Don't create bespoke, hacky rules just for them that also impact others. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:::These are not bespoke, hacky rules; they seem quite natural and sensible. And they are used successfully elsewhere. The FA process limits nominators to one at a time. And DYK has a QPQ process which seems quite productive. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 17:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::::DYK has a QPQ system that requires them to argue over like a fourth of hooks 3 hours before they go on the main page because everyone pumps out QPQs to get it over with. It'd be even worse at GAN, where there's a significant time investment for a good review. Every person who doesn't actually want to do a review will just tick their way through a template and the end result will be even more strain on reviewers because now they have to check every else's work too. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:::::DYK has a system of triple-checking so naturally there's a further round of issues when set-builders and promoters make their additional checks. The GA process doesn't make such double-checks immediately because there's no big impact immediately. But there's a [[WP:GAR|reassessment]] process which currently has a queue of articles awaiting further review. All such processes are naturally imperfect per the [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer|disclaimers]]. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 10:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::::::Reassessment of poor reviews is not the solution. After a poor review, an opportunity has been wasted. The GA process is good when an article gets an in-depth review that makes it even better. Encouraging checkbox QPQs takes away the best thing about the process. Getting a shiny green badge is and should be secondary to the improvement to the encyclopedia that results. More shiny green badges is not itself an improvement to the encyclopedia. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *In the back of my mind, I am wondering if this all has anything to do with my decision to do a GAN review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3:16_game&amp;oldid=1214023874 this malformed article with no infobox and a prominent maintenance tag] to turn it into a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3:16_game&amp;oldid=1216053622 Good article]. Were the subsequent quickfails of my works and the nomination of the article at [[WP:AFD]] a vocalization of disapproval of my decision to commit to doing such a review. I.e., is there an effort to make it known that we don't want people to commit to that type of improvement.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:You know Tony, I really thought with your statements above that you might kind of be getting it, but this accusation of a bad faith conspiracy shows you obviously aren't. &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 18:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:??????????????????? – &lt;code style=&quot;background:#333;border:1px solid #999&quot;&gt;[[User:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#fff;text-shadow:0 0 5px #fff&quot;&gt;Hilst&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#090&quot;&gt;&amp;lbrack;talk&amp;rbrack;&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/code&gt; 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::took the words right out of my mouth. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::ditto &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't even understand what the purpose of the conspiracy would be here... to discourage high-quality GA reviewing? Why would anyone want to do that? My motivation in raising an issue with your nominations, for the record, was solely to keep morale high at the March GAN backlog drive, per my role as coordinator. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Should I assume that this discussion means that we expect people to quickfail such articles regardless of whether they have the skill and patience to guide the article toward GA?-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 18:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:We ''should'' presume that they are different skillsets, and that it is entirely possible to gauge whether or not an article is fit for GA status without necessarily being inclined to take an article to GA status. You've been around far too long to fall into the delusion that only some Consecrated Elite has what it takes to make such determinations. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''&lt;span style=&quot;background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF&quot;&gt; '' Ravenswing '' &lt;/span&gt;''' ]] 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{u|TonyTheTiger}} - by my reading of the situation, the sanctions have nothing to do with 3:16 game. It’s really other parts of your behaviour you have to improve. It’s not about other editors. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 01:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Frankly, I would be ''more'' likely to quickfail an article from an experienced nominator who possesses &quot;skill and patience&quot;. For a newbie, I'm usually happy to give them some latitude, work closely with them to improve the article, and help them go through the process to understand the GA criteria. But once someone has 100+ GAs under their belt, I expect that they will have the criteria down pat and ensure that the article basically meets them ''before'' they nominate it for GA. That applies doubly when the experienced nominator is mass-nominating old articles without re-checking them in order to score points in a competition. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 01:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == User:SheriffIsInTown chronic reverting problem ==<br /> <br /> Continously reverting and redirecting ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan_general_election_forms&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210942217], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan_general_election_forms&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211734720], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan_general_election_forms&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215365066]) on [[Election Commission of Pakistan general election forms]] and trying to impose a redirect without a consensus. Generally, this should be handled through [[WP:AFD]] and considered as a failed [[WP:PROD]], but this guy will mindlessly revert, revert, and revert. [[Special:Contributions/141.195.113.18|141.195.113.18]] ([[User talk:141.195.113.18|talk]]) 18:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#SheriffIsInTown Similar problem] was highlighted by {{ping|Saqib}} as well a few days ago, but it was archived prematurely by a bot. [[Special:Contributions/141.195.113.18|141.195.113.18]] ([[User talk:141.195.113.18|talk]]) 18:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Ping to {{ping|Wiki.0hlic}} who was also involved. [[Special:Contributions/141.195.113.18|141.195.113.18]] ([[User talk:141.195.113.18|talk]]) 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *The author of that article was blocked following the investigation detailed in [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toomanyyearskodakblack#19 February 2024]]. According to policy, contributions by blocked editors can be reverted without justification. In this instance, the forms were appropriately relocated to [[Election Commission of Pakistan#General election forms]], resulting in a redirect. There seems to be a concerted effort by these individuals to impede my editing. They file frivolous ANIs daily in hopes that if they persist, an admin will block me, thereby eliminating opposition. It appears this IP is connected to the blocked editor. This ANI warrants immediate closure, and the IP should be blocked. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;Sh&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: red;&quot;&gt;eri&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;ff&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: black;&quot;&gt;☎ 911&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; 18:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Sheriff, while an editor ''may'' revert edits of a banned editor, per [[WP:BRV]], the same also notes that 1) they are not ''required'' to be reverted, and 2) once non-banned editors (such as Wiki.h0lic) revert, [[WP:BRV]]'s 3RR exception no longer applies, as you're no longer reverting a banned editor, but an editor in good standing. If the articles should be BLAR'd, I expect consensus will bear that out. <br /> *:That said, IP, I note that you have no other edits except to the disputed page and this noticeboard. I can understand Sheriff's [[WP:ABF|assumption]] that you are connected with the blocked user. Have you done any other editing on Wikipedia? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 19:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::In the two days since this report was opened, the page in question was BLARed by consensus and protected, and the reporting IP has not edited. No further disruption seems forthcoming, so this section can be closed without prejudice. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Sorry, I was away for a professional engagement so could not reply to the ping. I don't know how chronic this problem is, but in the past couple of months I have had 2 run-ins with Sheriff. It happened on the page in question and secondly, it occurred on [[Qazi Faez Isa]], where my effort to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qazi_Faez_Isa&amp;oldid=1211007521 build consensus] was ignored and, true to their moniker, they have adopted a &quot;my way or the highway&quot; approach after persistent reversion. Apart from the disregard for consensus, what troubles me in the case of both the articles, is that I have significantly contributed to the them, and Sheriff just comes in and copy-pastes ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan&amp;oldid=1210941932] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PTI_intra-party_elections_case&amp;oldid=1195845734]) the content elsewhere in a manner ignorant of [[WP:CWW]], effecting my attribution. [[User:Wiki.0hlic|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#01A0CA;&quot;&gt;Wiki.0hlic&lt;/b&gt;]] [[User talk:Wiki.0hlic|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #01A0CA;&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(talk)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Regarding their [[WP:CWW]] concern, I am just replying for the record. Their attribution was not affected in that particular case. Firstly, there were significant contributions by me to the content at [[Qazi Faez Isa]], secondly, the article [[PTI intra-party elections case]] was completely rewritten by me, they can run it through a copyvio tool. If they had contributed to Qazi Faez Isa to a specific case section, that does not mean no one else can write a separate article about the case. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;Sh&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: red;&quot;&gt;eri&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;ff&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: black;&quot;&gt;☎ 911&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Logosx127]] must be [[WP:NOTHERE]] ==<br /> <br /> <br /> For several days, this Wikipedian has made some contributions which necessitated reaching a consensus for [[Eastern Catholic Churches]]-related articles, especially the [[Syro-Malabar Church]] article and talk page. That conversation was then brought to [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Is_the_Catholic_Church_a_single_denomination_or_a_communion_of_24?]], and it has lasted for days on end again. After the involvement of multiple parties disagreeing with their contributions and seeming rejection of notice given [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Logosx127&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214852164 User_talk:Logosx127&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214852164 here], and then the lack of consensus, they opted to continue their contributions claiming a consensus had been reached. Now, discussion is at a stalemate with Logos themselves seemingly verbatimly disregarding the arguments against their desired overhaul of edits. With their latest responses, it also appears that they might just be [[WP:NOTHERE]] to build an encyclopedia, but [[WP:ADVOCATE]]. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 13:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :When there are arbitrary corrections to articles, how is it wrong to question them in the discussion? How is questioning and taking a strong position in a talkpage pointing out a very clear and obvious contradiction be considered wrong? That too, especially when other editors are agreeing with me and clearly recognising the issues as in [[Talk:Oriental Orthodox Churches#SCOOCH source|here]]. About the issue with the claim of consensus, it was actually another editor who initiated the claim of consensus as seen here [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Antony%27s_Syro-Malabar_Church,_Ollur&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215440856][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mar_Thoma_Sleeha_Syro-Malabar_Church,_Thulappally&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215441146][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Mary%27s_Syro-Malabar_Cathedral_Basilica,_Ernakulam&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215442132][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marth_Mariam_Cathedral&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215442430] and many more. Since they were the original user involved in the dispute with me, I agreed with them. I too tried to implement it, even though it was against my position, believing that the consensus was created against my position. How'd that be considered advocacy? When you make such accusations like nothere about me despite all my recent edits being there at various talkpages, please also explain the rationale. Because the only rationale I find behind is an urge for harassment. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 14:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Well, forgive my ignorance on that part of their consensus claim. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 14:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::For more details, you may please have a look at [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism&amp;diff=1215502400&amp;oldid=1215488573&amp;title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Catholicism&amp;diffonly=1 this response] that I gave to Lion there. I have answered more of their allegations there. I think copying all of it here will be boring for the adminstrators as well as me. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 15:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :To offer my two cents: With {{noping|TheLionHasSeen}}, I participated in the discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism]], trying to offer several possible solutions to the ambiguities/confusions that {{noping|Logosx127}} (and seemingly only Logosx127) believes are present in Wikipedia's coverage of particular pages. The solutions I presented didn't seem to satisfy the concerned editor. I'm not sure about [[WP:NOTHERE]], but I am concerned that the whole thing ballooned into a very long, timesinking discussion when this is, in my view, all possibly resolved by any editor taking the time and making the effort to add one or two sourced sentences. As the only editor who seems to believe that the pages affected currently present ambiguity/confusion, the rather obvious question is why Logosx127 didn't do this themselves. I was also concerned that Logosx127's discussion seemed to have two prongs which are impossible to reconcile: on one prong, we need to clarify ambiguities/confusions; on the other prong, the only correct interpretation of the ambiguity is their own with no possibility of nuance. My instinct is it might just be a good-faith but counterproductive zeal against any possible ambiguities/confusions that does not square nicely with nuances and reasonable interpretations, rather than [[WP:NOTHERE]]. But this is only based off our discussion. [[User:IgnatiusofLondon|IgnatiusofLondon]] (&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:85%;&quot;&gt;he/him&lt;/span&gt; • [[User talk:IgnatiusofLondon#top|☎️]]) 16:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I also participated in the aforementioned discussion, and I concur entirely with {{noping|IgnatiusofLondon}}'s interpretation. I think {{noping|Logosx127}} sees a problem and is trying to fix it; whether there actually is a problem to fix is being debated. There are issues here, but NOTHERE and ADVOCATE are not the ones. [[User:Smdjcl|Smdjcl]] ([[User talk:Smdjcl|talk]]) 18:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I agree. Logosx127 is a stubborn editor who occasionally intentionally pushes the edit warring limit and sometimes is unwilling to concede to consensus, but they seem to be genuinely here to build an encyclopedia and lobbied hard to have their editing privileges restored. Especially considering that I rose the matter with admins who looked into Logosx127's editing history and found no serious misconduct, I'm inclined against any sanctions at this time. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 18:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Well, after reading these observations, I have to admit that I would like to not be inclined against any sanctions either at this time. From seeing others' input here, I see that it is merely zeal, even though it seems to be coming off also as hardcore zealotry. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::@[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] what might be an alternative if they continue to push the edit warring limit however and is unwilling to concede to consensus? - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 23:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Your comments are contradictory. Initially you said there is no consensus, now you are claiming that there is. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 00:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::If there is a consensus, it's that no one here agrees with you, and I will '''not''' engage in another edit war with you on [[Oriental Orthodox Churches]]. This is becoming enough, and I am beginning to wonder again if you are here to contribute in peace or war with others? - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::If there is also a consensus, it is that on the lists of Christian denominations by category and membership, no one desires to remove the Eastern Catholic Churches completely by your measured understanding. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::@[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]], @[[User:IgnatiusofLondon|IgnatiusofLondon]], and @[[User:Smdjcl|Smdjcl]], I am growing tired of this continually being dragged. It came to the point of me putting a warning notice on their talk page, but I reverted and recanted publishing it because it would have done no good. Now, they have come on my talk page copying what I did. I reverse my request of no sanctions, and request a hammer. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::You have been continuously disregarding the article talk page and the reliable sources at [[Oriental Orthodox churches]]. Now you are disregarding your own words and is edit warring by removing sourced content. At this point I must certainly respond to this mocking {{tq|wonder again if you are here to contribute in peace or war with others?}}: Well I am not here to war, my policy is [[WP:NPOV]]. Some editors tend to attack me when they believe I am a threat to their POV. In the specific case of Eastern Catholic Churches, it is their catholic pov. I find it very ridiculous considering the fact I am myself a Catholic too. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 16:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::Given the edit warring going on right now, I'd say you both need blocked from editing the article for a while, and need to hash it out on the Talk page. [[WP:DRR|Follow the Dispute Resolution]] process.<br /> :::::::::::That said, Logosx, templating in retaliation is not a good idea per [[WP:POINT]]. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::I am withholding myself from any contribution regarding this, because while they might not care, I do care that I am not blocked and would like to exemplify the character of one who doesn't desire a blocking, @[[User:HandThatFeeds|HandThatFeeds]]. I do however choose to ignore their retaliatory report, when they could have easily been reported for edit warring before, but again, I digress as I refuse to have that permanent record on my account. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::Also, in my own defense, I withheld responding on the talk page because it seemed that you, @[[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]], did not understand that the source was not removed whatsoever, as you have disregarded it seems before with other discussions which became prolonged. The information was restored back to its form before any of these issues ensued. The information in the versions has been sourced prior to your contribution, and then properly sourced thereafter. I am now more confused than ever. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::Well, must be inevitable anyway since they opted to report me at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] after all of this. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::Wait a minute? Isn't there a discrepancy with that edit warring report? I reverted them 3 times on that article today, once on yesterday (the 27th), and then twice on the 24th? I did not go beyond the 3RR warning. Oh well, as I said, I'm not trying to take any bait and be blocked by responding to retaliation and as others stated, zealotry (not me, though later affirming). - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::::Edit warring does not specifically require violating [[WP:3RR]]. And frankly, Logosx reporting that while there's an ongoing discussion here smacks of [[WP:FORUMSHOP]]. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 20:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::::Fair enough. Thanks for enlightening me lol. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 20:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::::There is no forum shopping here. It is related to a different issue altogether. Here we are discussing about the dispute at the Eastern Catholic Churches and related articles and there is no edit warring in this case. I have purposefully distanced myself from editting articles in this case. I have been mostly editting only in the talk pages for a while. But there, at Oriental Orthodox churches, it is a totally different scenario. Lion is disregarding the talk page and opinion of other users and is actively edit warring. In my report, there is a reference to this report too. Meanwhile I have temporarily stopped editting in that particular article too as I am fed up of this. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 23:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::::::It's the same issue, you and LionHasSeen in an editing dispute. Hence forum shopping. It should've been handled here, rather than splitting up the admin actions. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}Logosx127, your behavior across multiple articles and discussions has been an issue. Not to a degree that merits a block or any formal sanction, but just that you should probably avoid pushing the edit warring limit, avoid forum shopping (this is the second time recently), and be ''far'' more willing to concede to consensuses you don't like. You're making good contributions in other contexts, though, and your new article on the Indian Christian schism deserves high praise. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 03:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :If I were to edit war, I wouldn't have any time left to do anything constructive. But I've been distancing myself from disputed articles. It's not because of any change of mind but I really don't have much time to waste in reverting back and forth and I find it ridiculous to do so. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 07:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Possible content ownership at [[List of X-Men members]] page ==<br /> I joined Wikipedia in mid-March 2024 and started editing [[X-Men]] related pages yesterday and participating in recent discussion some of those pages and noticed so many ongoing discussions (also not archived) in [[Talk:List of X-Men members|List of X-Men members talk page]]. I read last two talk pages of it, which made me suspicious of [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content|ownership of content]] of the [[List of X-Men members]] page by @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]]. Then I read last 500 edits of said page and made this report. I took me 1 day to make this report. I am new here and it is not my intention to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|Personal attack]] by mentioning so many users including @Hotwiki, just so you all don't feel that way. So below are 7 points of my report.<br /> * '''1:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:RS]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] sometimes asks for references but sometimes he himself don't provide a reference. Also one time he called a reliable secondary source moot while doing this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213677279] on the basis of ''&quot;This was already discussed before in the talk page, so that reference is moot. As for Fall of X, there's not a reference given to that issue.&quot;'' but you can search that that not any reference is declared moot in any discussion in [[Talk:List of X-Men members]]. He reverted the edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1167384151] done by @[[User:Tomahawk1221|Tomahawk1221]] on the basis of ''&quot;Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source''&quot;. He reverted the edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1168505738][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1168631372] having the same information (some more addition) done by @[[User:Ringardiumleviossa|Ringardiumleviossa]] and @[[User:Lipshiz|Lipshiz]] on the basis of ''&quot;Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source&quot;''. But when some of the information were removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210006942] by @[[User:Sewnbegun|Sewnbegun]] on the basis of ''&quot;Removing unreferenced content&quot;'', he reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210009006] them on the basis of ''&quot;Restored, I've read those issues before, and they do infact became trainees in those issues since they were working aside the X-Men in a field mission.&quot;'' I don't get why many editors need reference as per [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] for adding same information but one editor don't. That resulted to @Hotwiki making disruptive edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210042724] on the basis of ''&quot;these are unreferenced as well, we aren't going to cherry pick which unreferenced material to stay here here right?&quot;'' '''Also''', when several secondary sources were added on the basis [[WP:RS]] - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211422889&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1] on the basis of ''No there's NO need to add Multiple references in a single info, if there's already a VALID/reliable reference posted''.<br /> ** '''1.2:''' Reliable sources were finally provided regarding the above mentioned information in these edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169349294] by @[[User:Sookenon|Sookenon]].<br /> * '''2:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[MOS:GRAMMAR]]) Another of the authoritative attitude is seen during simple changes like fixing basic grammar/grammatical errors or expanding sentences. He reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1192149858] an edit done by @[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] to the previous version. Another similar edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211375774] (on the basis of ''&quot;Full stop is unnecessary because they are just words and not full sentence.&quot;'') was reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211376225] by @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] on the basis of ''&quot;its fine to add a period in table descriptions, especially the other descriptions have a period in them. We aren't to edit war with these simple changes, are we?&quot;''. Lastly, he kept reverting[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212819056][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212819769][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212819910][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212820201] changes regarding some sentences in [[List of X-Men members#Substitute X-Men teams|Subtitute X-Men teams section]] and only stopped until these edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212822711][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212823378] were made on the basis of ''&quot;Fixing basic grammatical errors, double check before making any edits to it&quot;'' and ''&quot;Adding extra and suitable information won't hurt (Like the big ones added in the X-Force and X-Club)&quot;'' respectively.<br /> * '''3:''' ([[WP:OWN]]) One of the most interesting edit was done here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1205235066] by @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] on the basis of ''&quot;No need to state the obvious&quot;''. He later himself made an edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212753131] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of ''&quot;fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as &quot;Muir Island X-Men&quot; thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute&quot;''.<br /> * '''4:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:CON]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] made this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208905355] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of ''&quot;Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well&quot;'' but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding [[Talk:List of X-Men members#Current members of the X-Men|current members of X-Men]] at that time.<br /> * '''5:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:OVERCITE]]) An IP user added[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211171452] months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] reverted the edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211174817] on the basis of ''&quot;Not all of those months are referenced.&quot;'' I thought [[List of X-Men members]] is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211369903] of numerous primary sources in [[List of X-Men members|that page]], which verge of [[Wikipedia:Citation overkill|citation overkill]].<br /> * '''6:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:RS]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] agreed to one thing from above point that List of X-Men members page is not the list of names of members of X-Men when @[[User:Sewnbegun|Sewnbegun]] added[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212720670][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212720997][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212721825] references to full names. You can clearly see that many of the names just had references added but some had changes made to them on the basis of those sources. Eventually those changes were also reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212752207] whole by him on the basis of ''&quot;Again, you don't really need to add a reference to every single name, especially those who have a Wikipedia article. This is a list of X-Men members. Not list of names of X-Men characters&quot;''. The question also arises why reverting those name which are clearly well sourced? because in fact these &quot;sourced reverted names&quot; were the only names not picked by from [[Talk:List of X-Men members#Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members.|Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members.]] which was in consensus - You can confirm it by checking these edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216709][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216790][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216976][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217413][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217684][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217918][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206218163][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219033][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219249][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220100][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220556][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220778][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220968][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221082][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221187] if you have time.<br /> * '''7:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:CON]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] also reverted the same edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215149738][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215230551] regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of ''&quot;Revert unnecessary changing of order&quot;'' and ''&quot;Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes.&quot;'' This edit war between him and @[[User:Sewnbegun|Sewnbegun]] resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, [[Talk:List of X-Men members#Drastically changing the order of the members|Drastically changing the order of the members]]. In the same discussion I had my opinion of ''This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic.'' While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#List formats|Manual of Style/Comics]] and [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Regarding some orders|answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun]]. The change was made[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215514179] but it was again reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215515294] on the basis of ''&quot;Still no talkpage consensus&quot;'' but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against).<br /> ** '''7.2:''' I wasn't going to mention above point since I think editors should wait for few days before making changes &quot;as per talk page&quot;, but I did it to show you the more of the authoritative attitudes of [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] as the same situation as above happened in this discussion [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer]]. 2 were in favour (@[[User:Storm1221|Storm1221]] and @Hotwiki) and 1 against ([[User:ToshiroIto7|ToshiroIto7]]). &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Teedbunny|contribs]]) 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;<br /> <br /> :You ''must'' notify users you are reporting on. Says so at the top of the page. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I already did. Thank you! [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Gone in 60 seconds, eh? ;) &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::See it again please. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Uh, I already did. Therefore [[Gone in 60 Seconds (2000 film)|the reference]]. ;) &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I still don't understand the reference but should I notify all the users mentioned or the only user reported on? [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Editors whose conduct is being discussed here should be notified of such. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 15:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Let me mention that There were TWO editors who were making drastic changes in the article. [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]] and [[User:Sewnbegun]]. Both are now blocked due to sockpuppetry and apparently they are connected. There's recently unusual activity from IP users who are making a ton of changes. These are already discussed in the talkpage of the article. I'm surprised that Teedbunny is bringing this up now? I'm not the one who reverted your most recent edit in the article. And Sewnbegun who I reported for sockpuppetry yesterday, is finally blocked today. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 15:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Also please read [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ringardiumleviossa]] and this is how [[User:Sewnbegun]] was blocked. How am I taking ownership of the article, when clearly [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]], [[User:Sewnbegun]] and a bunch of IP users making their 1st edit on Wikipedia, in the same article - was/were trying to manipulate the outcome of the article by jumping through different Ips/accounts. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::Also can Teedbunny simplify what am I being accused here. Yes I reverted edits that were unreferenced. But what unreferenced material in the article did I include in the article?From February to March 2024, there were a lot of drastic changes coming from two editors (who are both apparently involved in a sockpuppetry). There were making so many drastic changes and I've tried my best to discuss everything in the talk page. When I added &quot;names&quot; in the article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216709][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216790][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216976][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217413][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217684][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217918][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206218163][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219033][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219249][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220100][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220556][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220778][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220968][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221082][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221187]) it was from the article proposal of [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]] in the talk page or it was already in the article, I simply repeated names for consistency as several characters are mentioned more than twice. I don't recall anyone from the article, calling me out for unreferenced edits? [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::As for #5 (''An IP user added months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @Hotwiki reverted the edit on the basis of &quot;Not all of those months are referenced.&quot; I thought List of X-Men members is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition of numerous primary sources in that page, which verge of citation overkill''). I asked for references for the months, simply because there were too many months being added, and I was unsure, if those months were accurate anyway. At that time, the article was tagged at the top of the article, for needing more sources. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::As for #7. ''( @Hotwiki also reverted the same edits regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of &quot;Revert unnecessary changing of order&quot; and &quot;Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes.&quot; This edit war between him and @Sewnbegun resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, Drastically changing the order of the members. In the same discussion I had my opinion of This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic. While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in Manual of Style/Comics and answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun. The change was made[290] but it was again reverted[291] on the basis of &quot;Still no talkpage consensus&quot; but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against)''. How is there already a consensus? beside me and Sewnbegun. The only editor that made another comment in the talkpage was Teedbunny. The IP user who originally made the changed - is a suspected sockpuppetry that is connected to Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun. I was waiting for more editors to make a comment, (not just one editor). Sewnbegun reverted it again right after Teedbunny posted a comment, like as if Teedbunny made a consensus for the article. And I just didn't see it as a consensus yet.[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::As for #4 (''4: @Hotwiki made this edit[264] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of &quot;Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well&quot; but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding current members of X-Men at that time.''). What is the problem with that? Plenty of different editors in the past, have been bolding name of characters indicating that they are current members of the X-Men- without leaving a reference/citation for verification. I even addressed about this in the talkpage in its own section.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=1207714300&amp;oldid=1207710556] [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::As for 3 (''One of the most interesting edit was done here[263] by @Hotwiki on the basis of &quot;No need to state the obvious&quot;. He later himself made an edit[264] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of &quot;fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as &quot;Muir Island X-Men&quot; thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute&quot;.'') I don't see the issue of me adding the X-Men in section titles, and it was a non-issue if I remember correctly. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::Also, one more thing. [[List of X-Men members]] is now protected from persistent sockpuppetry until April 26, 2024. For those who are just seeing this, I hope you are aware of the sockpuppetry going on in that article in the last two months. I've done my best to cooperate with [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]] and [[User:Sewnbegun]] via talkpage of that article, even if both of them turned out to be the same person, that was also jumping through several IPs, in order to manipulate the outcome of that article. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 17:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::::{{Ping|Teedbunny}} how am I being called out here in ANI, yet you didn't mention the sockpuppetry suspicions towards {{ping|Sewnbegun}} especially if you read the talkpage of that article. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::As for 7, I stated it I think editors should wait for some more to get more editors to respond. You said &quot;'' I just didn't see it as a consensus yet&quot;'' because only two voted for it and one, who were you didn't. I must also point out why you didn't any see any consensus over [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer]] here when clearly there were two in favour (including you) and 1 against? Reverts[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;diffonly=1&amp;oldid=1173010598][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1173148124&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1201825159&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1] were kept being done as per [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|this discussion]]. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::Not all your reverts were unreferenced. There were many names which were perfectly sourced that were removed. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::I hope you don't ignore the fact that in the last two months I was dealing with 2 registered editors (Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun) and several IP users involved with sockpuppetry, in that 1 article. If you have read the entire talk page, you would know I have tried my best to keep my cool and worked with those editors as much as I could, especially with Sewnbegun despite my suspicions of them being the same person which turned out to be right. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 18:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::Also may I add, Sewnbegun was adding &quot;references&quot; to content that wasn't being challenged/questioned in the first place. No one was asking in that article for the name of Professor X, to be added by reference as his name was already in the article for more than ten years. As I explained in that article, a reference for the date/issue of membership was already enough. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::I am talking about the changes based on sources like for example see Magneto's name. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::Yes, I also noticed that and prepared another report on him, but beat me ahead by doing sockpuppet investigation yesterday. I also noticed the above points I mentioned in this report regarding you too. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::Also, you could have easily adressed this in the talkpage of that article or in my talkpage first, rather directly going to ANI. I haven't encountered you directly in the past, so this ANI report is comingoff as a surprise. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Is it just me, or is [[List of X-Men members|that article]] a prime example of why [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]] are rules? Looking through the talk page, I see a great deal of debating what constitutes a [[No true Scotsman|real]] X-men member. If reliable secondary sources verify, then the debate could be settled by citing them. If no such sources exist, I question how such a list fits in with the rest of Wikipedia. <br /> ::In any case, while I agree that Hotwiki can come off as having slight [[WP:OWN]] leanings, it doesn't seem to rise to the level of sanction, and I also note that I cannot find a discussion from Teedbunny attempting to address this on Hotwiki's talk page. Also, this [[WP:WALLOFTEXT|very long]] report doesn't make it easy to see at-a-glance what policies or guidelines Hotwiki is alleged to have broken, other than [[WP:OWN]], which seems to me to be a weak claim. Rather, everyone seems to be operating in [[WP:AGF|good faith]], and so this situation seems like a good candidate for [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], not administrative intervention. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]], please just read the last point (7 and 7.2) carefully. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Having reread both 7 and 7.2, I continue to see no wrongdoing. There doesn't seem to be a consensus; there's Hotwiki who discussed at length their opinion, a sockpuppeteer whose opinion is rightly discounted, and you with a single comment. Attempting to make the change once with ''per talk page'' is well within [[WP:BRD]]. Hotwiki reverting is likewise part of BRD. Frankly, even if there was a 2-on-1 split of opinions, [[WP:NOTVOTE|consensus is not a vote count]]. If there's still disagreement, perhaps posting a neutrally worded request to a related wikiproject would get a broader base of opinions. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 18:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I know this report is long which was the Main reason why I reported this to administrators.<br /> :::::* Along with [[WP:OWN]] @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] has also possibly broken these:<br /> :::::** [[WP:RS]] for point '''1'''.<br /> :::::*** Also, when several secondary sources were added on the basis [[WP:RS]] - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211422889&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1].<br /> :::::** [[MOS:GRAMMAR]] for point '''2'''.<br /> :::::** [[WP:CON]] for points '''4''' (no consensus at that time at all but still edits were made) and '''7'''.<br /> :::::*** While for point 7 why reverts[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;diffonly=1&amp;oldid=1173010598][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1173148124&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1201825159&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1] were made on the basis of [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|this discussion]] even if there was a 2-on-1 split of opinions?<br /> :::::** [[WP:OWN]] leading indirect [[WP:OVERCITE]] for point '''5''' which too only primary sources (detailed reason is given above).<br /> :::::[[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 19:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I'm wondering why you're expending so much effort on digging up months-old edits when you could try talking it out with Hotwiki. In any case, responding to your points... <br /> ::::::* Point 1: While I agree this shows Hotwiki leaning towards OWN behavior, I disagree that this represents a serious breach of [[WP:RS]]. Sometimes people fail to include a source. It happens. I've done it. Tag it and move on. The example you gave directly above likewise seems to be ''avoiding'' the [[WP:OVERCITE]] you mention later on. Maybe it'd be better with two references, maybe not, but that's a content dispute, not a behavioral one. <br /> ::::::* Point 2: MOS:GRAMMAR: Hotwiki's edits there seem to me to ''support'' the MOS, and were therefore justified. <br /> ::::::* Point 4: That's not violating consensus. I read that as Hotwiki pointing to the talk page for their reasoning. Again, part of [[WP:BRD]].<br /> ::::::* Point 5: I see no consensus on the talk page for the inclusion of all those sources. And again, I'm curious what you're looking for: In Point 1, you criticize Hotwiki for removing unnecessary material, but here you object to them leading to more references. I'd be okay with either, but you can't have it both ways. <br /> ::::::* Point 7: Not being Hotiwki, I won't speculate as to ''why'' the reverts were made. I will say that, glancing over that discussion, there were indeed 3 editors in good standing, with 2 opposed, 1 in favor of inclusion. Furthermore, Hotwiki alluded to [[WP:NODEADLINE]], which is a policy-based argument of &quot;Let's wait and see before we add it.&quot; I may be misunderstanding (this isn't my field) but even if that ''was'' against consensus, one violation ''seven months'' ago does not demonstrate ongoing disruption. <br /> ::::::Teedbunny, I'll be frank. In my view, there is no demonstration of any ongoing disruption. I strongly recommend you try ''talking'' to Hotwiki if their behavior is suboptimal, or otherwise following [[WP:DR]]. I also submit that it will be far easier than continuing this thread. Your reliance on tenuous or dated evidence makes this seem more like a grudge, which could lead to a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] if it continues. You seem passionate about this topic, so I hope you'll direct your energies to improving the encyclopedia; spending them at ANI would not seem to be be a productive use of your time. I've said enough in this thread, and will bow out and await other editors' input. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thanks, I will take in consideration in the future. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : I'd have to second {{np|EducatedRedneck}} that this doesn't seem to be an urgent issue immediately requiring administrator intervention. [[User:OverlordQ|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#171788;font-weight:bold&quot;&gt;Q&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:OverlordQ|T]] [[Special:Contributions/OverlordQ|C]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Issues should be discussed on the talk page before they're brought to ANI. This page isn't for disagreements on sourcing or reverts you don't like. The exception is that it ''is'' disruptive to revert if your only reason is that the previous version is &quot;[[WP:STABLE|stable]]&quot; or that someone [[WP:DRNC|didn't ask for consensus in advance]]. Removing unreferenced content is allowed, and best practice is not to add anything unless it's accompanied by a secondary source. Sock edits can always be reverted without question after the editor is conclusively determined to be a sock, although they're no longer subject to indiscriminate reverting if another editor restores the edit. Finally, the entries should ''not'' be based on comic book references per [[WP:PRIMARY]] policy #5: {{tq|Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.}} Editing to preserve a policy violation can be disruptive, but it should be discussed before we call it disruptive. I second everything that EducatedRedneck said in their initial response above. This should probably be closed so the issue can be discussed on the talk page, and this doesn't need to be an ANI complaint unless discussion fails and disruptive behaviors continue afterward. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]], do the [[List of X-Men members|list of X-Men members]] need more reliable secondary sources? [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Sca]]'s jokes on [[WP:FPC]] ==<br /> {{atop<br /> | status = <br /> | result = 36 hours in, and no consensus for anything, really, has emerged. Except, perhaps, that {{u|FatCat96}} could be a mite less hasty with the ANI button and that {{u|Cremastra}}'s dark day has not yet dawned. {{nac}} [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I suggest that [[User:Sca|Sca]] be topic banned from [[WP:Featured picture candidates]]. Sca has been making jokes on FPC instead of using it as a place to usefully collaborate with others. This is not a new practice, he has been doing it for several years, and despite being banned from [[WP:ITN/C]] twice for the same reason, he persists. Some examples include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/African_buffalo_with_oxpecker_(2)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215670769 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/African_buffalo_with_oxpecker&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=942747418 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/John_Cage&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214531087 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Happy_Chandler&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1184458215 here]. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :OK, I've deleted '''two''' &lt;small&gt;small&lt;/small&gt; humorous comments on nominations (''not'' those of ''FatCat69'') currently listed at [[WP:FPC]], leaving '''11''' serious and constructive comments of mine. I suppose user ''FatCat69'' might feel ill-disposed toward me because of (serious) critical comments I've posted about a few of his nominations, and I suggest that he and I agree not to engage in any continuing disputation, but seek to cooperate from now on. (Further, I would agree to a &quot;no contact&quot; direction covering the two of us.) -- [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 20:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I agree. I really don’t mind the criticism. After all, ''instructive'' criticism is how things get done. That said, it’s the jokes that bother me, I don’t think that FPC (and other areas) is the right place for joking, as it can sometimes come off as a bit disrespectful. I usually don’t mind humor, as long as it’s kept respectful and in the right place and time. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Personally I think the jokes are funny. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 21:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support''' no contact as this report seems unnecessary and is likely indicative of larger beef. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 20:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : '''Comment''' A German with a sense of humor, and an American without. The world has gone mad, I tell you, MAD! &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 20:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :OP, did you make any attempt to discuss your concerns with Sca? It appears that you skipped that step and jumped directly to proposing a tban. [[User:Lepricavark|L&lt;small&gt;EPRICAVARK&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;]]) 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I don't know if a FPC topic ban is needed yet, but it is disappointing that Sca appears to be repeating at another Main Page venue the same kind of behavior that got them partially blocked from [[WP:ITN/C]]. It certainly would not help any future appeal of that sanction. They previously promised to regard ITN as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive349#Appeal_of_partial_block_on_Sca &quot;serious business, not a venue for jokes or personal comments&quot;]; perhaps they should take the same attitude towards FPC as well. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 00:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I’ve got to be honest, but it’s because of Sca’s persistent nasty behavior that I have pondered on the concept of no longer contributing to FPC. It’s not just my nominations that he posts snarky comments on, it’s everyone. Very seldomly does he post actually useful comments. Unless he can get his act together, I feel that FPC would be a much better and more welcoming place without him. I also feel that the other users in this conversation are wholly ignoring the fact that Sca was blocked from ITN ''twice'' for this type of behavior. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 10:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I get that they are not treating the nominations with the seriousness you'd like to see, but it seems extreme to describe that as {{tq|persistent nasty behavior}}, as it seems pretty mild. Like others, I'm wondering why you didn't raise this with them at their talkpage instead of going straight to ANI. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 15:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::FatCat96 did raise the issue with them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASca&amp;diff=1196671107&amp;oldid=1195156259 here on January 18] but was immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sca&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1196671107 reverted by Sca]. A less confrontational tone from FatCat may have had more success, perhaps. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 15:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Yeah, that wasn't an attempt to discuss so much as it was a belligerent ultimatum. OP should have tried a more collegial approach. [[User:Lepricavark|L&lt;small&gt;EPRICAVARK&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;]]) 17:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Thanks, I chuckled at a few of these. If users get blocked ''for making harmless jokes'', it's dark day for Wikipedia. [[User:Cremastra|🌺 Cremastra ]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 20:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I think you should read [[WP:Humor]]. It states:<br /> ::* {{tq|Humor is sometimes misinterpreted}}<br /> ::* {{tq|Irresponsible humor damages Wikipedia's credibility}}<br /> ::* {{tq|Not everyone is looking for humor}}<br /> ::* {{tq|What one may find hilarious, another may find offensive}}<br /> ::I believe that Sca's jokes fall into several of these categories. These may not be true for everyone, but one should certainly remain mindful of these (which I think it's pretty obvious Sca does not) when commenting these &quot;humorous&quot; comments. One could easily misinterpret Sca's &quot;humorous&quot; comments as hateful, rude, or offensive. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 05:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[[WP:HUMOUR]] is an essay, and an absurdly stringent one at that. [[User:Cremastra|🌺 Cremastra ]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 12:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I don’t know… I think it makes some pretty valid points. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 12:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == [[User:Mann Mann]]'s vandalism on [[Central Asia]] ==<br /> <br /> I gave Mann Mann his first warning in edit history, second warning in my own user chat history, third warning on his own page. I noticed an entry that said Central Asia were predominantly Iranian before the 10th century. In the reference, this was a claim made by Ferdowsi in Shahnameh and only valid south of Amu Darya(disputed if it is even in Central Asia.) So I fixed that. That's the reference keeps trying to revert back to, it is from Ferdowsi in the reference and only refers to south of Amu Darya, not ALL of Central Asia. I added my own contributions towards Botai Culture and Tiele people. Mann Mann just keeps vandalizing ALL of my well-referenced edits by reverting. He should be at least banned from [[Central Asia]] and other related pages.<br /> [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This appears to be a content dispute, see the discussion on the Help Desk. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Mann_Mann_keeps_vandalizing_my_edits_in_Central_Asia._What_to_do?] TheLastUbykh has already been asked to read [[WP:VANDAL]], and to '''discuss the matter on the article talk page''', apparently to no effect. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I already started a talk in regarding that source by Ferdowsi. That should resolve that part. <br /> ::This is also about Mann Mann's vandalism of my other edits in that page. He down righted deleted my contributions in regarding Botai Culture and Tiele. <br /> ::&quot;The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. &quot; [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], you started a discussion (not a good faith discussion, but at least you started one) at [[Talk:Central Asia]], then immediately restored the disputed content, posted at Help Desk, posted a warning at [[User talk:Mann Mann]], then opened this thread, as well as repeating it at [[WP:AIV]] and [[User talk: Michael D. Turnbull]]. Mann Mann hasn't even edited since you started the discussion on the article talk page; you need to wait and give other editors time to respond before escalating matters so rapidly. (By the way, &quot;warnings&quot; in edit summaries are meaningless.) [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Look, I just did what he did. He didn't start a talk in regarding my edits either.<br /> ::And unlike him, I am new to this and went to help desk to proceed. I don't see how that's not in good faith. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], wait for Mann Mann to respond at the article talk page and work out the content dispute there. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], you also failed to notify Mann Mann of this discussion. Please go to the top of this page, read the large banner, and follow its instructions. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I did leave a message to his username talk page. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], '''read the red banner at the top of the page. Follow those instructions.''' [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::And I did that after reading your first post. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::When you said you'd left a message on Mann Mann's talk page, you had, but not the proper ANI notification. You posted that to their talk page at the same time that I repeated the statement about the instructions at the top of the page. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{nacc}} The OP had discussed this topic earlier at [[Wikipedia:Help desk#Mann Mann keeps vandalizing my edits in Central Asia. What to do?|the help desk]], and I haven't been impressed with how they've been navigating the problem. What started off as a content dispute over the reliability of some sources soon devolved into an accusation of [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] against Mann Mann, but looking at some of the target's relevant edits, such as [[Special:Diff/1215606808|this one]] as well as [[Special:Diff/1215695930|this one]], they were concerned about possible [[WP:OR|original research]] and other policy contraventions, something that is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia. —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::there is no original research, shahnameh by ferdowsi is the original historical document for the claim. keep going back to references between arabic and western researchers after 10th century, it keeps going back to this 'historical' document. the references they use, goes back to those same arabic and western researchers with this claim of Central Asia being Iranian majority. What we discuss is that Iranian languages eventually replaced Chinese as the franca lingua due to trade. And that they were Iranian-speaking, not Iranian majority besides lands south of Amu Darya, which I included in my edit that would include Sogdians.<br /> ::this was an easy discussion on a classroom setting but I don't have my phd(or a phd) to easily recognize to all these sources. so the time strain keeps getting bigger than the scope I initially thought it would be so I am questioning my commitment level at this point. I might add those to the talk page and wash my own hands off until someone nerdier comes along. <br /> ::anyways, there is no reason still for the removal of my Botai and Tiele contributions. that I considered a vandalism. he didn't just dispute those parts but removed my contributions unrelated to Ferdowsi. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 10:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Wikipedia is based on [[WP:RS]], not our own conclusions. You added info under citations that did not support it. This is still [[WP:OR]] / [[WP:SYNTH]]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 12:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::there is no personal conclusions, only a question of use of primary or secondary sources. secondary resources in academia, especially when those secondary resources use references that were secondary resources themselves from a time with less academic integrity. <br /> ::::again, this claim goes back to shahnameh, through following the references and going back to other articles and books published in 19th and 20th century that use shahnameh as a reference to try to push this claim. <br /> ::::[[shahnameh]] is the primary source. the main historical document of this long-standing and wrong claim, that has no prior basis before 10th century and contradicts earlier Chinese historical records that are also primary sources. period. this is what we study in our eastern asian studies departments. it is &quot;paris is the capital of France&quot; in the current mainstream Academic consensus. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 12:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You're proving my point. Please read [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 13:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> '''Comment''' Besides personal attacks, TheLastUbykh is also misusing sources per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Central_Asia#Mann_Mann_is_vandalizing_my_edits_in_regarding_Botai_Culture_and_Tiele_in_this_page.]. You don't need to know the Wiki rules to know that misusing sources is bad. [[WP:OUCH]]? --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> My reverts on [[Central Asia]] were justified. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215606808 the first revert], I restored the most clean/acceptable revision before the mess (including your edits). I did not restore my revision and I even restored the correct contribution that I reverted.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215263441][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215607017] In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215695930 the second revert], my mistake was not writing a better edit summary to convince you taking your concerns to [[Talk:Central Asia]], but the revert itself was the right decision. On the other hand, you started edit warring[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215714757] and launched a crusade/quest by calling me vandal.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215707854][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215714192][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215723939] You even used log-in/log-out method (editing as IP) to push your edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215492100] and targeting me.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215706954] Was I harsh? Maybe. But your [[Special:Contributions/TheLastUbykh|contributions]] show some kind of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. Also, your report and your comments are just [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. Yeah, I was a vandal since August 2012[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&amp;page=User%3AMann+Mann] that you discovered me. --[[User:Mann Mann|Mann Mann]] ([[User talk:Mann Mann|talk]]) 16:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Anyway, I don't edit/patrol Central Asia for a while because I'm not interested in working with [[Talk:Central Asia#Mann Mann is vandalizing my edits in regarding Botai Culture and Tiele in this page.|someone who doesn't even know how to open a discussion without harassment and personal attack]]. I let other editors reach a consensus. --[[User:Mann Mann|Mann Mann]] ([[User talk:Mann Mann|talk]]) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm very concerned that TheLastUbykh is trying to justify their edits, which means they will likely do it again, and thus get reported to ANI again. In these type of topics, we commonly have new users who make some sort of disruption and get blocked. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 15:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == NewImpartial - BLP discussion touching GENSEX ==<br /> <br /> I wanted to ask whether [[User:Newimpartial]] exceeded their [[WP:RESTRICT|editing restriction]] by participating in a BLPN discussion about Tim Hunt's alleged sexism or sexist comments about women in science and making more than two comments per day.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215544653][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215660109][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215672946][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215683633] This particular controversy would seem to fall under GENSEX as raised earlier at ANI by another user.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215377951] [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Addendum: I'm missing a diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215740145] [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 03:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Your last diff comes more than 24 hours after your first diff, though. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 03:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yes, but within 24 hours of the others. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 03:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{tq|they may however reply to questions provided the answer is reasonably short and they may add very brief clarifications of their own comments}}<br /> :Your links appear to be specifically two comments left in that discussion. And then two short replies to responses from others to those original comments. That appears to be perfectly within the wording of their editing restriction. [[User:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: dimgrey;&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;seren&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::What about the GENSEX topic ban, a separate restriction in itself? [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 02:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Wasn't that GENSEX ban regarding LGBT topics, particularly transgender topics and gender? Was it really meant to cover anything involving women and sexism in addition? Would that also include literally anything involving women's or men's rights? Feminism? Ect? I don't believe it was meant to be that broad, unless I'm misreading the prior discussion. [[User:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: dimgrey;&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;seren&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::That's why I asked. [[WP:GENSEX]] expressly references [[Gamergate (harassment campaign)]], which was about sexism in gaming. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 02:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::So it's...complicated. After doing some digging through the [[WP:ARCA]] archives, I came across a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 82#Clarification_request: GamerGate (March 2015)|GamerGate clarification request from March 2015]] about whether the topic of [[campus rape]] would fall under the then GamerGate discretionary sanctions. After reading the arbiter views from that request, and the two article revisions linked [[Special:PermaLink/1215781924#Tim Hunt|BLPN discussion]] I could see this content dispute plausibly being considered within the GENSEX content area, as it is dealing with remarks that were described as sexist, which would be considered a gender-related dispute.<br /> :::::However, despite the text of GENSEX stating that {{tq|Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people}} are the scope of the sanction, it's not immediately obvious from the four listed clarifications in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case (February_2021)|motion to transfer GamerGate to the GENSEX shell case]], nor my own personal experience editing within the content area that this would be in scope. Two of the clarifications (1 and 3) deal with transgender related disputes, and the other two (2 and 4) deal with disputes relating systemic bias and the [[WT:GGTF|Gender Gap Task Force]], and it's not immediately obvious from skimming the text just how broadly we interpret the term {{tq|gender-related dispute or controversy}}. By and large most of the disruption we see in GENSEX is restricted to content relating to trans and non-binary people and topics, with some spill-over to GamerGate and related articles. The last non-trans, non-GamerGate GENSEX sanction I can quickly spot in [[WP:AELOG]] was the semi-protection of [[Manosphere]] and [[Men Going Their Own Way]] in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#GamerGate_(superseded_by_Gender_and_sexuality)|June and July 2020]] respectively. If other editors agree with my reading of the 2015 clarification request, I'd say that this TBAN violation is a plausibly an accidental one. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 03:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I don't have an opinion on whether this violates any specific editing restriction, but I think it would be odd to say that content related to debates about systemic sexism '''don't''' fall under {{tq|gender-related disputes or controversies}}. Restricting the scope to the four clarifications would seem to open up a pretty big loophole in the topic, even if it's in a subsection that doesn't see a lot of admin action. [[User:CarringtonMist|CarringtonMist]] ([[User talk:CarringtonMist|talk]]) 12:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::&lt;p&gt;I have to agree with CarringtonMist, I didn't participate in any arbcom case and as a non-admin I don't have to be that familiar with the details. But I've always understood that it was decided in the GamerGate arbcom case that because it was primarily about harassment arising due to commentary sexism and portrayal of cis-women in games with criticism over feminism etc; with a less focus on other issues like LGB, race etc and other so called social justice issues, arbcom wanted to ensure that if similar issues cropped up in other areas they would be covered. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I mention cis-women and LGB, because AFAIK at the time there was only very little focus on transgender and non binary characters. So I'm fairly sure the concern was about issues like misogyny, sexism and the portrayal of women etc with the gender related wording and little to do with transgender issues. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Eventually the GamerGate decision was merged with the Sexology one which had dealt with transgender issues since it was decided it would be simpler to deal with them with one DS area. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It does seem to be true there has been little dispute outside of transgender related issues recently, but that applies even when we consider GamerGate until the recent blowup with Sweet Baby. Note there was a recent case which dealt with the restriction on MGTOW [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&amp;diff=1195025878&amp;oldid=1195025792#GalantFan] but outside of that from what I saw in 2023 until this year, the only non transgender related example was 3-5 stuff all to do with Brianna Wu. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also I had a quick look at the comments here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision&amp;oldid=645127421] seem to agree with my view about fears this sort of stuff would spread to other areas. I think the current extreme focus on transgender issues is sort of reflective of the modern world especially US-UK but Sweet Baby shows it's not the only possible area where stuff can happen. While Sweet Baby might be fairly tied to GamerGate, I don't think it's actually that easy to separate these sort of sexism issues even if the particular case of Tim Hunt is maybe somewhat disconnected. However it's the sort of thing where I suspect there could easily be a similar blow up especially if things had been different e.g. more recent, in the US and the person who made the comments had doubled down on them. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 17:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/p&gt;<br /> :::For the record, I looked again at the text of [[WP:GENSEX]] before posting, and didn't see anything relevant to the [[Tim Hunt]] discussion at [[WP:BLPN]]. <br /> :::(Also, I don't know whether {{u|GoodDay}} intended an oblique reference to me by raising his question at ANI, but if he did, that seems to me to be worth discussing.) [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::The question was for myself. As I was debating on whether or not to get involved in the content being discussed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :If this is considered covered by GENSEX, I propose that rather than sanction NewImpartial we narrow their topic ban to &quot;transgender issues, broadly defined&quot;. To the best of my knowledge, the issues that resulted in the topic ban did not extend beyond that, and I see no reason why they can’t participate in this debate and others like it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support'''. &quot;Transgender issues, broadly defined&quot; is broad enough. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 09:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support''' as well. The edits are plausibly in violation of the &quot;GamerGate part&quot; of GENSEX, but that's also clearly not what NewImpartial's topic ban was actually about. [[User:Endwise|Endwise]] ([[User talk:Endwise|talk]]) 09:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support''' an explicit narrowing of the topic ban as described above. The conduct that warranted the ban was in a specific area, and it doesn't make sense to impose a rule more broad than that. Edit-warring and bludgeoning behavior on articles about trans or anti-trans activists should not disqualify an editor from, e.g., wiki-gnoming edits to biographies of long-dead cis women mathematicians. [[User:XOR&amp;#39;easter|XOR&amp;#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&amp;#39;easter|talk]]) 16:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support''' narrowing the topic-ban. None of the discussion when the topic-ban was placed touched on any part of the topic area except transgender issues, so a ban that goes beyond that seems punitive. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 05:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose any action''' - I'm not certain if the page-in-question falls under the GenSex area. PS - My question was based on whether or not I wanted to get involved with the topic being discussed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose''', because the whole Tim Hunt discussion on Wikipedia has been a shambles dominated by forum-hopping, unpleasantness, bludgeoning, inability to listen, and attempts to get the other side banned. And to be clear I'm talking about behaviour on both sides of the argument. It has been so unpleasant that I dropped out, for fear of landing up here myself. Regardless of the good or bad motivation of the current ANI, it is vital that ANI is not permitted to become a weapon in a content dispute. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 13:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose''' per Elemimele, I shouldn't have peeked, I am on a break mainly because of this toxic environment. Though I did wonder myself whether perhaps a warning was warranted that this was a violation of the topic ban, albeit inadvertent. As I note above, ANI is being abused as a weapon to remove opposition. Intervention is badly needed to fix this toxic editing before it results in an arbcom case. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 13:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|ANI is being abused as a weapon to remove opposition}} [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_removal_of_NPOV_tag_by_JayBeeEll|Astonishing]]. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : '''Oppose''' action except for '''Support narrowing of topic ban'''. I voted against imposing this topic ban in the first place but if it's going to exist it should at least be targeted a little more narrowly than ''this''. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose action''' except for '''Support narrowing of topic ban'''. There's enough ambiguity here that if there is a TBAN violation, it's an entirely unintentional one. I also would support narrowing Newimpartial's topic ban to just &quot;transgender issues, broadly construed&quot; as that is more representative of the specific issues raised in the discussion that lead to it being placed. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :It seems pretty clear that participating in a discussion about Tim Hunt's sexism allegations fall squarely within {{tq|Gender-related disputes or controversies}}. That's been the scope of the topic area as far back as the Gamergate arbcom case, which included {{tq|any gender-related dispute or controversy}} as a separate item from Gamergate itself, along with people associated with either of them. There's also a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 122#Clarification request: Gender and sexuality|2022 ARCA]] initiated by {{u|Sideswipe9th}} that confirms the scope includes non-trans/nonbinary people, and those four numbered points are only there to preserve previous clarifications rather than being the whole scope. That said, I agree it seems plausible that this was a misunderstanding by Newimpartial. Absent any evidence of further violations, or that the edits themselves were disruptive, I don't think any sanction stronger than a reminder/warning is needed. As a side note, if {{u|Newimpartial}} would like to appeal part or all of their sanction, they should make a specific request in it's own discussion thread. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 21:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : I agree with others that this discussion is inside the locus of the CTOP, but also I think Newimpartial's behavior in the discussion has been exemplary and I think that the natural response to this pair of facts is the narrowing of the topic-ban. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support reminder/warning''' at most. '''Oppose narrowing of the topic ban'''. Broadly per the rationale provided by {{noping|The Wordsmith}}, above. Clearly within scope of the topic ban; and reasonably expected to be understood to be so. Unconvinced that skirting the fringes (from the inside) should result in reducing the scope. Behaviour in the linked diffs is verging towards that which resulted in the ban. Not particularly enamoured of the tone nor personal focus of this [[Special:Diff/1215740145|diff]]. But do not believe that the evidence presented warrants sanctions beyond a reminder/warning. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 01:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Hello, Rotary Engine. I have pasted the entirety of the diff you cite into the collapsed section here:<br /> {{Cot|content of diff Rotary Engine linked juat above}}<br /> Thomas B., you haven't produced any support for your opinion that &quot;Hunt is not sexist&quot; beyond your own interpretation of primary source opinions quoted by Fox. That simply isn't a reason to insert any such statment in the article, which appears to be your goal here.<br /> I know you believe that Hunt is not sexist, but that opinion simply is not relevant to article content which must be based on independent, secondary sources to the greatest extent possible. What is more, you insert into your latest comment the [[Gävle goat|straw goat]] question whether Hunt has &quot;hindered any female scientist in her career&quot; - which isn't really relevant to this article or even the controversy, as far as I can tell.<br /> Inserting editors' opinions into article text is a violation of [[WP:NPOV]] and also [[WP:BLP]]. Contrary to the impression some editors seem to hold, BLP policies do not encourage a treatment of living people that says the nicest thing possible about them, but rather they must be treated according to the [[WP:BALANCE]] of [[WP:HQRS]], and the current article appears to so so.<br /> {{cob}}<br /> ::I would appreciate, as a neurodivergent editor, if someone could explain to me what about the {{tq|tone}} or {{tq|personal focus}} of the diff seems problematic. Is it the use of the second person in the first two paragraph, for example? Or my word choice at {{tq|There simply isn't a reason}}? I am here to learn and to do better. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Your tone was proportionate, I think I would tone it similarly if I were you. People should be confronted over disruptive editing if softer means fail to carry the point across, which certainly has been the case here. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 12:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This seems like a stretch to put Tin Hunt's topic under a topic ban on GENSEX that was born from trans related topics. It seems that most here feel that the edits in question were not a violation of the tban and I suspect it's because most editors, like I do, see a big gap between the topics that resulted in the tban and the Tim Hunt topic. My proposed solution would be to say the GENSEX topic doesn't cover the Tim Hunt discussion. Alternatively perhaps the GENSEX topic should be split up a bit. Denying an accusation of sexism is quite a bit different than arguing if someone/thing is transphobic. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I agree that GENSEX should be split up just in general. Disruption about feminism, feminist issues, and sexism is not the same thing as disruption about LGBT issues. Editors with a history of disruption in one area can certainly contribute productively to the other. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:Springee|Springee]] I don't think the whole of [[:Tim Hunt]] falls under GENSEX; just the bits that relate to a {{tq|gender-related dispute or controversy}}. And, for mine, arguing if someone is sexist is ''very'' similar to arguing if someone is transphobic.<br /> ::@[[User:LokiTheLiar|LokiTheLiar]] A well phrased request at ARCA might result in such a split; though I would consider that on more than a few occasions, editors disruptive w.r.t. the feminism aspects are also disruptive w.r.t. the sexuality aspects. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Warning''' I've always considered based on the wording that contentious topic restriction is intended to apply to stuff like this, and so would think any topic ban from the whole area is the same. I have no comment on whether it's need, and if someone wants to ask arbcom to clarify/limit it to only the Gamergate style stuff I have no problem with that. Likewise I agree it might have made sense to limit NewImpartial's topic ban to only gender-identity and sexuality related issues, but that wasn't what we did. So until any of this happens, NewImpartial needs to stay away from the dispute. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Inappropriate comments ==<br /> <br /> Could an admin review these two comments here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn#March_2024] -[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 03:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> As well as this comment here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADreameditsbrooklyn&amp;diff=1206421399&amp;oldid=1201187430] (Context: [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/deez-nuts]) -[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 04:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brigham_Young&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215782221 this one]. The only reason I'm not blocking immediately is the tenure of the user. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''&lt;span style=&quot;color:#8b00ff;&quot;&gt;Eve&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#6528c2;&quot;&gt;rgr&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3f5184;&quot;&gt;een&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#197947;&quot;&gt;Fir&lt;/span&gt;''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 04:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Note this is one of the two comments I referred to above. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 04:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Perhaps [[Special:Diff/1215175271|&lt;this&gt;]] might have something to do with it, admittedly not the same days. &amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8093:5F01:AD1F:D79E:FFC5:945B|2804:F1...C5:945B]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:8093:5F01:AD1F:D79E:FFC5:945B|talk]]) 04:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I recommend ignoring this unless there is evidence of an ongoing problem. {{user|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} wrote &quot;this guy liked to fuck, huh?&quot; on an article talk page. That very inappropriate comment was quickly reverted. It relates to [[Brigham Young]] (1847–1877) who had at least 56 wives and 57 children. I would not write the comments seen at [[User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn#Stubs]] but they are ok. If there is some problem regarding edits at stubs, that problem should be spelled out. The glowing signature comment is again ok: it's an understandable reaction to an inappropriate signature. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The comment on the user talk page is concerning to me as I interpret it as disrespectful and it pertains to personal religious beliefs. Also the fact that the user the comment was directed towards is going through a difficult time right now — in a situation involving their religious affiliations — is a compounding factor for me, although it's unclear if Dreameditsbrooklyn was aware of this. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 05:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Maybe I'm being too dramatic; the user seems simply immature and not malicious after all. But still, comments like these have to stop. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 05:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The &quot;deez&quot; remark is an obvious reference to &quot;deez nuts&quot; memes which derive from the lyrics of a 30 year old [[Dr. Dre]] gangsta rap song that discusses a woman's facial contact with testicles while performing fellatio. It is an inappropriate allusion to use while interacting with another editor. The question to a self-identified LDS church member about what it feels like to be Mormon is creepy, intrusive and inappropriate. The comment about Brigham Young's enthusiasm for intercourse is unnecessarily profane, unproductive and provocative. None of these remarks was intended to help improve the encyclopedia, and instead serve to unnecessarily irritate people. I was inclined to block Dreameditsbrooklyn, but decided to ask for input from other editors, and a statement from Dreameditsbrooklyn. I would expect a commitment to refrain from such provocative comments in the future, since they do not help to improve the encyclopedia in any discernable way. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I sincerely apologize for these remarks. It will not happen again. I am sorry for causing other editors to waste their time addressing the matter. [[User:Dreameditsbrooklyn|Dreameditsbrooklyn]] ([[User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn|talk]]) 11:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Don't sweat it, I don't think you had bad intentions. But don't let it happen again though and hopefully we can all walk away from this having learned something; Dreameditsbrooklyn learning to be more professional, especially when it comes to sensitive personal matters like a user's religious beliefs, and myself having learned the history — in great detail — of the deez nuts meme. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 12:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Selo007 are using talk pages to attack BLPs ==<br /> {{user|Selo007}}<br /> <br /> * {{pagelinks|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability}}<br /> * [[Special:Diff/1215793401|Comment]]<br /> This does not contribute to the project--[[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 05:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Indef''' This person seems a key example of [[WP:NOTHERE]] - Wikipedia is not a place to obsess over microscopic details of photographs of BLPs. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I used Verifiability (V) and Neutral point of view (NPOV)<br /> *:unlike the editors<br /> *:Im currently requestion a second opinion based on bias [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 00:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::We used verifiability and NPOV. You used [[WP:BLP|BLP]] violations. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:default;color:#246BCE;&quot;&gt;Liliana&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;&quot;&gt;UwU&lt;/span&gt;]]''''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])&lt;/sup&gt; 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Still not blocked--[[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 22:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Clearly and unambiguously [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Seems to have mistaken Wikipedia for Reddit. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 00:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Indeffed for competency, IDHT, RGW, using WIkipedia as a forum, and imagining that Wikipedia evaluates sources based on close examination of someone's tattoos. This is a regular admin action, not an arbitration enforcement action. '''&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Arial;&quot;&gt;[[User:Acroterion|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black;&quot;&gt;Acroterion&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;[[User talk:Acroterion|&lt;span style=&quot;color: gray;&quot;&gt;(talk)&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 12:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Editor Rhain, Aquillion and Dumuzid missuing power to shut down peoples opinions. ===<br /> <br /> <br /> Missuse of [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view|NPOV]] and [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability|V]]<br /> On [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Baby_Inc.]] &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Selo007|contribs]]) 01:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;<br /> <br /> Ignoring fact given by other non elevated editors.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Using non verifiable information. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Using hearsay. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Taking one side. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Refuse to listen to other side. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Dont add factual information. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Locks talkpage so people cant dispute editors (not just me) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Would like a third opinion to check without relying on opinions from a newsarticle that is written by a arguably biased person.<br /> &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Selo007|contribs]]) 00:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;<br /> <br /> :{{ec}} @[[User:Selo007|Selo007]], you are '''required''' to notify editors when you take them to ANI. I have done so for you. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;'''—asparagusus'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#682&quot;&gt;(interaction)&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Asparagusus/Sprouts|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;''sprouts!''&lt;/sup&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Also, do you have any [[WP:DIFF|diffs]] that prove these editors have violated policies? Making a new section will not help with you potentially being blocked. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;'''—asparagusus'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#682&quot;&gt;(interaction)&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Asparagusus/Sprouts|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;''sprouts!''&lt;/sup&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Its all covered by people in talkpage<br /> :::Its very long to list all of them<br /> :::Some things include adding that harrassment started with attacks from SBI against an individual called Kabrutus, with evidence.<br /> :::And that the harrassmentclaims againt Kotaku can not be verified and instead added as facts. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 01:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Instead they insist on using quotes from a journalist that has a questionable racist agenda (evidence) and that tries to harass and doxx people for writing hitpieces. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 01:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::thank you [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 01:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I guess I have so much power that I can't keep track of it all, because I don't recall being able to lock talk pages! I am pretty powerful when it comes to hearsay, though, if I do say so myself. The gravamen of the complaint here seems to be that I like to stick to Wikipedia's policies of preferring reliable secondary sources, and to that accusation, I admit my guilt. Cheers, all. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I take the blame. I forgot to mention that to him [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 02:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::&lt;small&gt;[[User:Trade|Trade]], that's okay! They should've read the guidelines and huge banner anyways. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;'''—asparagusus'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#682&quot;&gt;(interaction)&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Asparagusus/Sprouts|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;''sprouts!''&lt;/sup&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (reposting because I accidentally made half of ANI smalltext haha)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :For the record, I am not an administrator and (obviously) was not the one who ECPed the talk page; although I queryed ArbCom to make sure it could happen, it occurred independently of that. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> There's nothing actionable here, and this report by Selo007 appears to be an abuse of process that frankly merits [[WP:BOOMERANG]] sanctioning. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :At it's core there is an fundamental misunderstanding on how Wikipedia articles are supposed to work and how RS works on Wikipedia [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 02:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * As far as I can tell, I've never interacted with Selo007 before directly, but I'd agree a boomerang of some sort (at least a topic-ban from this topic area) is called for based on their repeated BLP violations, eg. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215797429&amp;oldid=1215793401&amp;title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Reliability][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215781814&amp;oldid=1213261466&amp;title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Reliability][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215413986&amp;oldid=1215409250&amp;title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.]; they seem to be basing this on YouTube videos (the second-to-last diff) and Twitter posts (the last diff). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215799757&amp;oldid=1215732825&amp;title=User_talk:Blaze_Wolf This] isn't great either. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Feel free to block me, im not that active anyways. &lt;br&gt;<br /> :All i want is for third opinion to take a second look at that wikipedia page since its riddled with reliable sources (Kotaku is case to case and the one writing the article should be taken under consideration when the person its doxxing, harrassing, asking people for fights and is using questionable racist slurs)<br /> :* Using hearsay such as &quot;Sweet Baby's employees faced harassment and attempted doxing in response to the backlash,&quot; when there is no evidence of such its a breach of NPOV and V.<br /> :* &quot;Others who faced harassment included Kotaku's reporter who first highlighted the backlash&quot; also hearsay and breach of NPOV and V.<br /> :* &quot;Ash Parrish felt the Discord members were not attempting to &quot;create meaningful change for their cause&quot; but were &quot;simply there for the vibes, rancid though they are&quot; again, should be questioned if its a reliable source when Parrish ha admitted she writes articles based on the own agenda even if its not true, even going against her editors But i guess you will just use BPL to shut that down.<br /> :* &quot;Bryant Francis urged Steam and Discord to clarify their policies to avoid similar incidents and further harassment.&quot; again, no evidence of harrassment.<br /> :* There’s no mention it started with Sweet Baby inc employee Chris Kindred starting an actual online harassment campaign to cancel the Steam Sweet Baby Inc. Detected group to get them shut down and attacking an individual to harm them.<br /> :* There is no mention of Chris Kindreds twitter account getting blocked by Twitter for said harrassment.<br /> :[[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 06:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I can assure you, this noticeboard [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Eyes needed at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.|is]] [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive479#User:TE(æ)A,ea. reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Page protected)|well]] [[WP:ANI#Discriminatory behavior from Mechabot5 at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.|aware]] of the article. The examples you're referring to are not &quot;hearsay&quot;, and they ''do'' have &quot;evidence&quot;: the references. Wikipedia is not a courtroom. We don't need to see [[WP:PRIMARY|examples of harassment]] to determine if someone was actually harassed (that would be [[WP:OR|original research]]); if [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] say they were, then we say they were. The same goes for Kindred's activities: if they are detailed in reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]] sources, then they will likely be detailed on Wikipedia as well; until then, there is no place for that information here.{{pb}}If you feel the article is unbalanced or incorrect, that's fine, but unless you can point to actionable changes based on policy and guidelines—and especially supported by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]—then there's nothing to be done. Wikipedia is not the place to [[WP:RGW|right great wrongs]]; it is just here to report information as the sources do. If those sources are wrong, it's not our job to correct them. Nor is it our place to [[Special:Diff/1215799757|make]] [[Special:Diff/1215967983|claims]] about [[WP:BLPREMOVE|other people]], no many how strongly [[WT:FACT#Alyssa Mercante|you disagree]] with their tattoos or personal tweets. &lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;– [[User:Rhain|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #008;&quot;&gt;'''''Rhain'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Rhain|☔]] &lt;small&gt;([[he/him]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 07:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Your own page [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] states &quot;editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, '''and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering'''<br /> :::The writer of the Kotaku article is very biased.<br /> :::Questionable sources also says &quot;Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for '''checking the facts''' or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and '''publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist''', that are promotional in nature, or '''that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions'''. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.<br /> :::Any reliable sources that people try to add are shut down by the same editors of the page that is beeing critisized.<br /> :::When one is added, they want another, moving the goalposts. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 09:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::And where exactly, beyond some forum for drool-covered semi-literate conspiracy theorists, would we find evidence that Kotaku content is &quot;widely acknowledged as extremist&quot;? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Isnt Kotaku supposed be &quot;case by case&quot; and not Kotaku as a whole.<br /> :::::The writer of the article is known for having extremist views.<br /> :::::WOuld like to be clear im not for extremism be it right or left. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 09:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Please either provide actual verifiable evidence, '''citing published reliable sources''', that either Kotaku, or one of its contributors, is &quot;widely acknowledged as extremist&quot; or withdraw the allegation immediately. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::I would say saying &quot;you cant be racist against white people&quot; is quite an extreme opinion. [[Special:Contributions/2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F|2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F]] ([[User talk:2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F|talk]]) 00:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Your opinion is not a &quot;published reliable source&quot;. &lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;– [[User:Rhain|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #008;&quot;&gt;'''''Rhain'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Rhain|☔]] &lt;small&gt;([[he/him]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::As Rhain, says, of course, but substantively, this is actually a known opinion, and often provokes outrage without full understanding. The basic concept is that while people can be racially prejudiced against white people, the lack of a systemic power structure means it is not 'racism.' No one has to agree with that, but I would not describe it as an extreme opinion. A fuller discussion can be found here:[https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism]. Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *What power? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 07:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:With apologies to David Bowie, the power of voodoo! [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 14:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm a necromancer myself. And you? '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:default;color:#246BCE;&quot;&gt;Liliana&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;&quot;&gt;UwU&lt;/span&gt;]]''''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])&lt;/sup&gt; 21:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Blocked user spamming their own talk page ==<br /> <br /> <br /> *{{userlinks|YuseraRCL}}<br /> Recently blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —[[User:Bruce1ee|Bruce1ee]][[User talk:Bruce1ee|&lt;sup&gt;''talk''&lt;/sup&gt;]] 09:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :YuseraRCL added advertising spam to their talk page three times after their advertising block. I've removed their Talk page access. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: tahoma;&quot;&gt; — [[User:CactusWriter|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#008000&quot;&gt;Cactus&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CC5500&quot;&gt;Writer &lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:CactusWriter|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 16:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == MateuszCOMPANY - edit warring, copyvios ==<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|MateuszCOMPANY}}<br /> <br /> This user has taken ownership of [[FSO Polonez]]. While their English is limited that is easily fixed. However, they also insist on uploading a loooong list of how many cars were exported to each country, which I consider [[WP:CRUFT]]. More problematic, they've also uploaded dozens of copyvio images to the Commons and insist on placing them in the article. I started a [[:Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_MateuszCOMPANY|deletion request at Commons]], but it moves slowly and the user also has problems with [[WP:CIVIL]] in my estimation.<br /> <br /> Requests to heed [[WP:BRD]] are ignored, their only response so far was {{tq|Please find something else to do. I spend my time and knowledge to do something good for Wikipedia and people which want draw knowledge. If you have problem with that, report it to administration}} and continuing to restore their edits. So here we are. &lt;span style=&quot;background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;&quot;&gt;[[User:Mr.choppers|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#FDEE00;&quot;&gt;'''&amp;nbsp;Mr.choppers&amp;nbsp;&amp;#124;&amp;nbsp;'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Mr.choppers|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#FDEE00;&quot;&gt;✎&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 12:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::User continues to edit-war and is immune to reason. [[User:Ybsone|YBSOne]] ([[User talk:Ybsone|talk]]) 21:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::And still edit warring past final warning. Warned by 4 users. [[User:Ybsone|YBSOne]] ([[User talk:Ybsone|talk]]) 21:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 194.66.191.22 vandalising over 20 years, requesting perma-block ==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[User:194.66.191.22|194.66.191.22]] (HOPEFULLY I DON'T MESS UP AND POST ALL OF HIS USER TALK PAGE MESSAGES AGAIN) has been vandalising [[User talk:194.66.191.22|over a 20 year period]], and it even shows the old block notices! I'd like this IP to be perma-blocked. [[User:Waylon111|Waylon]] ([[User talk:Waylon111|was]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Waylon111|here]]) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :We don't permanently block IPs. That IP is registered to a college in the UK, as noted on their talk page. We tend to get intermittent disruptive edits from schools (as well as public libraries, Dunkin Donuts wifi, etc.) and it's not uncommon for elementary and high school IPs to be blocked for long periods of time because of this, but I would be hesitant about placing a lengthy block on a post-secondary institution over occasional vandal edits, as there's a chance that the students might be able to contribute something of value someday. [[User:Spicy|Spicy]] ([[User talk:Spicy|talk]]) 16:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Last edits were from February 1, so there's nothing actionable here at all, and they had already been warned for those edits, so your re-warning was pointless. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:SergeWoodzing]] repeated incivility at [[Talk:Where is Kate?]] ==<br /> <br /> I've stopped editing this topic area, but I can't help notice {{u|SergeWoodzing}}'s comments at [[Talk:Where is Kate?]] are breaching [[WP:CIVIL|civility policy]] and have been downright rude and unconstructive. SergeWoodzing has not edited the article once, but has posted several talkpage comments including:<br /> # {{tq|'''Shame on all of you''' who have tried to exert your own prissy importance over the Princess of Wales...'''The article must be deleted''' if you all have a single bone of decency and propriety in your bodies. With this article, English Wikedia descended to the level of the tackiest, sleaziest, most deplorable and digusting tabloid press. '''Shame on you who did that!'''}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhere_is_Kate%3F&amp;diff=1215105957&amp;oldid=1215103490 source], a comment later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2024_March_21&amp;diff=1215170208&amp;oldid=1215161835 repeated] in the DRV discussion)<br /> # {{tq|'''Oppose''' all of this. '''Delete this article!''' One brief paragraph in the article on the princess will suffice, rather than all this shameful disrespectful gossip fanaticism.}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhere_is_Kate%3F&amp;diff=1215354727&amp;oldid=1215346312 source], in reply to a requested move)<br /> # {{tq|<br /> '''The existence of this article is a horrifying embarrassment to Wikipedia!''' The question has been answered. The article title is obsolete and reads like some sort of nasty BLP harrassment, a persecution of the ill woman covered. '''WAKE UP PEOPLE''' and change this '''NOW!'''}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhere_is_Kate%3F&amp;diff=1215849769&amp;oldid=1215838763 source])<br /> The emphases are in the original. Were it not for the third comment having been posted today, suggesting continued disruption, I would not have felt compelled to file this ANI.<br /> <br /> I respect that SergeWoodzing is a highly experienced editor. Their concerns with the article are not only valid, but have been expressed several times in different venues by a broad cross-section of editors. The article is currently pending deletion review, after which it will most likely return to AfD. Nonetheless, these repeated comments feel unnecessarily uncivil and disruptive to editors working on the article in good faith.<br /> <br /> Insofar as this topic area is concerned, SergeWoodzing is [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Consider, for example, the second comment above: saying 'delete' in an RM discussion is just unhelpful, and also doesn't square with their third comment on the article's title. SergeWoodzing is experienced enough to know that these comments are best expressed at AfD, and general shaming isn't constructive, let alone when it is repeated multiple times. To that effect, I'd like to suggest a topic ban on [[Where is Kate?]] and the article talk page, while encouraging the editor to contribute, in a civil manner, to any future AfD or related process concerning the article. [[User:IgnatiusofLondon|IgnatiusofLondon]] (&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:85%;&quot;&gt;he/him&lt;/span&gt; • [[User talk:IgnatiusofLondon#top|☎️]]) 16:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Kind of hesitant to get on someone for being too vocal about raising valid BLP concerns, but SergeWoodzing's outbursts are becoming unhelpful [[WP:OWN]]ership. That said, I'm not sure a topic ban is super necessary while the deletion discussions are ongoing. Others may disagree with my take here, but I don't get the feeling that the impact of his actions is actually disrupting the process in any significant way other than perhaps being annoying to read. {{yo|SergeWoodzing}} -- you've made your position sufficiently clear. Please tone it down and maintain civility. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 19:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you! I never could have dreamed of experiencing anything so embarrassing and disagreeable and shameful, after all these years of being a proud contributor, as the way English Wikipedia has adopted the same methods and tone as the sleaziest tabloids in dealing - with the utmost disrespect - with the Princess of Wales and continuing intentionally to do so after she disclosed that she is seriously ill. To my knowledge I have never attacked any user by name, having given my opinion about shame to be taken at will by whomever chooses to to feel targeted and ignored by anyone who feels faultless. I believe that any article like [[Where is Kate?]] about a living person, no matter whom, is clearly denigrating and must be deleted without further delay. Aware of stretching text guidelines with capital letters and bold type, in my desparation to get all the many good users to react and act, I am willing to apologize sincerely for that part of it. I feel no need to comment again on those articles beyond these words. Whatever more I might have to say can never have a more constructive effect that what I already have tried to do. If it can be considered disruptive to object as vehemently as possible (i.e. without personal attacks or foul language) to very serious BLP problems, that is beyond my comprehension of one of the Wikimedia Foundation's most important rules. Sincerely, --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 20:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::PS the fact that I have not otherwise participated on these articles or talk pages, not even read most it all, has only been due to my abject fear, if seeing more than I already had, that I would be driven even more crazy than this. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 20:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Just so that I don't come across as sneaky or underhanded, I wish to put on the record that I thanked [[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] for edit number 3 above. I am no royalist (my genuine first reaction on seeing this article was to ask, &quot;Kate who?&quot;), but I too am embarrassed to be associated with an encyclopedia that has such an article. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Question''' Is this a pattern or an isolated incident? &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 04:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *[[Talk:Where is Kate?]] has a total of six comments by SergeWoodzing. None of them violate [[WP:CIVIL]] or anything else. I understand that it might be upsetting to know that someone on the internet disagrees with you, but six comments is pretty reasonable by comparison with many cases reported here. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Given that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the 'Where is Kate?' article is both a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy and an unmitigated crock of shite, it would be grossly improper to sanction anyone who points this out. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 10:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;small&gt;Perhaps they should get a Royal barnstar? [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 10:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *And I really don't get this obsession with British royalty by Americans, which is the only thing I can think of that both led to this article being created and to it being kept at AfD. Surely you/they got rid of kings about 250 years ago, and we Brits should be the only ones bothered about them? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC) {{small|P. S. I remember visiting America when the dispute between Charles and Diana came to light and those few people who believed me when I said that I didn't know either of them personally thought that I must have an opinion about the issue.}}<br /> *:Yes it's certainly the Americans' fault when your favorite family acts suspiciously and your tabloid culture subsequently makes a spectacle of it. They should really know better than to pay attention to you. The untold death wreaked in the name of that family really was all so long ago, it's just terrible they're now being gossiped about on the internet. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865|2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865]] ([[User talk:2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865|talk]]) 01:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Gossip about them all you like on the Internet, but that doesn't make what you are gossiping about a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. And, as I said above, they are far from my favourite family. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *SergeWoodzing is being vocal but is not being disruptive and no action is needed.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *The remarks complained about all seem to be fair comment to me. The proper place for an article such as this is in a tabloid newspaper, not an encyclopaedia. All that is displayed by SergeWoodzing is a bit of passion for maintaining some sort of quality standards in Wikipedia{{snd}}which is surely a desirable quality in any editor. [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] ([[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|talk]]) 22:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Sock/meat-puppetry and COI concerns regarding [[User:Guswen]] ==<br /> <br /> [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guswen|This SPI]] has been open for a couple weeks, and while I'd normally be inclined to let the specialists in such investigations get to it when they get to it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FGuswen&amp;diff=1215887284&amp;oldid=1215690899 there is a new COI concern] that, I believe, makes the situation more pressing and also suitable for having attention called to it here. [[User:XOR&amp;#39;easter|XOR&amp;#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&amp;#39;easter|talk]]) 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :In addition to sock-puppetry and COI issues, there's also recent edit-warring going on at [[Assembly theory]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assembly_theory&amp;action=history history]). I second the request for administrator attention! --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:LeeWeathers1986AV]] reported by [[User:Mvcg66b3r]] ==<br /> <br /> Disruptive editing; edit warring; uploading logos with no source or licensing info. Initially reported at [[WP:AIV]] but rebuffed.<br /> <br /> Logo examples:<br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Univision_Washington_DC_2019.png]<br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMDO-CD_(2021).png]<br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMDO-CD_(2021)29.png]<br /> <br /> Reversions of my removal of said logos: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WFDC-DT&amp;diff=1215888242&amp;oldid=1215887604] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WFDC-DT&amp;diff=1215890345&amp;oldid=1215889095] [[User:Mvcg66b3r|Mvcg66b3r]] ([[User talk:Mvcg66b3r|talk]]) 19:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :More sourceless logos: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyla_in_the_loop_logo.webp] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KFRE_2024.webp] And they're refusing to respond to my warnings on their talk page. I think this user's [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:Mvcg66b3r|Mvcg66b3r]] ([[User talk:Mvcg66b3r|talk]]) 03:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :: Most of those logos can be tagged {{tl|PD-textlogo}}. He is overusing the thank function, which is causing friction, so I left him a note about this. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 19:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Thomas B forum-shopping, circumventing page ban, refusing to drop the stick ==<br /> <br /> About a month ago, as an outcome of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207014593 ANI thread], [[User:Thomas B]] was page-blocked with strong consensus from pages [[Tim Hunt]], [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], [[Online shaming]], [[Talk:Online shaming]] for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]], [[WP:STONEWALL|stonewalling]], [[WP:BLUDGEONING|bludgeoning]], [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]], and [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING|forum shopping]] over the topic of Tim Hunt's 2015 controversy.<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, after the blocking and a monthly hiatus, the first edit Thomas B made to Wikipedia was the creation of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt yet another thread] about Tim Hunt, for the second time on [[WP:BLPN]] already. The thread resulted in another editor getting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#NewImpartial_-_BLP_discussion_touching_GENSEX reported to ANI].<br /> <br /> Comments made by Thomas B indicate an intention to continue participation and failure to understand why own behavior is disruptive. Here's two examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomas_B&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214802498] &quot;{{tq|I won't be participating '''too actively''' in any further discussion.}}&quot; and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214880952] &quot;{{tq|I looked it up before doing it. Because I'm blocked (not topic banned), this is actually '''perfectly fine'''.}}&quot; (boldings mine). &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NicolausPrime|contribs]]) 20:04 27 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :He wasn't ''banned'', he was [[WP:PB|blocked]] from 4 pages. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :[[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Article_ban_or_page_ban]] uses the term &quot;page ban&quot;, but I may be missing something so I changed this as you suggested. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You may have missed [[WP:BP|the blocking policy]]. Note that the [[User Talk:Thomas B#February 2024|notice]] on his talk page says &quot;blocked&quot;, not &quot;banned&quot;. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to get around his block. As such, both the quotes supplied seem reasonable to me. How is his participating in the discussion at BLPN disruptive? Has he reverted anyone (or was accusing him of {{tq|edit warring}} a mistake)? Could you elaborate on the forum shopping accusation? <br /> ::I can see an argument for bludgeoning, however; Thomas B had 20 replies out of 60 comments at the time of this post. More to the point, in his opening statement to the BLPN thread, he writes, {{tq|For (somewhat doggedly) insisting on this [change], I have been indefinitely blocked from editing the page myself. I bring it here in the hope that others will take a look.}}. That sounds to me like it's very close to [[WP:PROXYING]]. Combined with their [[WP:IDHT|refusal to listen]] to other editors telling them that what they're doing is bad, I think an argument could be made for their editing being disruptive. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 21:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'm not sure it's quite that simple. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207014593#Proposal_for_page_ban The original proposal] was for a &lt;s&gt;topic&lt;/s&gt; ''page'' ban, explicitly, with at my count 9 !votes in support and 3 in opposition. When the discussion was closed, however, it was closed as a &quot;block&quot;, despite the proposal having been for a ban and seemingly gained limited consensus for doing so. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Maybe I'm missing something. The section you linked was for a page ban. {{tq|To avoid spending even more time on this, I propose for Thomas Basboll to be '''page-banned''' from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages per above evidence.}} (Bolding mine.) Which, granted, means confusing a block and a ban is more understandable, but 1) the only talk of topic bans I see in that discussion is ''opposing'', and 2) even if the close was improper, I hardly think we can sanction an editor for violating a restriction that was never formally imposed, could we? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::That's my mistake -- I said topic, but meant page (edited to fix). Regardless, I agree with your point.[[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thomas B is forum-shopping because: first, after an edit war, there was an [[WP:NPOVN]] discussion started by [[User:LokiTheLiar]]. After this discussion and [[Talk:Tim Hunt]] reached a consensus Thomas B didn't agree with, Thomas B started a new thread on [[WP:BLPN]]. In the meanwhile Thomas B was reported to [[WP:ANI]], which prompted an RfC about the contentious section's content and later also the page ban (or however this should be called, I'm lost). The RfC later concluded. However Thomas B, instead of accepting the now-RfC-backed consensus, created a second [[WP:BLPN]] thread. As far as my knowledge goes, this should constitute forum shopping. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you for elaborating; I appreciate you making things clearer for me. I can see where you're coming from re: Forum Shopping. I still feel like, unless it's been done many times, the better first step is to tell the editor, &quot;Hey, this is Forum Shopping, don't do it.&quot; The solution that allows productive editing with the minimum of administrative intervention is often the best one, after all. If he continues to forum shop, then there's a solid case (with a warning!) to point to. That said, in the context of the other issues in that BLPN thread, it does make a compelling reason for a topic ban. Thanks again for elaborating! [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Thomas B was warned about own behavior multiple times, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214873854 after the page ban], and the previous ANI thread should have sent a strong signal that raising the same issue over and over again in multiple threads across multiple pages is sanctionable. The page ban vote was without consensus at first, until it changed because the disruption continued. It was all gradual, there definitely were many occassions for Thomas B to change course. I can try to be more eager to post warnings to user talk pages next time something like this happens, but this comes with its own set of problems. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Statement by Thomas B ===<br /> <br /> I thought that S Marshall's close of the RfC was sensible. I interpreted it as '''requiring''' (&quot;In practice '''the only way''' that I can see to do this...&quot;) a proportionate expansion of the rest of the article. Since I had by then already been blocked, I could not myself contribute to this work, but watched on the sidelines.<br /> <br /> After about a week, it seemed clear that the editors working on the article were ignoring Marshall's advice and had settled on a version in which the event would occupy over 20% of the article. I then checked whether a page block implies a topic ban, found it did not, and therefore raised the issue on BLPN. Since then, I have posted only in response to other editors, in many cases because they asked questions or wanted sources.<br /> <br /> While I'm happy to grant that this could have happened in any case, the immediate effect of my intervention appears to be to have brought the controversy section down to under 15% of the total word count, at least for the time being, with some editors adding material outside the section and others trimming it a little. It has certainly not led to any disruption of the article or its talk page (i.e., it has not attracted disruptive editors nor stoked up controversy there). While I still think the content decisions are unwise and contrary to BLP policy, work there seems to be proceeding in a calm and orderly manner.<br /> <br /> Editors who simply want to improve the article are entirely free to ignore me. I do not contact them on their talk pages and I have not appealed my block. The only nuisance I'm causing seems to be mediated by actions like this proposal for a topic-ban and (remarkably) a site-ban. Obviously, I would appeal any such action, leading to more time wasted by administrators, perhaps even arbitration. As in the case of the original block, this all seems very over-the-top to me.<br /> <br /> Finally, I want to say that part of the problem is that I've been away from protracted controversies here for a long time, and there appears to have been a change in the way content disputes are resolved now. In particular, I was suprised to be blocked not by '''policy''' but by '''consensus'''.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScottishFinnishRadish&amp;diff=1207382381&amp;oldid=1207380789] Most of the people who contributed to that consensus were also involved in the content dispute. It does really seem like a group of editors showed up on an article to which I have made substantial contributions[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Tim_Hunt] over many years[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Thomas+B&amp;page=Tim_Hunt&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max=], took it over and forced me out, because there was '''one thing''' they wanted to make sure the article said. I don't remember it working that way in the past.<br /> <br /> Anyway, thanks for hearing my side. I hope it is clear that my aim here is, not to be annoying, but to ensure the intergrity of Wikipedia's BLP article on Tim Hunt and, of course, in line with our policy, to prevent its subject any unnecessary pain. Best,--[[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 06:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Proposal: topic ban ===<br /> <br /> I propose for Thomas B to be topic-banned from the subjects of Tim Hunt and Online shaming, broadly construed, replacing the previously mentioned page bans. The purpose of this ban is to prevent any further skirting around the page ban.<br /> <br /> * '''Support''' as proposer. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' per my above comment. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' as my interpretation of the original block was that there was consensus for a &lt;s&gt;topic&lt;/s&gt;page ban before, and there's no indication that anything's changed. Extending that to a topic ban across a narrow set of topics isn't an unreasonable next step [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Support: the interaction [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&amp;diff=1215873249&amp;oldid=1215863476 here] is illustrative of the fact that Thomas B simply does not exhibit the capacity to comprehend that anyone could hold views different from his own on this matter; this is incompatible with constructive discussion and consensus-forming. Moreover, it is clear that Thomas B lacks the self-control necessary to stop bludgeoning discussions on this issue. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' I think Thomas B's concerns regarding the Tim Hunt page are legitimate. That doesn't mean they are the consensus view but I can see how they can make their case in good faith. I would suggest they back away and let others reply and if others don't then they need to accept that they don't have consensus. I think this sanction is counter productive as it tells someone who is concerned about a BLP issue that they should just shut up and not have brought things up. I get that sometimes editors feel like someone is objecting too much. However, editors are also free to not reply. No one is going to think a 3:1 (or what ever it actually is) consensus against Thomas B's proposed changes will magically be closed as &quot;consensus for&quot; if Thomas B is allowed to have the last word. So long as the discussion doesn't leave BLPN (a legitimate place for the concern) and the discussion is civil I don't see why this needs admin action. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:We had extensive discussions on [[WP:NPOVN]], [[WP:BLPN]], [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], [[WP:ANI]], the RfC, and now yet another one on [[WP:BLPN]]. The previous BLPN thread was started by Thomas B after NPOVN reached a consesus against Thomas B's position. The current BLPN thread was created by Thomas B after the RfC concluded also against this user's position. Which is [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. In every case the discussion concerned the same thing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hunt#2015_controversy a single subsubsection] in Tim Hunt's biography, and each time consensus emerged against Thomas B. Which is [[WP:STICK]]. In every discussion Thomas B's made an excessively large amount of posts as compared to others, often reiterating the same arguments. Which is [[WP:BLUDGEONING]].<br /> *:This has been going on for over a month and has been draining a considerable amount of attention from me and other editors. Isn't this disruptive and draining our community resources? Are you sure that this doesn't need admin action, and this typical topic-ban sanction would be as far as ''counter productive''? [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Speaking of Bludgeoning [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&amp;target=NicolausPrime&amp;namespace=all&amp;tagfilter=&amp;start=2024-03-23&amp;end=2024-03-28&amp;limit=50] Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked. Its almost a single-minded obsession. As regards [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]], this is repeatedly raising the same topic at multiple forums. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&amp;end=&amp;namespace=4&amp;start=&amp;tagfilter=&amp;target=Thomas+B&amp;offset=20240206075305] Reviewing Thomas B's contribution history demonstrates that he raised the issue at [[WP:BLPN]] ''once'' before the ANI thread started that led to his block and that was the sole time he had raised it in any forum outside of trying to discuss the topic on the article talk page. He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at [[WP:BLPN]]. There was in fact no discussion at [[WP:BLPN]] See [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt]]. Your allegation of [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] is demonstrably false. Rather we constantly have the same [[WP:TAG]] team of editors lobbying loudly to have editors blocked but offering no real evidence and what little evidence is offered, when you look closer doesn't support the allegation of misconduct. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 15:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&quot;{{tq|Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked.}}&quot;<br /> ::::This is false, as directly contradicted by the following edits, unrelated to Thomas B, that I made between March 23 and today: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215654047] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NicolausPrime/sandbox&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215762490] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compact_Disc_subcode&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215768058] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215654745] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etymological_fallacy&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215747100].<br /> ::::&quot;{{tq|He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at WP:BLPN. There was in fact no discussion at WP:BLPN See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt. Your allegation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is demonstrably false.}}&quot;<br /> ::::The very discussion that you link, [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim_Hunt]], immediately reaches the conclusion that the filing constituted forum-shopping. We can disagree, maybe, whether the second BLPN thread created one month later constituted forum-shopping or was just beating a dead horse, but it evidently was at least one of that as it had been shortly preceded by extensive discussions that I noted above. And no, the issue is not distinct, it's a yet another, ad nauseam reiteration the same arguments about the article being unfair to Tim Hunt, to address which the RfC was created and have thus resolved.<br /> ::::&quot;{{tq|we constantly have the same WP:TAG team of editors lobbying loudly}}&quot;<br /> ::::This is the third or fourth time I see you making this accusation. I can't say for others, but I'm definitely not a member of any tag team. Except for commenting once in an earlier RfC started by LokiTheLiar, I don't think I've ever interacted with any of the editors involved in the Tim Hunt discussion and its offshoots before the NPOVN thread, where my involvement began. I started the original page-ban vote because I wanted the disruption to end, and I've started this thread because I felt responsible for failing to prevent further disruption due to my choice of a page ban instead of a topic ban. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> *'''Support''' This is clearly what the original consensus intended and Thomas B's behavior since then is a clear example of [[WP:GAMING]]. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 01:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. Seems the only way to prevent this (part of the) disruption continuing. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 09:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose''' Thomas B has raised legitimate concerns about [[WP:BLP]] policy, in the close of the RFC it was noted his concerns were legitimate and could not be ignored. Per Springee he is entitled to raise those concerns at [[WP:BLPN]]. I see someone has suggested he is bludgeoning the discussion and I acknowledge he has made a number of contributions. However, most are replies in a discussion with {{U|Newimpartial}} e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&amp;diff=1215687478&amp;oldid=1215683633]. There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it. It is Kafkaesque to suggest an editor is sanctioned as the result of an [[WP:ANI]] thread raised against another editor who has an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor's excessive posts. {{ping|EducatedRedneck}} I presume your support vote reflects your satisfaction that [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] is an issue, may I draw your attention that the NicolausPrime considers that I have raised an issue in a forum once as forumshopping. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Tq|There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often}} - in the ANI section above, the only evidence presented in support of this assertion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215783375] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215788924] includes (succinct) responses to direct questions as though they could be violations, although such are explicitly excluded by the terms of my restrictions (as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215784194 was noted by SilverSeren] above). <br /> *:No other editor in &quot;my&quot; section, aside from the OP, has suggested any possible violation of my anti-bludgeon restriction, and many editors have participated above. I would therefore appreciate if you would strike your assertion here that I am {{tq|breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it}} - there is no suggestion that I have broken my anti-bludgeon restriction nor is there a suggestion that I be sanctioned, so I'd rather not see that inaccurate statement left in this other section (where I randomly happened to see it).<br /> *:You also imply (when you refer to {{tq|an WP:ANI thread raised by an editor already under an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor}} (1) that I raised a thread at ANI (since no other editor here is under a restriction for number of posts per topic) and (2) that Thomas B. is facing sanctions here for responding to my comments. So far as I can tell, neither of these assertions is accurate, since I didn't bring anything to ANI and sanctions proposed here are about forum shopping and have nothing to do with any interaction between Thomas B. and myself. Perhaps you were confusing me with NicolausPrime, an editor I had never been aware of until the last day or so on this page.<br /> *: Anyway, I'd appreciate you striking the second reference to my editing as well; I'd rather not see spurious statements be made about my conduct even incidentally (and possibly based on mistaken identity). Thanks. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I didn't mistake your identity, I mistakenly pasted the wrong name but that's fixed now. I do believe you have broken your anti-bludgeon restriction but you've obviously missed that I opposed any sanction. I am not the only editor to think that way, so I will respectfully decline that request. I had also noticed it myself but chose not to report it - I usually try to avoid the drama boards until after I try and discuss with editors first. I will revise my wording to make my meaning clearer; Nicholas started this thread as a result of the thread raised about you and that is what I meant. I was also responding to the bludgeoning accusation against Thomas, which is largely responding to posts you made requesting a reply from him. Which is not to accuse anyone of misconduct and I have not sought any action against anyone including you. I trust that clarifies the matter? &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::Your !vote above doesn't refer in any way to my anti-bludgeon restriction, nor do those of any other editors apart from the OP and Silver seren, who corrected the OP's misinterpretation of the restriction (Silver seren quoted the actual text of the restriction, above).<br /> ::::If you still {{tq|do believe [I] have broken [my] anti-bludgeon restriction}}, I'd appreciate you documenting that in the relevant section above, preferably with the evidence you consider relevant, so the question can be addressed by other editors - at the moment, that view seems to have been rejected by all editors contributing to the discussion besides the OP. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I have already declined to report your violation of your anti-bludgeon restriction, I do so again. If I had felt it needed action I would have already discussed it with you. Now having had to give the same reply effectively twice, may I draw attention to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1141126946&amp;oldid=1141118949&amp;title=User_talk:Newimpartial this]. Please take the hint. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::If you're not going to report it, then ''stop bringing it up''. This is staring to look like [[WP:HOUND]]ing. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::WCM, I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I don't think you're suggesting that someone making a spurious accusation against you therefore determines the legitimacy (one way or the other) of an accusation against Thomas B. Are you saying NicolausPrime fabricated the claims of the five involved fora (talk page consensus, NPOVN, BLPN, RfC, 2nd BLPN)? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose'''; {{u|Springee}} put it perfectly. I appreciate the ban is supposed to reflect bludgeoning and failing to drop the stick, but it also looks uncomfortably close to a ban for having the &quot;wrong&quot; opinion, an attempt by one side to undermine the other. The harm done by such a ban - the chilling effect on future debate - greatly exceeds the mild inconvenience of an editor writing a bit too much about their viewpoint, in too many fora. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 11:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' - Per Springee, Thomas B should back away, but I would suggest the same for the editors interacting with Thomas B. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 13:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' Run-of-the-mill response to an example of the kind of forum-shopping and stick-grabbing that the project has seen time and time again as the years have rolled by. Any &quot;chilling effect&quot; on editors expressing opinions vaguely aligned with Thomas B's is purely speculative. If we stopped doing topic bans because of such speculation, we'd have to find a whole new way of dealing with a very real problem. [[User:XOR&amp;#39;easter|XOR&amp;#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&amp;#39;easter|talk]]) 14:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' Though i agree with {{U|Springee}} and others about the concerns, i believe that Thomas B has shown/is showing a startling lack of ability to read the room and work within a community. If the several editors above who also agree with his point (though not his methods) are representative of a portion of the community then that point will be discussed and taken into consideration ''without'' Thomas B's disruptive behaviour. Happy days, ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''&lt;sup&gt;'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' Whilst I understand what the opposers are saying, this isn't a proposed ban for having the &quot;wrong&quot; opinion, it's a ban for being ''utterly and completely unable'' to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] even after a previous block. It would have been simple to walk away and edit one of the other 7 million Wikipedia articles, but ... no. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' formal topic ban. This user apparently cannot comprehend the idea that [[First law of holes|he should stop digging]] after the initial page block, and is carrying on the arguments in other locations. A topic ban is the only way we can move forward without Thomas dragging this out across the wiki. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Is the problem my inability to drop the stick or a number of editors inability to ignore a quite tame posting to BLPN? Other than this very strange ANI, what disruption has my post caused? What effect has my post had on the editing of the Tim Hunt article? [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|a quite tame posting}} You have made approximately 20 comments in the discussion at BLPN; all other editors combined have made about 40. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 21:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You understand that I have mainly answered their questions, right? I should have &quot;dropped the stick&quot; and ignored their direct questions? [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::You're still digging... — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::You understand that your response is evasive, that your original comment is dishonest, and that you are demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to exhibit the self-control necessary to participate in an acceptable way, right? --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 23:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::I think the accusation of dishonesty is unfair and uncivil, so I'm not responding to this comment. [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 08:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' This is a transparent refusal to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] combined with [[WP:IDHT]]. I am sure that the concerns are genuine, but they have already been discussed and addressed. At this point Thomas needs to leave this to other editors and [[WP:AGF]] (saying things like {{tq|they want to paint Hunt as a sexist}} when someone disagrees about anything is not what I would consider good-faith). In terms of dropping the stick, we can all see the responses at BLPN and they have not been {{tq|mainly answer[ing] their questions}}. See for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215520494] (repeating the same argument from when this all started) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214835462] (continuing to double down) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214823751] (no one asked any question here either) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214976196] (example of [[WP:IDHT]], editors have repeatedly explained that no one is suggesting the article call him sexist, but Thomas is still arguing as if they are) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214981527] (accusing other editors of bad faith unprompted). This whole situation is getting ridiculous. The RFC is closed. The article is being edited productively. Let's all just move on. &lt;small&gt;(also this is my first comment at ANI so please let me know if I messed up formatting somewhere or need to change anything)&lt;/small&gt; [[User:CambrianCrab|CambrianCrab]] ([[User talk:CambrianCrab|talk]]) 22:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' – no harm is being caused to the encyclopedia by raising legitimate and genuine BLP concerns. If you don't want to interact with him, then don't. I believe there are legitimate BLP concerns as well about the Hunt article, but after seeing the way Thomas B has been treated in this whole shameful debacle, I'm afraid to say anything for fear of proposals like this being thrown my way.[[User:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue&quot;&gt; ''Isaidnoway'' &lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:black&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/b&gt;]] 00:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&quot;I don't think he should be blocked because I agree with him, and his behavioral issues are actually the fault of other people&quot; ok then. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Less sarcastically: Wikipedia operates on a consensus-based discussion model. Consensus models only work if (1) people are generally willing to accept when consensus is against them, and (2) people who refuse to acknowledge this can be prevented from disrupting discussions. The problem with Thomas B is not his views, it's that he's failing (1) and consequently forcing others to rely on (2). &lt;br&gt; Here is a very simple question you could ask yourself: suppose that there were a 60-comment discussion involving 10 or 12 participants; how many comments would you expect each person to be making under normal circumstances, if no one is bludgeoning or arguing just for the sake of arguing or exhibiting [[WP:IDHT]]? Personally, I think any time you see someone making 12 or 15 comments in those circumstances, it's a very bad sign. [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt|Thomas B has made 20.]] --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I would expect the person who started the discussion to make significantly more comments than anyone else in the discussion. It would not surprise me if they replied at least once to each of the others, sometimes merely to grant a point, clarify a statement, or answer a question. So, in a discussion with 10-12 participants, that 12-15 number seems conservative to me. Your reasoning, however, certainly explains the hostility against me if it has become the general view at WP. Like I say in my statement, things do seem to have changed since I was last involved in a big controversy. I mean, people have taken even my participation in this ANI proposing to ban me as a sign that I can't drop the stick (or shovel, per Hand). It's just peculiar, frankly. [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 08:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{tq|if it has become the general view at WP}}<br /> *::::This has been the general view for a long, long time, hence [[WP:BLUDGEON]], which has existed since 2008. Responding to every single comment is the very heart of BLUDGEON. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' By the time the post was made to BLPN {{u|Hemiauchenia}} had already been working on the issue of implementing the RfC result. {{u|Firefangledfeathers}} trimmed the controversy section, tho i'm not sure if this was in response to the posting. {{u|S Marshall}} was providing some valuable comments. {{u|Morbidthoughts}} and {{u|Hemiauchenia}} started a good discussion which probably could have been very useful. Could have been better if more editors would have kept their eyes on the ball, but not the worst WP noticeboard discussion ever. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' It's become clear that Thomas B really can't drop this issue. Even if the BLPN thread has resulted in some constructive changes, his responses in the BLPN discussion make it obvious that he just cannot accept that the majority of people don't agree with him on what the section should look like, and that he's just going to keep causing disruption regarding this issue unless he is topic banned. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It's entirely correct that in my opinion the majority is wrong and that I think the article is currently misleading. I've added an update to this effect at the BLPN post.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard#Tim_Hunt] But expressing this opinion is not in itself a disruption. I've been puzzled at the amount of annoyance (and administration) I've caused simply by posting things that could easily just be ignored, especially since I'm working within the contraints of a block that I have not appealed. [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 11:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Thomas B, you may wish to reread [[WP:IDHT]]. I feel encompasses why this {{tq|amount of annoyance}} is being had from your conduct. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 17:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. Consensus at this point on the article is clear (and has been for a long time); Thomas B's continued refusal to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], his [[WP:IDHT]] response to months of discussion and attempts to [[WP:FORUMSHOP]] the dispute are long past the point of being disruptive. Simply believing that the majority is wrong doesn't allow someone to endlessly raise the same issue in every possible venue available to them forever - we don't write articles or reach consensus via filibuster. The fact that his responses, above, show that he ''still'' doesn't get it even after an article-level block and after numerous people here have explained to him shows that nothing but a topic ban is going to work here. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 05:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Proposal: additional two-month ban from English Wikipedia ===<br /> {{atop<br /> | status = <br /> | result = This is unnecessary, against policy and clearly will not achieve consensus. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I propose for Thomas B to be banned from the English Wikipedia for two months, independently and additionally to the above topic ban. The purpose of this ban is to act as a deterrent from any further [[WP:GAMING|gaming]] of the sanctions.<br /> <br /> * '''Support''' as proposer. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' as unnecessary and punitive. With a topic ban in place, escalating blocks may be imposed as necessary. Let's extend more [[WP:ROPE]] so they can contribute helpfully to other areas. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' premature. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' I haven't seen any indication of disruption outside of this topic area. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' Clearly unnecessary. It also would be easy for editors to presume the motive in suggesting this block was to be punitive. As I said above, if Thomas B's arguments aren't shifting consensus then why worry? If they are shifting consensus then this sort of block looks more like gaming than protective. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose'''. The issue seems to be contained to the topics proposed to be banned for the accused, and this proposal goes beyond reasonable prevention. If the topic ban above becomes enforced, a block can be imposed if it gets contravened. —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 05:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose'''. Not necessary or warranted. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 09:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' Seems punitive. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> === Comment ===<br /> <br /> I note there are now 3 threads related to issues surrounding the [[Tim Hunt]] article, making 4 in less than a month. I like {{ping|Elemimele}} and {{ping|Fiveby}} are concerned about the toxic nature of the discussion surrounding that article. I am no longer editing there like those two editors and don't intend to return. I suggest {{ping|Thomas B}} stops as well, not because he is wrong but for his own well being and mental health. Rather than being guided by sources, looking at what the prevailing views are in the literature, the discussions have descended into editors looking for sources to validate their own opinions. ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents in the discussion rather than addressing urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Notably, accusations of disruptive behaviour are unsupported by evidence, scratch the surface of what little is offered as evidence and it crumples. I haven't called for any sanctions, I opposed a proposal yesterday and still urge that as {{U|S Marshall}} suggested that an intervention by an uninvolved SySop may be required to stave off an arbcom case. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 10:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :{{tq|ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents}} You have moaned about this in two or three places now, but oddly you have not noted that ''you'' started one of the threads, nor have you apologized to me for doing so; odd, that. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Do you intend to do anything about these accusations that {{tq|ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents}}, or are you going to keep posting this in some vague [[WP:FORUM]] manner? — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Note that I am not involved in the Tim Hunt article, BLPN discussion, or this issue anywhere that I can tell. I don't think it's productive at this time to cast this as an &quot;us vs them&quot; situation. Rather, this should be looked at on its own merits. To me, the question is: Does Thomas B's conduct help or hurt the encyclopedia? In my mind, it hurts it by draining the other editors' time and energy over an issue that seems to have already reached a consensus. I believe he's acting in good faith (honestly trying so solve what he views as a BLP issue), but we all need to accept that consensus is sometimes against us and move on. You may disagree that the harm outweighs the good, and that's also completely valid; answering that question is a judgement call, not a matter of fact.<br /> :I'd also posit that those editors not engaging on BLPN does not remove the problem; if nobody dissents to Thomas B there, it seems to me that a new consensus could be formed there which is not truly representative of the community's opinions. Maybe it wouldn't happen, but the fear of having to go back and sort out the two opposing consenses makes doing nothing less palatable. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 23:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 158.223.0.0/16 and 2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64 ==<br /> <br /> <br /> *{{userlinks|158.223.0.0/16}}<br /> *{{userlinks|2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64}}<br /> <br /> I previously raised concerns on [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#158.223.0.0/16_and_2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64|18 March 2024]], and the [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]] editing is continuing. <br /> <br /> The very latest example is yet another modification of a direct quotation ([[Special:Diff/1215894901]].) I tried pointing that out the last time it happened (see [[User_talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct#HGV20]]) but whether the editor just ignored it or just flat out doesn't understand is difficult to say. Their English comprehension seems limited; a number of haphazard edits (like [[Special:Diff/1213373005]], [[Special:Diff/1215867316]], [[Special:Diff/1215727741]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shi_%28rank%29&amp;diff=1215693311&amp;oldid=1215637799]) make it look like that they don't understand what was written before or the effects of their own changes.<br /> <br /> Combined with their talk page interactions (including on [[User_talk:158.223.122.211]]) my impression is that they tend to miss the point a whole lot and are quite oblivious to it. - [[User:RovingPersonalityConstruct|RovingPersonalityConstruct]] ([[User talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/RovingPersonalityConstruct|contribs]]) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == user:Zack097 adding unsupported categories ==<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|Zack097}}<br /> <br /> Noticed a few additions of categories which were not supported by article contents. User has a history of adding poorly or unsourced content, with numerous level 4 warnings. Some examples include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spies_in_Disguise&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215901686], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_2&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215901539], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eternals_(film)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215901826].--[[User:Loriendrew|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #005000;&quot;&gt;☾Loriendrew☽&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Loriendrew|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #000080;&quot;&gt;☏''(ring-ring)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 22:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This user has done almost nothing constructive in the many years since they created the account. Indefinitely blocked.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == IP Repeatedly Disrupting Table Formatting ==<br /> <br /> *{{vandal|2804:14C:128:270D:0:0:0:475}} &amp;ndash; On {{No redirect|:Kingsman (franchise)}} ({{diff|Kingsman (franchise)|1215922664|1214567618|diff}}): vandalism after final warning. Repeated disruptive changes to content and removal of formatting across a variety of articles. Majority of edits have been reverted. The IP has also repeatedly performed such disruptive behaviors on the [[Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One]] and [[Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Two]] articles, among many other franchise-related tables. This is getting quite annoying to revert each time they return and they ignore any warnings given, and have edited as such through different IPs. The reach of their edits is problematic, though individual page protection for every article may be too extreme. I previously took this issue to AIV though they recommend I bring it here instead. [[User:Trailblazer101|Trailblazer101]] ([[User talk:Trailblazer101|talk]]) 01:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Improper close ==<br /> {{atop|Reported editor blocked indefinitely by {{noping|Dennis Brown}} per [[WP:NOTHERE]]. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) {{nac}}}}<br /> * {{Userlinks|Candied Taters}}<br /> I reverted this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1215965720 close]. Can someone review the account which made the close. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 06:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I also notice that Candied Tater's userpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Candied_Taters&amp;redirect=no redirects to an admin's user page] (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACandied_Taters&amp;diff=1215965100&amp;oldid=1215959997 here] is the diff where they created that redirect). Seems like the user picked out the longest thread, or saw it [[Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Administrative_discussions|at WP:CR]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests&amp;oldid=1215947052#Administrative_discussions permanent link]). Whatever the user was trying to do, it seems disruptive. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 06:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I blocked him under [[WP:NOTHERE]]. The user page (now deleted) sealed the fate, redirecting to an admin's page ([[User:Red-tailed hawk]]) after that admin changed it so they don't redirect their user page to a Guideline. Troll like behavior, obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. [[User:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;Dennis Brown&lt;/b&gt;]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;2&amp;cent;&lt;/b&gt;]] 06:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I went ahead and deleted their 2 !votes on this page. If someone objects feel free to restore. But seems like [[WP:DENY]] is the best approach here. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 06:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == [[User:99.209.199.62]] Keep vandelzing Wikipedia ==<br /> <br /> Hi I just saw a ip keep vandelzing the page [[Final Fantasy XVI]] can you please block the ip since he continued after the final warning [[User:Fixer332|Fixer332]] ([[User talk:Fixer332|talk]]) 16:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Fixer332|Fixer332]] The IP has now been blocked for a week. Next time, a better place to report this would be [[WP:AIV|AIV]]. [[User:Kline|Kline]] • [[User talk:Kline|talk to me!]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kline|contribs]] 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:8diq]] and disruptive editing ==<br /> <br /> {{User2|8diq}} has <br /> * repeatedly inserted a large amount of inline images (which is basically the only type of edits they did) despite [[MOS:IRELEV]] and other editors' warnings on their talk page<br /> ** first warned on December 2023, around ~25 edits afterwards<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delhi_Republic_Day_parade&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1189195027 posted copyrighted materials] on articles and cross-wiki-[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/8diq uploaded] copyrighted images to Commons tagged as &quot;own work&quot;<br /> * not even one edit that is not reverted<br /> [[User:Northern Moonlight|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,Inter,-apple-system,Twitter Color Emoji,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap&quot;&gt;Northern Moonlight&lt;/span&gt;]] 00:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Barr Theo]] and bot-like mass creation of articles ==<br /> <br /> [[User:Barr Theo]]'s only contributions have been to create many new articles in batches, often several in less than one minute, and always at timestamps ending in :59 or :00. This pattern of mass-creation, as well as the total unresponsiveness on their talk page regarding their behavior, makes me believe they might be running an unauthorized bot creating these articles for them. [[User:Chaotic Enby|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#8a7500&quot;&gt;Chaotıċ &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1&quot;&gt;Enby&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 01:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :*'''Blocked''' until he explains this bot-like activity. [[Manuel María Smith]], [[Manuel Rodríguez Arzuaga]], [[Manuel de la Sota]], [[Manuel del Castillo]] and [[Manuel Gallego]] were all created within the exact same minute. There's no way those were done manually (or is it [[WP:ASSPERSIANS|Manuelly]]?) &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 02:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:{{tq|(or is it [[WP:ASSPERSIANS|Manuelly]]?)}} Boooooo. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:default;color:#246BCE;&quot;&gt;Liliana&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;&quot;&gt;UwU&lt;/span&gt;]]''''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])&lt;/sup&gt; 04:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::Bot-like? Or butt-like? [[User:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:red;&quot;&gt;E&lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:blue;&quot;&gt;Eng&lt;/b&gt;]] 06:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:Hi, I am [[User:Barr Theo|Barr Theo]]. I am currently unlogged because I do not want to break my &quot;insane streak of creations for March&quot;, which is also the reason why I did not answer [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]]. (The last time I used an IP address was in 2022 by the way, and this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat).<br /> :*:Regarding these wild accusations of bot usage, I must say that I am very disappointed with your conclusions... No, I do not use &quot;unauthorized bots&quot;, I simply create the articles that I have scheduled for the day and then wait for :59 to click on publish, usually at 23:59. Why do I do it? Because I am obsessed with details (grouping individuals by name, such as Luises and Manuels) and with symmetry (I always edit in pairs, and very often two or four pages per day), and also because I am a perhaps slightly stupid and crazy. But one thing that I am not is a criminal and I have never used &quot;unauthorized bots&quot;; in fact, I do not even know how to do that and I am not even sure if there is any kind of bot that can do what I have been doing. <br /> :*:Perhaps my insane levels of consistency and tiredness lead some of you to believe that I am being aided by machines, or that I am machine myself, but I ain't. I am just a human being, a very relentless and determined one. Sorry, Chaotic Enby, but there are no shortcuts for greatness.<br /> :*:Now that this miserdustanding has been clarified and now that I have explained by &quot;bot-like activity&quot;, I need to be unblocked as soon as possible because my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today (two of which are already done since 21 March, but that I will only publish at :59 of today).<br /> :*:Kind regards (waiting for 14:59 to upload this). [[Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D]] ([[User talk:2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|talk]]) 14:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Block evasion, isn't going to help, in fact that makes the situation worse. {{tq|my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today}} what schedule? [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|The Wordsmith}}, self admitted block evasion above. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I see it, thanks. I've responded at [[User talk:Barr Theo]] and blocked the /64. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barr_Theo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216190435 {{tq|I really didn't wanna break my streak nor use IP addresses due to my previous problems with multi-accounts}}] doesn't fill me with enthusiasm. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I'd guess they are referring to their previous unblock conditions: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABarr_Theo&amp;diff=1160765567&amp;oldid=1160703744]. &amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8093:5F01:91C5:7125:1875:DAC1|2804:F1...75:DAC1]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:8093:5F01:91C5:7125:1875:DAC1|talk]]) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *As much as {{u|Barr Theo}}'s explanation here and on their talk might be unusual, I don't see reason not to believe it. Unless there are any substantive issues with the pages that would warrant administrative intervention (and nobody has raised any), I don't think we should be keeping them blocked, and I don't think we should be weighing their evasion against them, since all they've been doing is appealing, albeit in the wrong place. {{u|The Wordsmith}}, are you okay with an unblock? --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I mean, they admit they're just creating/posting these articles rapid fire to meet some sort of self-imposed schedule. And then failing to respond to inquiries on their Talk page when people asked what they were doing. If nothing else, they need to acknowledge that this is a collaborative editing environment and just ignoring concerns is a bad idea.<br /> *:More concerning, this isn't the first time they've resorted to sockpuppetry. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|I mean, they admit they're just creating/posting these articles rapid fire to meet some sort of self-imposed schedule.}}<br /> *::I don't think people's &quot;internal schedules&quot; are something we should be concerned with (or concerned by), provided that their scheduling doesn't lead to problematic ''behaviour''. The problematic behaviour raised here so far is them not responding to [[User talk:Barr Theo#Mass creation of articles|a single query]]. I agree that's something they need to change in the future, but it's not a what I'd consider a major offence, and neither is their logging out to respond here. If they had done (or were to do) anything other than trying to engage with community concerns while logged out, it'd be a very different story, but they haven't. This is what I'd essentially consider a &quot;good faith&quot; SOCK violation, as opposed to &quot;proper&quot; socking. <br /> *::All that said, I'm a bit concerned by the &quot;line-pulling&quot; referred to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barr_Theo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216209252 in response to The Wordsmith's query], and concur that this should probably be cleared up before proceeding. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 23:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't really care about the block evasion, since it clearly wasn't intended to actually be ''evasive''. I see we've had an explanation about what this project is for, and I find it unusual but plausible. I'm satisfied that there's no unauthorized botting happening. I've asked one more question, about whether the text for these articles is original or translated/copied from somewhere (which might require attribution or checking for copyvio). If that's answered, and {{u|Barr Theo}} agrees to be reasonably responsive to the questions/concerns of other editors in the future, I'm fine with any admin unblocking if I don't get to it first. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Personal attack by {{u|ජපස}} ==<br /> <br /> I believe that I should be able to discuss the reliability of sources without being called an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216111388 ideologically-driven antiwokist]. Please do something about it. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 03:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :That seems to be the upshot of your argument. I look at impact of your rhetoric and cannot judge the intent. I have no way to judge what your mindset is. Shall I add something to that effect? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 03:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I shall! [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216113708]. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 03:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::That's scarcely any better. Frankly, any accusation related to &quot;[[woke]]ness&quot; (supposedly for or against) is inappropriate and poisons a topic. On any culture war-adjacent topic where it might be invoked, it could be hurled against any participant (again, supposedly for or against). As [[WP:NPA#WHATIS]] says, {{tq|Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden.}} &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Palatino&quot;&gt;[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : So jps decided to double down on his attack. Jps argues against the reliability of an academic journal mostly based on his own opinion of what he thinks is the ideology of the journal. This includes sweeping assertions about 60 academics: &quot;the members of this editorial board really are proponents of fringe theories&quot;, BLP be damned. My argument is that the reliability of a journal doesn't depend on whether jps or myself like what it publishes. I should be able to take that position without being accused of being a supporter of the ideology that jps abhors. I would take the same position if the ideology of the journal was the opposite. The fact is that jps doesn't have a clue what my ideological position is and I shouldn't have to take his ignorant insults. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 04:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@jps: There are times to go hard and pour buckets on opponents, but this is not one of them. The entire [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Journal of Controversial Ideas]] discussion is a waste of space because there is no actionable proposal. Is someone saying that journal can ''never'' be used as a source? Surely people know that explicit examples must be discussed before assessing whether something is reliable. Zero0000 is not playing a [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] game—it's actually you who are missing what Zero0000 has written. I am sympathetic to the view that some philosophers struggle to find interesting topics to discuss and they offer opinions on topics outside their expertise. We could chat about that but again it would be a waste of space. Please stop arguing there and wait until something actionable arises (should a particular claim in a particular article be sourced to the ''[[Journal of Controversial Ideas]]''?). And stop insulting valid comments. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I've blocked {{u|ජපස}} 1 week (as an Arbitration Enforcement action) for violating [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]]. There's a long history of warnings, sanctions and blocks for incivility in pseudoscience-related matters, dating back to at least 2006 with an Arbcom &quot;Caution&quot; at [[WP:ARBPSCI#ScienceApologist is uncivil]] up through a 2023 Arbitration Enforcement report [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive319#ජපස|where he was reminded]] to report pro-fringe disruption to administrators rather than being uncivil to them. Most recently, he was [[User talk:ජපස#Uncivil behavior|asked]] just a week ago to tone down the language and informed about [[WP:BRIE]]. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 05:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Although I consider myself a wikifriend of jps, and I tend to agree with his views on content matters, The Wordsmith accurately points to my warning about BRIE as part of that recent discussion at jps' talk page, and I endorse what The Wordsmith did. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::'''Good block'''. I encountered JPS here at ANI and through the Ammonihah page linked below. I'll add that JPS's behavior extends beyond the above thread. In this past month, he has [[WP:CIVIL|repeatedly chosen to express himself uncivilly]] on multiple pages (diffs provided below). As The Wordsmith points out, editors [[User talk:ජපස#Uncivil behavior|encouraged JPS to be more civil at his talk page]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;oldid=1216122139#Uncivil_behavior permanent link]) preceding the behavior at [[WP:FTN]]. JPS's acknowledgment that the thread had presented [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214739500 {{tq|a fair critique}}] apparently wasn't an indicator he would change his behavior.{{pb}}On user talk pages:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AViriditas&amp;diff=1214128433&amp;oldid=1213922579 {{tq|are you being petty? I don't see any substantive argument, just sour grapes}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214523384 {{Tq|profoundly weird sources you are demanding}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}In tags for Second Nephi<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214148955 {{tq|What in the actual fuck does THAT mean?}}; {{tq|You kidding me? Who wrote this? They need to be stopped.}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}At Talk:Massacre of the Innocents:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214212860&amp;oldid=1214211214# {{tq|that's just nonsense.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214213832&amp;oldid=1214213492 {{tq|::rolleyes:: This isn't serious}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214214550&amp;oldid=1214213931 {{tq|His bullshit needs to go too.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214214814&amp;oldid=1214214638 {{tq|Lol.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214217933&amp;oldid=1214216833 {{tq|Grow a thicker skin,}} and {{tq|If that offends a believer, then they need to leave this project.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1215521407&amp;oldid=1215520011 {{tq|Are you kidding?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214220315&amp;oldid=1214220053 {{tq|a charlatan. A hack. A biblical literalist who wants to play with the real scholars but can't because his faith requires him to believe absolute absurdities.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1216096055&amp;oldid=1216031705 {{tq|It looks like you are WP:POVPUSHing for your religious beliefs at this point.}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}In edit summaries for Massacre of the Innocents:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214194312&amp;oldid=1213785701 {{tq|This is not Sunday School. Take your biblical literalist whining elsewhere.}}] (Supposing editors are either not aware this is Wikipedia and not Sunday School (seems to be an implication of stupidity) or that they're acting in bad faith)<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214195168&amp;oldid=1214194881 {{tq|bullshit}}]<br /> ::* Stating that other editors are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214196547&amp;oldid=1214196395 {{tq|promoting lies in the encyclopedia}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1215406387&amp;oldid=1214982462 {{tq|ideology that is quite bizarre}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}At Talk:Ammonihah<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213721999 {{tq|why the hell did Joseph Smith bother to make up this silly story? Y'know?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213810626 {{tq|these &lt;s&gt;three&lt;/s&gt;two-and-a-half Mormons}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213906438 {{tq|They seem to say that, yes. That makes them Mormon apologists. Yep!}}] (said of [https://rap.wustl.edu/people/laurie-f-maffly-kipp/ Laurie Maffly-Kipp] and [[Penguin Books]])<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213909094 {{tq|LOL, WP:NOR isn't a suicide pact.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213912920 {{tq|This is Wikipedia. We don't play stupid games like this.}}]<br /> ::* When I asked if he meant to say that {{tq|Scholarship published in academic venues constitutes &quot;stupid games}}, referring in large part to [https://muse.jhu.edu/article/522405 an article from a secular academic journal published by the University of Pennsylvania Press that I was linking on the talk page], JPS answered, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213913325 {{tq|In most cases, absolutely}}].<br /> ::* When I asked if JPS meant to imply {{tq|&quot;Lunatic charlatans&quot; like professors of literature? Is that the implication?}} (literature professors like [https://www.uvm.edu/cas/english/profiles/elizabeth_fenton Elizabeth Fenton], whose research was cited for explanatory purposes on the talk page, a living person), JPS answered, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213917026 {{tq|Well, we had about a big long discussion about blacklisting those words, but it came up &quot;no consensus&quot;. Whachagonnado?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213940114 {{tq|Does it hurt your feelings or something?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214007074 {{tq|A bit sloppy there, old Joey S.}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}In edit summaries, body text, and tags for Ammonihah:<br /> ::* Inserted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213941828 {{tq|???}}] into the body text<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214001273 {{tq|This isn't Sunday School}}] (Supposing editors are either not aware this is Wikipedia and not Sunday School (seems to be an implication of stupidity) or that they're acting in bad faith)<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214003860 {{tq|Removing this section. It's a flight of fancy}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214003935 {{tq|some nonsensical readings}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214004257 {{tq|Removing this paragraph. I really hate it.}}] (a human editor wrote that paragraph; we can criticize with less hostile language)<br /> ::{{pb}}Here at ANI:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213600134&amp;oldid=1213599753# {{tq|This is an editor who can't follow a hypothetical}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213696119&amp;oldid=1213696098# {{tq|a complete clusterfuck.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213871517&amp;oldid=1213871371 {{tq|I think people like you are to blame}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214030158&amp;oldid=1214029645 {{tq|cult-like behaviors.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214095402&amp;oldid=1214093441 {{tq|absolutely atrocious edits}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214340841&amp;oldid=1214340684 {{tq|Forget it. At this point, you're running interference.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215421882&amp;oldid=1215418186 {{tq|I will not apologize for being a disruptive force in those places}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}I understand there's been a lot of ferment about articles in Mormon studies topic areas. I can accept if how I or others have contributed isn't what the community wants; I can accept articles like Ammonihah being revised, even drastically. But I'm unconvinced that JPS's behavior is necessary to accomplish that (to use the Ammonihah page as an example, other editors have been able to talk about revising the article without similar behavior; Ghosts of Europa, Steve Quinn). As Zero0000 said, editors shouldn't have to take JPS's insults. And this behavior is not limited to Mormon studies (as FTN and Massacre of the Innocents demonstrate). Maybe a one-week block will be enough to remind JPS of the ArbCom caution. But when this has apparently been going on for so long, and when JPS seems to react to concerns about his behavior with relative indifference (even when he invites discussion on his talk page about his behavior, he says, {{tq|You can even request that I reword things, if you like. I'm not saying I necessarily will agree to reword things}}), I'm left wondering whether this will stick and if some other sanction will be necessary to prevent more uncivil behavior in the future. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 08:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::: For record, I actually agree with much of jps's effort in keeping bible literalism out of the encyclopedia. He could do it with a lot less incivility though, as some but not all of these examples illustrate. Also, these examples don't sufficiently distinguish between robust discussion of sources (which is allowed and necessary within BLP limits) and insults and insinuations against editors which are not allowed. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 11:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yes, discussion of sources is allowed within BLP limits. The diffs pertaining to source discussion that I chose to include affect discussion and other editors in a way that I think is well characterized by this quote from the talk thread page that The Wordsmith linked above ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=1214739500&amp;oldid=1214681976 diff]): {{tq|I'm}} [Tryptofish] {{tq|not worried that you}} [JPS] {{tq|hurt the sources' feelings. But when you say these things about sources in a way that causes bad feelings among other editors, it's not necessarily those other editors' fault that they feel bad. If you think it's a source of pride to hurt other editors' feelings, well, that's both bullshit and baloney.}} [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 11:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :*I think this is a good example of &quot;it's not what you say, it's how you say it&quot;. I don't like to see jps blocked as I feel he's a tremendous resource when it comes to astronomy, astrophysics, and matters related to skepticism and paranormal nonsense. But when it comes to some topics, particularly religious topics, jps can get into a kind of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation, and his demeanor rapidly changes and he can get nasty. I can completely understand his approach because I have myself been there (as my block log can attest), particularly when it comes to political topics. I think what helped me loosen up and calm down a little bit was to remember two things: try to remember the human on the other side, and to acknowledge the ''coincidentia oppositorum''—that we can't have the black without the white, the light without the dark, and the religious without the non-religious. My goal is to try and remain civil within that tension of the opposites. I hope jps can do the same in the future as he's a valuable contributor. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*: If JPS's pattern of incivility crops up in certain topic areas, would focusing JPS's editorial efforts on other topic areas be a reasonable preventative measure to take going forward, in light of the long duration of this recurring behavior? Focusing on astrophysics and astronomy, for example, and avoiding religious studies. (Or, so as to also encompass the topic area of the thread at FTN—apparently about a philosophy periodical—avoiding the humanities?) [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 01:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::I was merely providing an example, but my guess is that the intersection between fringe theories, scientific skepticism, and other topics is quite large, so it can’t really be reduced to a single topic area. The best thing jps can do is to limit their replies (avoid bludgeoning) and allow their opponents to have the last word. This is something I’ve tried to bring to the table with my own contributions, and while I haven’t always been successful, it has personally helped me become more civil in my approach. In the relevant example, jps already had his say and didn’t need to keep replying to Zero. I think we have to try to avoid protracted discussions that have a tendency to become personal. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::That's good advice for all of us and could be a good thing for JPS to do. I do wonder, with this behavior having such a long history (nearly 18 years), wide breadth (multiple topic areas), and vitriolic depth (visible in multiple examples), whether as a community we should consider applying further formal measures designed to help JPS to do so and to avoid incivility and personal attacks. As much as [[WP:AGF|his goal is to help the project]], JPS has received warnings, cautions, advice, and blocks about this for more than a decade and a half, and he has evidently nevertheless kept resuming this pattern of behavior. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 07:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{admin note}} ජපස has asked that the his statement be copied over here, so I've done that below &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 13:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC):<br /> :Please copy my statement to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. I do apologize for personal attack offense. I tried to redact and am always amenable to discussion. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස#top|talk]]) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස#top|talk]]) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Emrahthehistorist17]] ==<br /> <br /> This emerges from [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Emrahthehistorist17 mass edits to infoboxes]]. While the discussion was active on AN, the mass edits to infoboxes stopped albeit with no response of any sort from Emrah. Mere days after it was archived, the mass edits described there promptly started up again. The exact same issues I noted previously which deal with [[MOS:INFOBOXFLAG]] and use of the {{parameter|result}} in {{t|infobox military conflict}} immediately recurred.<br /> <br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhus%27_invasion_of_the_Peloponnese&amp;oldid=1128963126&amp;diff=cur (inserting anachronistic infobox flags)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Sparta&amp;diff=1215622745&amp;oldid=1092629126 (inserting fictional and anachronistic infobox flags)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215737268&amp;oldid=1208663331&amp;title=Byzantine%E2%80%93Norman_wars (misunderstanding the article; inserting more flags)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&amp;diff=1216054692&amp;oldid=1213019550 (restoring partially [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&amp;diff=1211101487&amp;oldid=1193607582 previously reverted] edits that misunderstand the article – noting that Asiagenes and '''not''' Africanus was the main Roman commander – are inconsistent with use of {{parameter|result}})<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ecbatana&amp;oldid=1199556869&amp;diff=cur (misusing {{parameter|result}})<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_campaigns_in_Germania_(12_BC_%E2%80%93_AD_16)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215919875 (misusing {{parameter|result}})<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_Actium&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216062151 (misusing {{parameter|result}} along with unsourced additions)<br /> <br /> There have been multiple attempts to discuss this. I noted five previous attempts in my AN report:<br /> <br /> {{tq2|This behaviour has been consistent, with a long series of warnings from January 2024 to that effect on the user's talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#January_2024 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#February_2024 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Mass_edits_to_infoboxes 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#March_2024 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Warning 5]. I see no indication that the Emrahthehistorist17 has learnt anything from these discussions when replies therefrom can be generously characterised as emerging from a prosecutorial complex: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Mass_edits_to_infoboxes {{!tq|As long as you delete my edits like this, your website will never improve. It's done.}}], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mithridatic_Wars#Revert,_March_2024 {{!tq|I don't even have an idea about what are you talking about. But you seem like someone with authority on Wikipedia, and restricting me just because of your authority is a sign of injustice}}].}}<br /> <br /> There was absolutely no response to the notification of AN discussion. The only response I am aware of to anything since then was on [[User talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Roman–Seleucid war|Emrah's talk page]] yesterday where he simply responded with a curt {{!tq|Okay, I changed Hannibal and Ligustinus, but don't delete my other additions}} when factual errors were found. These edits to infoboxes are highly disruptive, especially when Emrah does not seem to understand that infoboxes are supplementary summaries of articles that reflect the contents therein and then misunderstands what is being summarised (as at [[Roman–Seleucid war]]). This has been made clear multiple times; to pause these edits while the behaviour was under discussion at AN, be entirely silent contra [[WP:COMMUNICATE]], and then restart them immediately after that discussion at AN was archived, feels akin to a sort of bad-faith gaming and at minimum a [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]]. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|talk]]) 05:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Its the same behavior of refusing to read what [[WP:MOS]] says and trying to push his views at whatever cost. When some points out that he has introduced an error its either [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]] or making minor modifications that do not solve the underlying problem and then saying: &quot;I changed it, it fine now.&quot;.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Nonsensical edit summaries ==<br /> {{atop|Dealt with. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> {{User4|Polavarapu Mokshith Sai}}: over 200+ nonsensical edit summaries like &quot;cv bnbv hftzgrzdcrfdcgert drfycjg h&quot; and &quot;yjtttttttt&quot;. They were warned 2 days ago and proceeded with 30+ more edit summaries with keyboard smashes. Bonus: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narayana_Group_of_Educational_Institutions&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215692360 promotional] edits. [[User:Northern Moonlight|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,Inter,-apple-system,Twitter Color Emoji,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap&quot;&gt;Northern Moonlight&lt;/span&gt;]] 07:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have indefinitely blocked Polavarapu Mokshith Sai as not here to build an encyclopedia for overtly non-neutral promotional editing, and hundreds of instances of gibberish in edit summaries. A toxic combination. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 08:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == Legal threats at Talk:Richard Huckle ==<br /> {{la|Richard Huckle}}&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> 2600:1700:3EC7:4150:CDF5:ECBA:20AF:BA6F making legal threats against the site. [[User:Gene Stanley1|Gene Stanley1]] ([[User talk:Gene Stanley1|talk]]) 08:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Yes. And I can't say I'm particularly surprised, when you see that someone had vandalised the article repeatedly to change the name of the article subject (a convicted serial child abuser) to the name of another individual - quite possibly the IPs. It is entirely unreasonable to expect anyone in that situation to engage in deep research into Wikipedia policy on what is or isn't permitted on article talk pages before responding. See [[Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats]]. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 09:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: Following this, is there any real benefit to letting IP users edit this article? [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Not particularly, though one could say the same about the many other biographical articles that see similar vandalism. The problem needs fixing properly: i.e. pending changes for all BLPs at minimum. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 10:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The benefit to letting IP users edit this article was demonstrated here. An IP user removed the serious [[WP:BLP]] violation. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I don't think that there's much more that we can reasonably do about this specific threat, given what [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] says and that this is an unregistered user. I get the impression that the editor simply wanted to correct an egregious fault on Wikipedia. I have left them a note explaining [[WP:NLT]] in case they come back. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Blocked two weeks.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Why? We have absolutely no reason not to assume that the contributor had a legitimate complaint about the content. Do you really expect individuals in such a situation to read through the entire corpus of Wikipedia guidelines and policies before responding? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Yes, that does seem a little thoughtless and heavy-handed. Surely some information about legal threats would have been better than a block in the circumstances. The originator of the threat, who seemed to be acting in good faith and for the good of Wikipedia, did not have a chance to retract it.[[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *The legal threat has been retracted. I hope that this editor is unblocked now. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I've just unblocked them a few minutes ago. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> The block was a good block -- it does not matter whether the issuer of a legal threat is [[WP:BRIE|in the right or not]]. The threat itself is [[WP:NLT|against policy]]; it creates a chilling effect on editors; and prevents the assumption of good faith. That's not an opinion -- that's [[Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Rationale|explicitly what our policy states]]. And the policy describes exactly how to handle this situation -- block them for the duration of the legal threat, and [[Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Conclusion_of_legal_threat|unblock them without prejudice or ill-will once they rescind it]]. We should also, if it hasn't been done, sanction the editor who made the offending statement in the first place. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Personal attacks at [[User talk:Anant-morgan]] ==<br /> [[User:Anant-morgan]] continues making personal attacks following a block [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anant-morgan&amp;curid=76144123&amp;diff=1216149802&amp;oldid=1216058086]. Please remove talk page access. [[User:JimRenge|JimRenge]] ([[User talk:JimRenge|talk]]) 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I heavily agree. They literally flipped Doug off after he blocked them. I honestly feel pretty bad for him. [[User:NoobThreePointOh|NoobThreePointOh]] ([[User talk:NoobThreePointOh|talk]]) 13:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Well, Ingenuity resolved our problems. [[User:NoobThreePointOh|NoobThreePointOh]] ([[User talk:NoobThreePointOh|talk]]) 15:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I have a strong suspicion that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anant-morgan&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214217589 {{tq|Are you restarted or something?}}] isn't what A-m meant. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == MisteOsoTruth and Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. ==<br /> <br /> <br /> * {{userlinks|MisteOsoTruth}}<br /> <br /> MisteOsoTruth is a single purpose account dedicated to the recent controversy surrounding Sweet Baby Inc, an area covered under contentions topics restrictions. They [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMisteOsoTruth&amp;diff=1215603055&amp;oldid=1215602860 have received notices about this]. They have been filling the talk page there with personal attacks on other editors and BLP violations (by accusing named individuals of committing harassment). Personal attacks: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Codename_Noreste&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213691434][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215673592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216160102] and BLP violations: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215674592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215675312][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215676001][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215850309][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215602536]. Here's a personal attack (against someone else) repeated on my user talk in response to a warning I placed about personal attacks: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215677916]. And here is the response to my efforts to warn them about this on their user talk page, repeating the accusations: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MisteOsoTruth&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216162074].<br /> <br /> This has gone on long enough, I would suggest a block as this user is clearly not going to stop and is clearly [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build an encyclopedia.]] - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 13:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :They have been given more than sufficient rope. I concur [[WP:NOTHERE]] applies. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support''' a NOTHERE block, the repeated BLP violations make it clear they're not going to adhere to our rules. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :They have contacted me though email to also discuss the same points they argue for in the talk page. I have emailed them back advising them to focus on getting RSs instead of tweets, youtube videos and screenshots while trying to explain why those are disallowed. I hoped that as someone who hadn't been very involved in the talk page (having only made one comment) I could advice them without any feelings of hostility. Seeing them continue their old ways without taking my advise saddens me but does reinforce my feeling that they simply refuse to learn the policies of wikipedia, instead of simply being ignorant of it.<br /> :[[User:Speederzzz|Speeder''zzz'']] ([[User_talk:Speederzzz|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Speederzzz|Stalk me]]) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Based on this user being an SPA, creating a significant amount of heat and not much light around a contentious topic page that's been immensely disrupted over the past several weeks, and the demonstrated lack of [[WP:CIR|competency]] and [[WP:NOTHERE]] concerns, I'm going to partial block MisteOsoTruth from the SBI article and talk page for 2 months. Because of the way the CTOPS appeals process works, and the fact that I'm editing on a laptop from out-of-town, I'm proactively giving my approval in advance for any uninvolved admin to modify or remove that block without needing to consult with me first. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Although I'm a bit late with this, I would also point out that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1213691434&amp;oldid=1213542170&amp;title=User_talk:Codename_Noreste this] edit (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215677916&amp;oldid=1215652642&amp;title=User_talk:MrOllie this] one from above) targets [[User:Ryulong]], who was blocked almost a decade ago as part of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate]]. It is simply implausible that a new editor could randomly decide to bear a grudge against someone who was indefinitely blocked nearly a decade ago. Their focus on him strongly suggests that this editor is either a sockpuppet or arrived here via one of the gamergate blogs or forums that still (to this day) regard Ryulong as something of a [[Bête noire]]; the nature of that focus suggests possible [[WP:MEAT]] / [[WP:CANVASS]] issues. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 05:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Molarinoye09 ==<br /> <br /> <br /> {{userlinks|Molarinoye09}}<br /> <br /> Since September 2023, Molarinoye09 has been disrupting [[Take That]] related articles by introducing unsourced material, or creating articles and using sources from Instagram, which aren't enough to go about on. When the article gets redirected due to [[WP:NSONG]], or if a link is removed due to said article being redirected like these articles [[You and Me (Take That song)|here]], and [[New Day (Take That song)|here]], they revert back and sometimes respond with &quot;{{tq|Don't do something bad.}}&quot; or &quot;{{tq|leave this article alone!}}&quot; and has even got to even posting those on the article talk pages of those redirects, as well as stating &quot;{{tq|This is an article, not a redirect.}}&quot; which also suggests [[WP:OWN]] issues. They have been previously warned multiple times, but they have [[WP:LISTEN|continued to ignore them]] as if the policies of Wikipedia do not apply to them, though they did state that they &quot;{{tq|would not be blocked}}&quot; when they were warned about missing copyright and/or source information for images they upload. [[User:HorrorLover555|HorrorLover555]] ([[User talk:HorrorLover555|talk]]) 14:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Their behavior to date unsuitable on multiple grounds--uploading fair use images without appropriate justifications, poor quality articles, bad sourcing. [[Special:Diff/1216135204|This]], created today, is obviously unsuited for mainspace. If this continues they're getting blocked, but I'd like to hear from them first. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 14:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::...aaand within 35 minutes of {{-r|You and Me (Take That single)}} being redirected to the band (09:26), they're back again with [[Draft:You and Me (Take That song)]] (09:59). [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 15:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Definitely no response to the ANI notice either. I think they are refusing to communicate. [[User:HorrorLover555|HorrorLover555]] ([[User talk:HorrorLover555|talk]]) 16:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Double check me on this, but based on the timestamps I don't believe they've edited since this discussion opened. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 16:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I created the page for the band's new album back in September, and I've been chasing after them and trying to fix their, to be frank, pretty poor edits. They are constantly trying to make new pages for singles which might not need them, and even when they're in draft form, add links to them on the actual wiki. You can see this on some of the edits they did to the page for ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wonderland_(Take_That_album)&amp;oldid=1192829324 Wonderland]''. I've helped out a little with these pages to make them a little more justifiable to exist, but even then they are purely stubs which are just on the cusp of notability.<br /> :Another thing I've had to deal with them (which I find particularly annoying) is they stole the description on my profile page, changed &quot;The Beatles&quot; to &quot;One Direction&quot;, replaced my name with their own and did nothing else. It does make it funny therefore that their profile page claims they are interested in 90/00s electronic music, and have been writing for a wiki about aviation accidents since 2020, when they certainly haven't. But still, it's annoying.<br /> :As to whether or not I think they should be banned, I think so, but only for a week at most. This person clearly doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and just telling them doesn't seem to be fixing it, as you mentioned. I think banning them temporarily will show them that they need to listen to us. [[User:Tedster41|Tedster41]] ([[User talk:Tedster41|talk]]) 17:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Based on their edits, I would say it would be a longer temporary block than just a week. I don't think a week is going to get them to hear us out, as they'll likely jump back to doing the same edits as before once it expires. [[User:HorrorLover555|HorrorLover555]] ([[User talk:HorrorLover555|talk]]) 17:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Block request ==<br /> {{atop|Dealt with. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> Can somebody please block this IP? [[Special:Contributions/170.231.85.132]] Petty vandalism adding fake death dates to BLPs. Thanks [[User:Jkaharper|Jkaharper]] ([[User talk:Jkaharper|talk]]) 14:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :There's someone in Brazil who does this frequently, using various IPs. Just revert/warn, revert/warn, report to [[WP:AIV]]. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 14:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::And they're blocked. Thanks, {{ping|Jauerback}}! [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == S201050066 once more ==<br /> {{previous discussion|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive357#S201050066 again}}<br /> <br /> Could we get a block on IP 64.229.35.200 ([[Special:Contributions/64.229.35.200|contributions]]) and {{U|S201050066 number 43.3}}, who posted [[Special:Diff/1216199096|some angry rant on my talk page]]? It looks like this user is being disruptive in COVID-19 articles again. —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Tenryuu all the rest of the Timeline Of The COVID-19 pandemics articles on our list to [[User:S201050066 number 43.3|S201050066 number 43.3]] ([[User talk:S201050066 number 43.3|talk]]) 18:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Indeffed by Spicy. [[User:Lynch44|Lynch44]] ([[User talk:Lynch44|talk]]) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{Non-admin comment}} And the IP's been blocked for 7 days by Nthep. [[User talk:Relativity|&lt;b style=&quot;border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#e82c52;color:white;&quot;&gt;‍ Relativity &lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I give thanks to all the admins involved. I don't suppose this is enough to merit semi-protection on COVID-19 timeline articles that S201050066 has edited? —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 00:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Sak7340 ==<br /> <br /> {{User|User:Sak7340}} has been edit-warring on [[Mohammed Zubair (journalist)]] and is on their 8th revert so far. There is a [[WP:EWN]] report but it hasn't been reviewed yet. They've now created a couple of retaliatory and incomplete reports there on DaxServer [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216202193] and myself [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216202864]. There is a discussion on the article talk page, but it's going nowhere fast. I'm hoping this will get some faster attention as they've continued the disruptive editing after all of the warnings and the original EWN report. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|&lt;span style=&quot;color: darkred;&quot;&gt;Ravensfire&lt;/span&gt;]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :The edits are a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Sak7340 has been blocked by ToBeFree for two weeks and the article ECP'd for a while. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|&lt;span style=&quot;color: darkred;&quot;&gt;Ravensfire&lt;/span&gt;]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 18:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Needs extending to indefinite, and talk page access removing, in my opinion: see this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sak7340&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216231118] [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 21:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I've increased to indefinite. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Vauban Books]] ==<br /> <br /> From [[WP:BLPN]]. {{uls|Vauban Books}}: {{tq|This page, and particularly its first paragraph, is gross libel [...] Failing to properly edit may well invite legal action.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216229796]. Does this post violate or come close enough to violating [[WP:NLT]]? Does the OP's username violate our [[WP:CORPNAME]], [[WP:COI]] or other policies? I'll note, this is apparently a publisher of the subject, [[Renaud Camus]]. See [https://www.vaubanbooks.com here] for the identically named publisher promoting the subject for commercial purposes. Cheers! [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 22:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :No, [[WP:NLT]] is not appropriate here. It's just someone wanting to correct what they regard as inappropriate wording in [[Renaud Camus]] and, as is typical for someone new to Wikipedia, they have no idea about how to phrase their thoughts. They need guidance. The user name is a problem but please let's not get hung up about that either. Their thoughts should be considered at [[Talk:Renaud Camus]] if they respond there. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> == [[User:Graywalls]] reported by [[User:72.83.72.31]]==<br /> <br /> '''Pages:''' See below &lt;br /&gt;<br /> '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Graywalls}}<br /> <br /> A few days ago, [[User:Graywalls]] started on a personal mission to attack a number of scouting related articles:<br /> <br /> *{{la|White Stag Leadership Development Program}} - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Stag Leadership Development Program]]<br /> *{{la|Béla H. Bánáthy}} - unilaterally removing large swaths of content<br /> *{{la|Boy Scouts of America}} - removing content repeatedly, and after being challenged ignoring the discussion started on the talk page<br /> *{{la|COPE (Boy Scouts of America)}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion<br /> *{{la|Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America)}} - unilaterally removing large swaths of content with no discussion<br /> *{{la|National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion<br /> *{{la|Philmont Training Center}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion<br /> *{{la|Scouting}} - unhelpful editing<br /> <br /> Graywalls ignored the discussion started on this page, [[Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America#Meeting_of_the_minds]], and moved the discussion to: [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Quotes_based_on_primary_sources_on_Boy_Scouts_of_America]]. <br /> <br /> It seems that whenever the discuss is not going their way they escalate the disagreement to another fourm. In the last day, this has happened:<br /> <br /> *[[American Heritage Girls]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[COPE (Boy Scouts of America)]] - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COPE (Boy Scouts of America)|Nominated for deletion]]<br /> *[[Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America)]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[Philmont Training Center]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[Philmont Scout Ranch]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> <br /> It's somewhat bewildering. On top of all that is Graywalls personal attacks against btphelps. You can find it here:[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Big Sur, California area touristy contents]], here [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User: btphelps with regard to Bél H. Bánáthy]], and then there is this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leadership_training_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215215397 personal attack in the edit summary]. I submitted the last item to the administrators to be removed.<br /> <br /> '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215082335]<br /> <br /> '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graywalls&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215438291]<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;'''Comments:'''&lt;/u&gt; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The following users may be able to help:{{ping|evrik|Jergen|btphelps|North8000|erp}}<br /> See: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive480#User:Graywalls%20reported%20by%20User:Evrik%20(Result:%20Declined)]]<br /> Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/72.83.72.31|72.83.72.31]] ([[User talk:72.83.72.31|talk]]) 02:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Long story short IMO definitely an &quot;axe to grind&quot; situation. Painful for several people and many articles. I wish this situation could get made better or fixed somehow. Maybe just a warning or something. Sincerely, &lt;b style=&quot;color: #0000cc;&quot;&gt;''North8000''&lt;/b&gt; ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 02:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == New attack account harassing GuardianH ==<br /> {{atop|Account blocked with promise of required SPI paperwork being completed shortly. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> [[:Special:Contributions/Iamguardiansguardian]] is a new attack account harassing {{ping|GuardianH}}. They have made 4 posts so far.&lt;sup&gt;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGuardianH&amp;diff=1216279273&amp;oldid=1215257056 diff]&lt;/sup&gt; [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#Single-purpose account devoted to attacking GuardianH]] identified similar accounts as socks of [[:Special:Contributions/Korensho|Korensho]].&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000&quot;&gt;--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]&lt;/span&gt; 06:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == [[Altay S.K.]] and [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] battleground behaviour ==<br /> <br /> <br /> Can I get a second (or more) set of eyes on the above.<br /> <br /> We've got an ongoing dispute between {{userlinks|Delbatros}} and various IP user(s). The crux of the matter appears to be of all things a logo/jersey design.<br /> Neither the IP(s) nor the registered editor is behaving particularly well and has resorted to edit warring and personal attacks towards each other, to add to the mix theres (potential) copyright concerns which dont appear valid false accusations of vandalism and definite ownership problems.<br /> <br /> Delbatros was blocked for edit-warring already and the Karşıyaka S.K. page semi-protected to try to resolve the dispute, the issue now appears to have migrated to Altay S.K. with similar behaviours from all involved, to prevent more damage at this point i've partially blocked Delbatros from the page and semi-protected it to prevent either user from further disruption.<br /> <br /> We do need a long term solution to this though and given the amount of action I've already done I'd appreciate wider opinions/assistance. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :As an aside the IP's appear to be too variable to realistically target/notify a single page so I haven't notified any of the IP editors but they seem to be quite good at locating posts related to Delbatros. If anyone can think of a good way of notifying them please let me know for future reference. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm trying to edit the pages of Turkish clubs in other languages ​​as well. I'm not making any wrong changes, I'm not vandalizing, I'm not a malicious user, I know Wikipedia rules, I'm just annoyed that the anonymous user (I know he has an existing wikipedia account) is following me with a different IP because he is wrong interfering with all my positive contributions. I started a new project to keep the jerseys of various branches of Turkish sports clubs up to date on other Wikipedias. With the support of the relevant participants, we will update the Wikipedia pages in other languages ​​of the relevant participants and branches of our sports clubs. (I will update most of the pages) [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1216306731 2024-03-30T08:59:44Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Altay S.K. and Karşıyaka S.K. battleground behaviour */ Reply</p> <hr /> <div>{{Short description|Report incidents to administrators}}<br /> &lt;noinclude&gt;&lt;!-- Inside the noinclude, because this page is transcluded.--&gt;{{/Header}}&lt;/noinclude&gt;{{clear}}<br /> {{stack begin|float=right|clear=false|margin=false}}<br /> {{User:MiszaBot/config<br /> |archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}<br /> |maxarchivesize =800K<br /> |counter = 1151<br /> |algo = old(60h)<br /> |key = 740a8315fa94aa42eb96fbc48a163504d444ec0297a671adeb246c17b137931c<br /> |archive = Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive%(counter)d<br /> |headerlevel=2<br /> }}<br /> {{stack end}}<br /> &lt;!--<br /> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE<br /> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE<br /> NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE--&gt;<br /> <br /> == NoonIcarus and &quot;Failed verification&quot; ==<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|NoonIcarus}}<br /> <br /> Apologies in advance for the [[WP:TEXTWALL|wall of text]], but this is mainly due to having to outline and explain a list of concerning edits. NoonIcarus has inaccurately cited &quot;failed verification&quot; in an apparent effort to remove information from the project. This was addressed before by {{u|Mbinebri}} in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2002_Venezuelan_coup_attempt&amp;diff=1156165078&amp;oldid=1156111689 the 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt article talk page], who said {{tq|&quot;In your recent edits, you removed info again, claiming failed verification because you couldn't access the two cited articles. I think this was inappropriate&quot;}}. More recently, I have noticed NoonIcarus performing this similar edit (and engaging in an edit war) to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=1211447585&amp;oldid=1210444201 remove information about leftists being tortured during a former Venezuelan government], arguing that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANational_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=1213263432&amp;oldid=1213263020 this was not presented in sources]. Well, this information is from the ''[[New York Amsterdam News]]'' article cited, where the paper writes {{tq|&quot;Posada worked as an official in Venezuela's DISIP ... where he participated in the torture of left-wing activists&quot;}}. So, instead of NoonIcarus actually not having access to information to &quot;verify&quot; source content, it appears that they are {{underline|''intentionally'' ignoring source content in order to maintain a particular POV}} on the project.<br /> <br /> After noticing this repetitive behavior, I reviewed NoonIcarus' similar &quot;failed verification&quot; edits, recognizing inconsistencies:<br /> *[[Carlos Vecchio]]: NoonIcarus removes information about Vecchio working for [[ExxonMobil]], saying it &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Vecchio&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212775596 failed verification].&quot; However, on [https://books.google.com/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false page 38 of ''Libres: el nacimiento de una nueva Venezuela''], Vecchio writes {{tq|&quot;Trabajo entonces en Mobil de Venezuela, la empresa petrolera, estaba ganando seis veces más de lo que ganada en PDVSA,&quot; (&quot;I then worked at Mobil de Venezuela, the oil company, I was earning six times more than what I earned at PDVSA&quot;}}, showing that he clearly worked for ExxonMobil. This may be an attempt to hide that a high-level Venezuelan opposition leader previously worked for an American company, which is controversial in Venezuelan politics. <br /> *[[2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum]]: NoonIcarus removes information about the [[Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies]] working with the Venezuelan opposition during the election, citing &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212425521 Failed verification, dead links]&quot;. {{strike|Strangely, these Stratfor articles were taken down after I added them to the election article,}} however they are still present in Google searches (as of now, though I took screenshots if necessary) and [http://blog.b92.net/text/1561/Dole-opozicija/ the article in particular can be seen mostly intact in this random 2007 forum]. And [https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/venezuela-new-player-mix here]. '''Edit:''' Links should work now. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1213326088&amp;oldid=1211357855 Thanks]!--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 10:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *[[Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies]]: NoonIcarus tags &quot;CANVAS is funded by primarily American organizations&quot; as &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Centre_for_Applied_Nonviolent_Action_and_Strategies&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211946387 Failed verification]&quot;. However, if you look at the ''[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]'' article about the Venezuelan opposition's links to CANVAS, it says {{tq|&quot;Canvas wird wesentlich von amerikanischen Organisationen finanziert&quot; (&quot;Canvas is largely funded by American organizations&quot;)}}, showing that this can be verified.<br /> *[[Venezuelan opposition]]: NoonIcarus removed information about CANVAS training members of the Venezuelan opposition, saying &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuelan_opposition&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211946246 Failed verification. This information comes from a 2012 WikiLeaks piece]&quot;. This is entirely inaccurate and a falsehood as this information is sourced from [[Stratfor]], ''[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]'' and ''[[Le Monde diplomatique]]'', with these sources not citing Wikileaks at all.<br /> *[[Guarimba]]: NoonIcarus tagged the sentence &quot;Oxford Analytica wrote that half of the protest deaths resulted at barricades&quot; as &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199089123 Failed verification]&quot;. In the cited article, it clearly states {{tq|&quot;an estimated half of those killed losing their lives at opposition barricades&quot;}}.<br /> *[[Guarimba]] 2: NoonIcarus says &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1198710396 Failed verification]&quot; about the sentence &quot;Many families were confined to their homes as a result of guarimbas and in turn, children were prevented from attending school and individuals were unable to receive medical care.&quot; The source, the notable Venezuelan historian [https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/margarita-lopez-maya Margarita López Maya] [https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/403/40305606.pdf writes] {{tq|&quot;Las protestas, conocidas como el «guarimbazo», ... [resultaron con el] confinamiento de centenares de familias a sus hogares por los cierres de vía que impidieron llevar a los niños a las escuelas, acudir al trabajo, o llegar a centros de salud.&quot; (&quot;The protests, known as the 'guarimbazo', ... [resulted with the] confinement of hundreds of families to their homes due to road closures that prevented them from taking children to schools, going to work, or reaching health centers.&quot;}}<br /> *[[Guarimba]] 3: With the sentence &quot;At some guarimbas, protesters rob individuals who criticize the method&quot;, NoonIcarus said &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197831253 Failed verification. Nowhere to be seen in article]&quot;. The [https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/venezuela-deadline/534885/ cited article] by ''[[The Atlantic (magazine)|The Atlantic]]'' says {{tq|&quot;more radical elements of the party take to what’s called guarimba ... MUD supporters have stationed themselves at these ... shaking down people who don’t support the shutdown&quot;}}.<br /> *[[Protests against Nicolás Maduro]]: A sentence about opposition protesters attacking a government facility said &quot;President Maduro said the attack forced the evacuation of workers and about 89 children&quot;, with NoonIcarus saying that this had &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protests_against_Nicolás_Maduro&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1185537948 Failed verification, no mention of children]&quot;. The [https://web.archive.org/web/20140425021139/http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/protestas-en-venezuela/140403/maduro-revela-que-hay-un-detenido-por-ataques-a-ministerio-de-vivienda archived story], however, says {{tq|&quot;había 89 niños dentro de la sede, de los cuales 3 necesitaron asistencia con oxígeno&quot; (&quot;there were 89 children inside the headquarters, of which 3 needed assistance with oxygen&quot;)}}. One could excuse a potential lack of knowledge about [[web archiving]], but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuela_and_state-sponsored_terrorism&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211037807 NoonIcarus is very knowledgeable about web archiving when they want to be].<br /> <br /> This is just a small review of the last four months of editing by NoonIcarus, so again ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1183363529&amp;oldid=1182822268#Advocacy? see here] about the previous [[Wikipedia:Stable version#Inappropriate usage|inappropriate use of &quot;stable version&quot;]]), who knows how much they have removed using the &quot;failed verification&quot; method this time. Overall, NoonIcarus' editing behavior makes it clear that they are removing information not based on &quot;failed verification&quot;, but for other reasons; most likely related to seeing this information as a [[WP:BADPOV|bad POV]] about the Venezuelan opposition. This is further evidence to add to the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive editing by NoonIcarus|previous concerns]] about NoonIcarus [[WP:NOTHERE|not being here to build an encyclopedia]]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 06:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Wow. These &quot;failed verification&quot; lies (which is what these are) are so pervasive that unless NoonIcarus has a very good explanation for all of these, I'd go ahead with a site ban. &lt;span&gt;♠[[User:JCW555|&lt;span style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;JCW555&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:JCW555|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;(talk)&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt;♠ 07:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::All of these edits are recent or recent-ish (2024), and it's apparent from his userpage that NoonIcarus speaks Spanish. NoonIcarus isn't an inexperienced editor. I ''do'' find NoonIcarus' position defensible on the 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum; I could imagine that if I saw commentary I found suspicious that was sourced to a dead link, I might tag it with {{tl|fv}}. I also think he's got an arguable case on Guarimba 3 because &quot;shaking down&quot; doesn't necessarily mean &quot;robbing&quot;. On the other matters I fully side with WMrapids.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 09:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{re|S Marshall}} There was a URL issue,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1213326088&amp;oldid=1211357855][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213327198&amp;oldid=1213326269] though as I said, the articles were still easily accessible on Google. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 10:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yes, I can see your side of it. I just think it's only fair to note that it ''was'' a contentious claim sourced to a dead link.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 14:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::IMO the correct solution is to use {{tl|dead link}} for the link not working, and also {{tl|Verify source}} if you have doubts and cannot check the source due to the dead link. Failed verification implies that you checked the source and could not find the claim rather than you could not view the source. Note that the documentation for the failed verification template specifically says you should use dead link '''instead''' when the website is unreachable. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::While I didn't see anything in the documentation that I saw that says it's okay to use both the dead link and verify source template, I'd argue it's perfectly fine since they describe two related but separate issues. One is that the link is dead, so someone needs to either fix it in some way. E.g. they could find an archival link. Or alternatively replace it with a working source. Or in some cases if the source doesn't need a link ensure that there is sufficient info in the citation and possibly remove the link. The second issue is that an editor has doubts over the content but couldn't access the source to confirm it one way or the other. So wants someone who does have access to the source to verify it, perhaps providing a quote on the talk page to help or something. This isn't so different from a book or journal the editor doesn't have access to or a paywalled website, except here the problem is a dead link so fixing the dead link and confirming it verifies should be enough. If for whatever reason e.g. an editor gnoming a lot of related dead links doesn't have time to check, they're perfectly fine fixing the dead link, removing the dead link template and leaving the verify source for someone else to deal with perhaps even the editor who added it in the first place when they find the link was fixed. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Using {{tl|dead link}} is the correct option, but [[Template:Failed verification/doc]] only mentioned that in the body. I've made a slight change to reflect that in the lede of the documentation. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::The main issue with said sources is that their format ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;oldid=1211595977]) did not show how they were accessed in the first place. There weren't archive links, archive dates or quotes, and if they had been truly accessed just a few days ago they should have been available when I did. I want to leave clear that I oppose removing links for being dead as the only reason, and I have rescued several of these references when I have found the archives. I was unaware about {{tl|Verify source}}, and it looks like an useful tag that I will probably use in the future. Kind regards, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::It should be noted that {{tl|Verify source}} should only be used {{tq|only after you have made a good faith attempt to verify the information yourself}} if you are unable to find it, ''and'' still have doubts about its authenticity. You might also be interested in [[WP:IABOT]], which can often repair dead links. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::{{re|The Wordsmith}} Not trying to [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeon]] here, but &quot;good faith&quot; tagging has been a consistent issue for NoonIcarus as well.([[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#Tags??|1]],[[Talk:ZunZuneo#Drive by tagging|2]],[[Talk:Guarimba#Tags|3]]) {{ping|Boynamedsue}} even said &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGuarimba&amp;diff=1199140170&amp;oldid=1199098876 All of the in text tags here lacked justification. '''I am very concerned about Noonicarus'''… This is the diametric opposite of our actual policy]&quot;. Just wanted to share this to provide more context. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Response '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214571997 here]'''. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 19:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Sure thing. Thank you kindly, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Re Carlos Vecchio: The cited book says &quot;Mobil de Venezuela&quot; and in the previous paragraph it suggests that the date was [https://books.google.ca/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38&amp;lpg=PA38&amp;dq=%22mobil+de+venezuela%22+trabajo+vecchio&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=A2k2n37WUy&amp;sig=ACfU3U2bwYlwu_aQ-dZmPNmB8dZnqd5XCg&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiS7YXn6-6EAxV4MjQIHcVoAdgQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&amp;q=%22mobil%20de%20venezuela%22%20trabajo%20vecchio&amp;f=false July 1998]. Wikipedia's [[ExxonMobil]] article says Exxon merged with Mobil to form ExxonMobil in November 1999. So I think NoonIcarus was correct, the Wikipedia claim that BLP subject Carlos Vecchio worked for ExxonMobil was poorly sourced. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 14:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::This is splitting hairs. Looking at [[History of ExxonMobil]], we do not simply say &quot;Mobil&quot; when discussing the company historically. If we want to be super specific, &quot;Mobil de Venezuela&quot; could have been edited as a redirect (like [[ExxonMobil|Mobil de Venezuela]]), but this still doesn't warrant NoonIcarus' removal of the information entirely. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 14:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::In fact Mr Vecchio did work for ExxonMobil a few years later, I was thrown off by your quoting of a passage that is not about that. Although I think the citing could have been more specific I was wrong to say it's poorly sourced. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 16:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}<br /> {{re|Nil Einne|The Wordsmith|Peter Gulutzan}} I'm appreciative of you all clarifying the appropriate usage of templates and the source content regarding Mobil (ExxonMobil). But, {{u|Mbinebri}} already warned NoonIcarus about inappropriately using &quot;failed verification&quot;, {{u|S Marshall}} notes that NoonIcarus has the experience to have known better and {{u|JCW555}} suggests a &quot;site ban&quot; since the user appears to be a deliberately removing unwanted information. We have been dealing with NoonIcarus' inappropriate edits for some time now ([[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions|block deletions and canvassing]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive440#User%3AOnetwothreeip_reported_by_User%3ANoonIcarus_(Result%3A_Filer_warned)|edit warring against consensus]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive_editing_by_NoonIcarus|activist/battleground edits]]). So, do any of you have suggestions on how to remedy NoonIcarus' [[WP:GAMING|gaming behavior]] that has continued (especially on Venezuelan topics) for years now? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1194288807&amp;oldid=1194288478 I previously suggested a topic ban], which is less severe than a full &quot;site ban&quot;.--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Such suggestions should wait until NoonIcarus has had some time to respond, I think. We normally give users a while to answer.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 19:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Pre-emptively, I would definitely support a TBAN, because I have watched NoonIcarus's behaviour for a long time, and it is absolutely unacceptable. To be honest, I am suprised they haven't recieved a ban or block of any sort regarding this issue. I fear that they might be one of the [[WP:UNBLOCKABLES|unblockables]], and that would be a great shame. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 05:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:JML1148|JML1148]] The reason this issue is getting little attention from admins is because of how verbose all of the participants are and how this dispute is outside of the knowledge of most people in the west, which is the English Wikipedia's main editor base. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I totally get the the thing regarding the conduct of the participants. I don't really think the issue is with it being outside the knowledge of most editors, though - there's been a few RfCs with widespread participation including the dispute between NoonIcarus and WMRapids. I definitely think a large number of administrators know about the dispute and the poor conduct involved, but aren't getting involved. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 06:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I didn't remember where we knew each other from, until I found the request for comment [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|RfC: VENRS]], which WMrapids started. If your understanding about my experience as an editor comes mostly from WMrapids, I kindly ask if you have a chance to take a look at the ANI own complaints against WMrapids below. Best wishes, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Currently writing a response to the accusations. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :If I understand this correctly, the allegation is that a user should be blocked for adding &quot;failed verification&quot; tags where other tags are appropriate? Isn't that a sledgehammer/nut response? As people have already shown the first two e examples aren't straightforward, I'm looking at the third example, the Frankfurter Zeitung source on [[Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies]]. The tagged reference is as follows: {{Cite news |date=1 April 2019 |title=Generation 2007 |work=[[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung]]}} There is no link, so impossible for someone to verify without finding the 1 April 2019 edition of FAZ, something I couldn't manage to do easily. It looks like the complainant here has access to the text, as they quote it on this page, so why not just add a hyperlink, or at least give the full quotation and maybe a page number, and remove the tag? Maybe &quot;failed verification&quot; is the wrong tag, but surely the ref doesn't meet our standards of verification and therefore Noonicarus was correct to tag it? [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 06:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Now I'm looking at the fourth example, [[Venezuelan opposition]]. Here the sources were removed rather than tagged. All of the removed sources are problematic from a verification point of view: the same FAZ ref without a link, a Monde Diplo article that is paywalled but which in another edit Noonicarus says doesn't mention Venezuela, and Stratfor links which are dead. So it would have been right to tag it. The removal was part of what seems to be quite a lot of back and forth editing with the complainant here inserting very POV material and Noonicarus hastily removing it. Would have been better for both editors to slow down and talk it out, but this is not an example of one user deviously using &quot;failed verification&quot; as framed in the complaint. The fifth example, [[Guarimba]], is a bit like the third: the citation to Oxford Analytica doesn't have a hyperlink so is impossible to verify. The quote is too short to confirm it supports the text. Noonicarus tags it instead of removing it. It should be tagged in some way as it does indeed need more to verify it. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 06:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC) With the sixth example, also from [[Guarimba]], I agree with WMrapids that on the face of it this should not have been removed. Noonicarus' edit summary is &quot;Failed verification. Care should be also be taken, since unreliable government sources are frequently used, such as Venezolana de Televisión and Correo del Orinoco. It's clear that this is not the best source&quot; which doesn't seem to match the content removed, suggesting it may have been a mistake, and WMRapids was right to revert it. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 07:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) The seventh example, same WP article, was also a bad edit. Possibly Noonicarus searched the source without noticing the paywall half way down but the full article[https://web.archive.org/web/20170727021506/https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/07/venezuela-deadline/534885/] does include the &quot;shakedown&quot; passage. I'd say the removed content was a rather POV rendering of the material, so this may have provoked this excessive response. So far I agree with WMRapids in two out of seven examples. There doesn't seem to be the malignant pattern the complaint implies. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 07:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Last one, on the protests. It's true the second source, a dead link, contained text about children, so flagging as need verification or checking the archive would have been better than removal. However, the actual claim in the WP article text doesn't correspond to the sources as comments attributed to Maduro (including about children) weren't made by Maduro. Again, there was bad POV material to which Noonicarus overreacted. So three out of eight edits raised here are problematic, but not in a way that suggests a need to sanctions. Is there an 1RR rule on Venezuela articles? That might be a better solution, to calm down the editing in general. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 07:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|Bobfrombrockley}} I think you might be missing some of the context here. Although whether or not this specific incident warrants sanctions is debatable, according to your analysis, NoonIcarus has a history of POV pushing, incivility and assuming ownership of articles. There is a very long and detailed comment that WMRapids left on a previous ANI incident, found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1194288807&amp;oldid=1194288478#Disruptive_editing_by_NoonIcarus| here]. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 08:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::As I explained in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199976378 my own response to the comment], the problem is that there hasn't been much ''pushing'' from my part, but rather from WMrapids. They have aggresively introduced POV in several articles for months now: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207984331 National_Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuelan_opposition&amp;oldid=1185607237 Venezuelan opposition], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;oldid=1185456874 Guarimba], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211595977 2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Venezuelan_blackouts&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211608041 2019 Venezuelan blackouts], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Venezuelan_parliamentary_election&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199025984 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary election], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013_Venezuelan_municipal_elections&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1199019968 2013 Venezuelan municipal elections]. Most, if not all, of the recent disputes with WMrapids have resulted from me challenging the POV content and WMrapids' reluctance to change it. As of article ownership, it's enough to point out to articles such as [[Operation Gideon (2020)]], [[Rupununi uprising]] and [[Guarimba]] to show how difficult it has been to make any changes different from the editor's preferred version. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 02:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thank you {{u|JML1148}}. I wasn't aware of that context. Was WMRapids' last complaint supported by the community? It seems to me that WMRapids engages in exactly the same sort of behaviour that NoonIcarus is accused of in these same contentious topic areas, and if NoonIcarus has been a bit quick on the trigger with tagging WMRapids content (which often tends to POV), WMRapids is quick to revert NoonIcarus' edits without establishing consensus. Both of them do engage in discussion on talk pages, but often it is hard to get consensus due to a lack of un-involved editors. I don't think this is a disciplinary matter, and if it is then similar sanctions should apply to WMRapids. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Prequel to some of the tagging mentioned in the allegation above appears to be a request to the OP for info on the sourcing which was responded to rather brusquely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum#Stratfor [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{re|Bobfrombrockley}} It looks brusque and rude, but it actually isn't. OP pointed to dead links [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=1212425673&amp;oldid=1196506749 asking] &quot;How did you get the information?&quot; WMRapids [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213305378 replied] on 06:36, 12 March 2024 that the links came from Google and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1212425850 '''corrected the deadlinks'''] four hours later (10:45, 12 March 2024) saying, &quot;No idea how this happened. Links should be fixed.&quot; Six hours ''after'' the links were corrected (16:32, 12 March 2024), instead of thanking WMRapids for correcting them, OP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=1213365508&amp;oldid=1213305378 said], &quot;Rude. It's your responsibility to ensure the verifiability of the content.&quot; WMRapids already had, so if anyone was rude, it was NoonIcarus, not WMRapids. One wonders if OP even made a minimal effort to correct the links.<br /> :::::I will give WMRapids the thanks at that discussion that s/he deserved and so the context is clearer for anyone who reads the short back and forth.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 22:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212425673 My message] showing how the previous links gave no results in Web Archive should hint enough that I did try to fix the links. WMrapids fixed the references five days after the ping, &lt;s&gt;only after I pointed out this fact again in this ANI&lt;/s&gt;. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 23:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::{{tq|WMrapids fixed the references five days after the ping, only after I pointed out this fact again in this ANI}}. I don't believe that is true. WMRapids fixed the links on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1212425850 10:45, 12 March 2024] shortly after {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1213326088&amp;oldid=1211357855 explained] the link problem on 09:08, 12 March 2024. (Thanks.) From my review of [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=NoonIcarus&amp;page=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max= your contributions here at AN/I], your first comment here was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=1213483343 09:58, 13 March 2024]--a day after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1212425850 the links were corrected]. Please provide a diff showing where you pointed this out at this ANI ''before'' WMrapids corrected the link on 10:45, 12 March 2024. Providing a false timeline does not help your case.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 01:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::{{re|David Tornheim}} You're right. It was after ActivelyDisinterested told me that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213326088 I thanked them] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213326713 fixed the links about ten minutes later]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 02:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::I'm striking that specific part since you're correct. My main point stands, though: WMrapids provided this example to falsely accuse me of &quot;ignoring the content&quot;, when I showed in my comment that I tried accessing the references and that Web Archive did not provide any results. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|Bobfrombrockley}} As I said in the opening of this discussion, {{u|Mbinebri}} already warned NoonIcarus that a &quot;failed verification&quot; tag is inappropriate if the user didn't have access to the source. A source does not need a link to be included. Failed verification means that someone had read the source and the content did not match the source. So, no, many of the tags and edit summaries were not &quot;correct&quot; as you suggest and NoonIcarus was deliberately removing information without properly verifying it.<br /> ::I know that [[Talk:United States involvement in regime change#Trimming|you two have worked pretty closely together]] on removing some info from [[United States involvement in regime change]]. This is where NoonIcarus and I have had a conflict (their frequent removals), but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1209395892&amp;oldid=1209308986 I reached out to them in an effort to avoid edit warring], suggesting that we ''add'' to articles and discuss instead of constant removals. This worked for but a moment until they reverted back to edit warring. It crossed the line when they inappropriately began removing information citing &quot;failed verification&quot;, and now we are here. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 14:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::By &quot;worked together closely&quot;, I think you mean that we have at times agreed on what the content should look like and you've disagreed. On that page, you secured consensus for some of your preferred edits and not for others. It seems to me that you both engage properly in talk pages and I was surprised to see you escalate this to an incident for admins. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Same here, particularly since WMrapids never told me about the misuse of &quot;failed verification&quot; or claimed that I wasn't accessing the references. While I have been frustrated by slow progress, I felt that the conflict had escaled down until now. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 18:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::1RR is a solution that has been proposed previously and I have tried to abide by. It wouldn't solve all of the current issues, but it is not currently implemented and it probably would be a good first step. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 12:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I agree with this, this may help lower the temperature without an excessive overreaction. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Just remembering that this is an electoral year and there will be presidential elections in Venezuela. There will definitely be more traffic and more disputes. The 1RR general restriction should be helpful. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Again, NoonIcarus, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214766605&amp;oldid=1214764162 you exaggerate and seem to inaccurately portray yourself] as the {{tq|&quot;last one remaining&quot;}} for Venezuelan political articles when this isn't the case ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214797142][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214797142]). [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable#You can be replaced|We can all be replaced]] and your depiction of yourself performing some sort of last stand (as you seem to do, arguing that this is an election year), is literally [[Wikipedia:You are not irreplaceable#Situations|an example of a situation]] that validates evidence of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]]. {{u|Number 57}} themself has [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Number+57&amp;page=2024_Venezuelan_presidential_election&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max= consistently assisted with the election article] too, so it's untrue to suggest we don't have knowledgable users focused on the topic. You seem to be more concerned about someone with what you consider a [[WP:BADPOV|bad POV]] participating in articles that you are interested in. <br /> <br /> :::::An unofficial [[WP:0RR]] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1209395892&amp;oldid=1209308986 {{underline|already}} recommended] and you reverted back to edit warring (and inaccurately removing information citing &quot;failed verification&quot;). Given the previous sanctions ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|you {{underline|already}} had 0RR and 1RR restrictions placed upon you]]) and the multiple ignored warnings, we are well past the point of further reversion restrictions as you have {{underline|already}} crossed over [[Wikipedia:BRINK|the brink]]. {{underline|''Multiple'' other users have outlined many examples of [[WP:TE|tendentious editing]];}} I have showed how [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Repeating a penalised edit|you are repeating behavior you were penalized for]] and that [[WP:REMOVECITE|you delete pertinent cited additions of others]] (the &quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1183363529&amp;oldid=1182822268 stable version]&quot; and &quot;failed verification&quot; methods), {{u|Boynamedsue}} and {{u|Mbinebri}} already discussed you [[WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH|disputing the reliability of apparently good sources]] and [[WP:RGW|your &quot;political activism&quot; or &quot;ideological rewriting&quot;]] in articles, while Number 57, {{u|David Tornheim}}, {{u|Goldsztajn}}, {{u|Lavalizard101}}, {{u|Simonm223}} and {{u|JML1148}}, have shared how you have consistently [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Assigning undue importance to a single aspect of a subject|introduced undue material]]. After reviewing all of the above, it shows that on Latin American political topics, NoonIcarus, [[WP:NOTHERE|you are ''not'' here to build an encyclopedia]]. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 14:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::::::You have already made your point, there's not need to repeat yourself. Don't bludgeon the process. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> How long are admins going to let this go? It has been obvious for some time that Noonicarus can not edit competently on Latin American political articles and they need to be topic-banned at the very least.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 06:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Another few days. The OP has had time to write a thorough and well-formatted complaint. We give their target the same courtesy.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 08:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === WMrapids and source misinterpretation ===<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|WMrapids}}<br /> <br /> :'''''[[Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read|TL;DR]]: WMrapids accuses me of &quot;ignoring source content&quot; but omits that I access said content and try to help with verifiability, such as by asking for quotes, which the editor never provided until now. WMrapids has a history of source misinterpretation that needs to be checked.'''''<br /> <br /> :I was hoping that with [[User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 10#Future collaboration recommendations|this exchange]] and more interaction in talk pages there would be less conflict but alas, we find ourselves here again. I have already made several complaints about WMrapids' poor behavior in the past, including but not limited to edit warring, blanking and hounding ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS|ANI#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:WMrapids (blanking)|ANI#User:WMrapids (blanking)]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids|ANI#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids]]). For the sake of brevity I will focus in the recent issues.<br /> <br /> :WMrapids has a history of reference misinterpretation, original research and poor sourcing, sometimes leading to BLP violations (eg: [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 106#Nelson Bocaranda|WP:NPOV/N#Nelson Bocaranda]] and [[Talk:Sanctions during the Venezuelan crisis#Lancet editorial misrepresented]]), ''not to mention lack of attribution or personal interpretation, as with the &quot;shaking down&quot; example''. Controversial or fringe claims such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=José_Manuel_Olivares&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1180967211 a congressman leading an auto theft gang], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207984331 the CIA infiltration of Venezuelan intelligence services] or the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Venezuelan_blackouts&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211608041 opposition involvement in the 2019 blackouts] don't help either. The editor continues accusing me of bias, but with them casting doubts about Venezuelan torture victims testimonies [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorent_Saleh&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208811280][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorent_Saleh&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209208884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81ngel_Vivas&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208817265][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karen_Palacios&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208819970][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81ngel_Vivas&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209050808][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilmer_Azuaje&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208822867] and own removal of content[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207924351][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Protests_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211596504][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Bocaranda&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1159024505][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Venezuela_and_state-sponsored_terrorism&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209509663] shows that the editor does not hold all of the information to the same standard depending on its point of view. Another example of this is how they question the Organization of American States as a source in the Guarimba article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197738262]), but doesn't have to have an issue with using it at the [[Ayacucho massacre|Ayacucho]] and [[Juliaca massacre]]s articles ([[Special:Diff/1156851831|1]], [[Special:Diff/1156852169|2]]). To this date no explanation has been provided for this.<br /> <br /> :When I say &quot;failed verification&quot; it doesn't mean that I wasn't able to access the source or that I was too lazy to try to. God knows I have. Web Archive, Google Books, JSTOR, all the possible means available online if I don't happen to have an offline method to verify. Threads that include [[Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman)#CIA informant accusation]], [[Talk:National Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services#Luis Posada Carriles|Talk:DISIP#Luis Posada Carriles]], [[Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs]] and [[Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia]] show that I have accessed the references and that I am familiar with their content, if I had already not said it at the edit summaries.<br /> <br /> :WMrapids often doesn't include URLs, pages, quotes or other means to help with verifiability for bibliographical sources, even when they are easily accesible ''(just as BobFromBrockley as noted above)'', and have continued to do so even when other users that asked for them to be included. [[WP:BURDEN|The responsability to ensure the verifiability of the information lies on the user that adds it]], but the user shifts this burden onto other editors, best exemplified by one of the last responses to the source requests: &quot;{{tq|Google}}&quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Venezuelan_constitutional_referendum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213305378]. Talk pages such as [[Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor]] are witness that I have tried asking about the original quotes or learning more about the content in question, even when I haven't found it after accessing the source, and I often choose rewording or fixing the references instead of removal when I have the opportunity: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enforced_disappearances_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209604584][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enforced_disappearances_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213352590][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Directorate_of_Intelligence_and_Prevention_Services&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211455507][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thor_Halvorssen_(businessman)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208919306][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213212436].<br /> <br /> :I am very dissapointed that this is the first time that any of these quotes are brought up: not in its references, not in the talk pages, but to make a case against me, as they have with other editors that have challenged their edits, for requesting them in the first place. I don't want to speak on behalf of {{u|Mbinebri}}, but I believe that our exchange was a lot more open and amicable at [[Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt#Recent edits... with more to go(?)]] than the ones that I've had with WMrapids when I have challenged the content. <br /> <br /> {{collapse top|Responses to WMrapids accusations|indent=1.6em}}<br /> * The text's original source about Luis Posada Carriles ({{cite book |last=Bardach |first=Ann Louise |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780375504891 |title=Cuba Confidential: Love and Vengeance in Miami and Havana |publisher=Random House |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-375-50489-1 |pages=184-186 |url-access=registration}}), which describes the group saying {{tq|[he] immediately went to war against the leftist guerrilla movements supported by Castro in Venezuela}}. It directly contradicts the description of {{tq|he participated in the torture of left-wing activists}}.<br /> * [https://books.google.es/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA38&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q=Exxon&amp;f=false Searching &quot;Exxon&quot; in Google Books] gives back page 56, whose preview doesn't mention anything about Qatar or Vecchio being a tax manager. Looking online, the main websites that have this information are outlets with a heinous reliability record, such as {{RSP entry|The Grayzone|[[The Grayzone]]|d}} [https://thegrayzone.com/2019/06/18/exxon-ambassador-carlos-vecchio-venezuela-coup-lobbyist/] and {{RSP entry|Telesur|[[Telesur]]|d}} [https://www.telesurenglish.net/opinion/Donald-Trumps-War-of-Recolonization-Against-Venezuela-20190201-0015.html], as well as Venezuelan state outlets. ''This was added to the article just months after these articles were published:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Vecchio&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=929539862]''. [https://books.google.es/books?id=OSjbEAAAQBAJ&amp;pg=PA56&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false Modifying the URL solves this issue].<br /> * See [[Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor]] for the CANVAS content. The provided links were broken, Web Archive [https://web.archive.org/web/20240303110440/https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/article/venezuela-marigold-revolution][https://web.archive.org/web/20240303110438/https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/article/venezuela-new-player-mix] didn't throw any results, and I asked for the specific quote. Nothing misleading here, the provided reference did not reflect the added content. I'm glad this has been fixed now.<br /> * The information about the alleged relations between the Venezuelan opposition, Otpor! and CANVAS comes from Wikileaks' &quot;Global Intelligence Files&quot;. This is even mentioned by a source that WMrapids provided:[https://inthesetimes.com/article/wikileaks-docs-expose-famed-serbian-activists-ties-to-shadow-cia Wikileaks Docs Expose Famed Serbian Activist’s Ties to ‘Shadow CIA’]. Stratfor links were broken (see above) and ''[[Le Monde diplomatique]]'' didn't mention Venezuela, something I also asked at [[Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs]]. {{RSP entry|WikiLeaks|[[WikiLeaks]]|gu}} is an unreliable source per [[WP:RS/PS]].<br /> * See S Marshall's comment regarding &quot;shaking down&quot;. I'm not the only person that does not think that &quot;extortion&quot; is the same as &quot;robbing&quot;<br /> * If I recall correctly, I removed the information about children because the sentence talked specifically about evacuation. Yahoo's source was also dead, but can be accessed through Archive and says: {{tq|Several people, including a young girl, have been rescued from Venezuela's Housing Ministry after it was set on fire by anti-government protesters.}}[https://web.archive.org/web/20140425004926/https://uk.news.yahoo.com/venezuela-ministry-torched-protesters-094601485.html#ugF7qD3] If I had removed content simply because the links are dead and I didn't bother trying accessing them, as WMrapids claims, I would have deleted the whole statement, which is clearly not the case.<br /> The only exceptions that I can see are Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung's and Oxford Analytica's sources; in both cases I tagged the sentences accordingly and did not remove the content. I'm finding out about &lt;nowiki&gt;{{verify source}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; due to this thread, and I will probably use in the future in this context. As of López Maya's source, I simply did not find the original source. It is a 25 pages document and WMrapids usually doesn't provide quotes for the references, as I mentioned above.<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> <br /> :I cannot stress how exhausted I am of this. It will be almost a year since this pattern has started since WMrapids started editing in Venezuelan topics. I don't know what to ask anymore besides for the community to make up their position based on this information and to propose a solution. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :&lt;ins&gt;PS: I don't want to delve too much into the POV pushing accusations to not make the thread longer than it already is, and that it is neither the main topic at hand nor diffs have been provided to justify them, but in turn I want to provide a few in response:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209296860][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211821592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209088145]. I don't care about any specific point of view, just about the quality of the sourcing.&lt;/ins&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 18:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{collapse top|&lt;ins&gt;Response about POV&lt;/ins&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)|indent=1.6em}}<br /> :I'll provide more information about the POV, since it is one of the two main topics at hand but I haven't provided a response, although I will collapse this.<br /> <br /> :To describe my editing scope, in en.wiki I'm more interested in updating articles or current events, while in the es.wiki I'm more interested in created new content and starting articles, unless we're talking about translations into English or biographies for [[Women in Red]]. What I wouldn't want is that, given that writing about the current situation in Venezuela reflects negatively on the government, that automatically means having an anti-government POV, which in turns means having a pro-opposition POV. However, I want to leave clear that I am aware of my biases, as they're intrinsic to every person. I'm Venezuelan, which means that I have a different background and experiences from people from the Anglosphere, which is why I also understand the position of many of the participants here.<br /> <br /> :To provide an overview, I was the first person [[Talk:Venezuelan presidential crisis#End date|to suggest an end date for the presidential crisis article]]. Since the Punto Fijo governments were brought up, though, as examples, in Spanish I have created the article about the 1969 [[:es:Operación Canguro|Operación Canguro]], the intervention of the Central University of Venezuela by President Rafael Caldera; the 1984 [[:es:Masacre de Tazón|Tazón massacre]], when National Guard soldiers shot at students from the same university; the 1986 [[:es:Masacre de Yumare|Yumare massacre]], during Jaime Lusinchi's government; the 1992 [[:es:Masacre del Retén de Catia|Retén de Catia massacre]], during Carlos Andrés Pérez's second term; and the [[:es:Incendio de Sabaneta de 1994|1994 Sabaneta fire]], the worst prison tragedy in Venezuelan history. I even created an article about a student from the University Simón Bolívar that was killed by the police in 1989, [https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Registro&amp;page=Gonzalo+Jaurena Gonzalo Jaurena], which at the end was ultimately deleted. At es.wiki I likewise used to patrol for vandalism in articles about government officials ([https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=122334298][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=122402239][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=124982674][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=124992363][https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&amp;oldid=128851475] and trust me, there were plenty) until it became too time consuming.<br /> <br /> :Given that we're discussing a general Latin American topic ban, it should also be useful to discuss other articles from the region. I have likewise edited about human right abuses by right-wing groups (or against left-wing followers) and I think it's important for them to be documented in Wikipedia: Argentina's [[Cecilia Cacabelos]], disappeared during the last military dictatorship; Mexico's [[Halcones (paramilitary group)|Halcones]], responsible for the [[Corpus Christi Massacre]] during the [[Mexican Dirty War|Dirty War]]; the [[1963 Dominican coup d'état]], where leftist President [[Juan Bosch (politician)|Juan Bosch]] was deposed; [[Chile truckers' strike]], supported by the CIA, and the [[2017–2018 Honduran protests]], after conservative [[Juan Orlando Hernández]] was declared elected among irregularities. In Spanish, I have also written about several cases about other countries in the Inter-American Commision of Human Rights: [[:es:Caso Artavia Murillo y otros vs. Costa Rica|1]], [[:es:Caso Barrios Altos c. Perú|2]], [[:es:Caso Bulacio vs. Argentina|3]], [[:es:Caso de la Masacre de Mapiripán vs. Colombia|4]], [[:es:Caso González y otras (Campo Algodonero) vs. México|5]], [[:es:Caso Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica|6]], [[:es:Caso Masacre de Santo Domingo vs. Colombia|7]], [[:es:Caso Masacre Plan de Sánchez vs. Guatemala|8]], [[:es:Caso Montero Aranguren y otros (Retén de Catia) vs. Venezuela|9]], [[:es:Caso Myrna Mack Chang vs. Guatemala|10]], [[:es:Operación Génesis vs. Colombia|11]].<br /> <br /> :I don't want to be defined by my worst moments or mistakes, or that the most recent editorial disputes. 2020, 2021, 2022 and early 2023 were relatively calm years overall. Regardless of the perceived POV, I'm knowledgable in general and I'm really looking forward improving articles. If there are issues in articles, including about neutrality (from human rights to corruption), it's something that can be discussed and I will probably have something to be able to help. Best wishes, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> <br /> ::Given that you are [[Wikipedia:Unblockables#What to expect|attempting to boomerang this back onto me]], as {{ping|JML1148}} mentioned this &quot;unblockable&quot; behavior, I will try to provide a short response.<br /> ::Yes, I may forget to include specific quotes and page numbers on occasion, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that you inaccurately designated content as &quot;failed verification&quot; and removed it inappropriately.<br /> ::You also failed to justify any removal based on &quot;failed verification&quot;:<br /> ::#The Posada information was based on the newspaper article, not the book.<br /> ::#You're attempting to deflect the information on Vecchio to Grayzone (who you personally and understandably have a beef with) instead of ''actually verifying the source itself''.<br /> ::#We can understand that this was an accident, yet this could have been easily verifiable doing an internet search for the article title.<br /> ::#Regarding CANVAS, you inappropriately said the information was from Wikileaks when this was not the case.<br /> ::#The &quot;shakedown&quot; appears up for debate, though looking at [[extortion]], it seems like protesters forcing disapproving people to give them belongs seems like a robbery to me.<br /> ::#The information about children was removed, period. You could have looked at the archived link to El Universal.<br /> ::#Finally, you use the excuse of not being knowledgeable of &quot;verify source&quot;, which seems like a cop out for a ten-year Wikipedia user.<br /> ::So, it still is clear to me that you are deflecting blame and making excuses for your inappropriate behavior on the Project instead of listening to the ''years'' of warnings from other users. I admit to not being a perfect user and [[Talk:Guarimba#Gara|you yourself have clarified things for me]], but I never went as far as being dishonesty. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 17:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I wrote a response towards your accusations. Nothing more, nothing less. You're accusing me of deliberately ignoring the content in the references, and the diffs I provide show this is clearly false. Your lack of URLs, pages and quotes has been the norm, not the exception.<br /> :::If we want to talk about dishonesty, it's probably best to ask: [[WP:IGNOREYOU|if for weeks I had asked for quotes or on what the changes were based]] ([[Talk:Thor Halvorssen (businessman)#CIA informant accusation]], [[Talk:National Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services#Luis Posada Carriles]], [[Talk:Venezuelan opposition#Foreign affairs]], [[Talk:Tren de Aragua#Xenophobia]] and [[Talk:2007 Venezuelan constitutional referendum#Stratfor]]), why is it only now that you're providing them for the first time? You once said {{tq|it is becoming exhausting that we are arguing over the definition of a shake down now}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1198726221]. Do you find these questions annoying? That is something different and that you can say, but saying that I'm ignoring source content is deceptive. <br /> <br /> :::By providing the sources only now, it shows how easily and accessible it is for you, but here it looks not as an attempt to help with the content verifiability or address my behavior, but rather to sanction me. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :::&lt;small&gt;And talking about the &lt;nowiki&gt;{{verify source}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; tag, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. One thing is tagging, another thing is contesting and removing. I only said that I'll be looking using it more in the future. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Topic ban from Latin American political articles for NoonIcarus===<br /> '''Support topic ban:''' After reviewing the response from NoonIcarus, it appears that they will continue to deflect their misbehavior onto others and have not learned from the years of warnings they have encountered. Again, while I am admittedly not a perfect user myself, it does not justify their [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|dishonest editing]], frequent edit warring and their [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]] in apparent acts of [[WP:ACTIVIST|activism]].--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *No. Proposals are needed here but it's best if they come from uninvolved people.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 18:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Ah, agreed then. I was following [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213458134&amp;oldid=1213457340 the proposals already shared above], so no bad intentions here. Thanks for keeping this discussion in line! [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to WMrapids|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *[Later] This is complicated and hard to resolve. There have been previous reports by both parties and they've often been archived without result. That shouldn't happen again this time, and I've used {{tl|DNAU}} to make sure it doesn't.{{pb}}Aside from the conflict of views about Venezuela, there's an ongoing issue that reduces to citing sources with sufficient precision. NoonIcarus expects citations to be rather precise, and he tags citations he sees as vague. WMrapids' citations are less precise, and he objects to NoonIcarus' insistence. From WMrapids' point of view, NoonIcarus looks like he's [[griefing]]; while from NoonIcarus' point of view, WMrapids is adding material that isn't properly sourced. WMrapids expects NoonIcarus to fix imprecise citations when he finds them; while NoonIcarus wants to tag them for someone else to fix.{{pb}}I think part of what we need to do here is to define good sourcing practice and set expectations about how to deal with citations that have poor precision.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Well, I want to clear this up now. ''My'' point of view is that others shouldn't have to clean up after citations. Now, I get it, my citations weren't exactly the most detailed, but this is something that I can and will improve upon (this also could have all been solved on my talk page if there was actually a sincere concern). The issue I {{underline|''and'' others}} have is that NoonIcarus disingenuously marked content as &quot;failed verification&quot; and removed it, with most of this content being controversial towards the Venezuelan opposition. This is a clear behavioral pattern that NoonIcarus has continuously participated in, which is the true issue before us. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 19:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I have asked you countless times for content and sources when in doubt, and both SandyGeorgia and I have asked you to add links in your references previously. This is not a new issue. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 02:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::If editor X adds citations that are hard to verify and Y editor tags them, I'm not sure it's clearcut which editor is expecting others to clean up afterwards. Tagging seems to me the right approach, so the community can improve it. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I want to clarify that I don't mind fixing the references if I have the opportunity, it is something that I have done in the past: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lina_Ron&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1176734099][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Pitazo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1170068469][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Efecto_Cocuyo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1170066080][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Últimas_Noticias&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169968967] I just think this should not be the norm, or at least that the editor can help improving the format if possible. Too much precision probably isn't needed either. Just an URL should work in most cases, as it usually does, but if one isn't available, at least a quote and page. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|S Marshall}} Many thanks for the mediation, by the way. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> * '''Support topic ban on Latin American politics''' -- a wider TB to include politics in general might protect us from possible similar behavior in U.S. politics--especially those that might tangentially overlap with the interest this editor has in Latin American politics. I do think this ban should be extended to Spanish Wikipedia and WikiMedia files, but my understanding is that other languaged Wikipedia have their own judicial proceedings.<br /> :I don't think a site ban is necessary, as I don't think the editor has shown much interest in anything else, and maybe if s/he works on other subject matter might eventually understand just how problematic the behavior has been.<br /> :I agree with other editors that TL;DR is a real problem in this subject area. I think the reason for that has a lot to do with the fact that mainstream RS that is critical of [[United States involvement in regime change]] has been blacklisted on Wikipedia, by citing the mainstream U.S. sources that tend to parrot the U.S. State Department perspective (as I explain at [[WP:RS/N]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FNoticeboard&amp;diff=1213759985&amp;oldid=1213754708 here]).<br /> :I remember {{u|NoonIcarus}}'s behavior under the former name {{u|Jamez42}}. In January 2020, s/he received a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions 1-year editing restriction] for behavior like the above. After the editing restriction expired, at some point the behavior returned. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1205311327&amp;oldid=1201962959 warned] him/her on 2/9/24 about repeated reverts of the same material, and s/he immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1205352399&amp;oldid=1205311327 deleted] it without archiving with the edit summary &quot;A single revert does not warrant this warning. Stop this harassment.&quot; --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to David Tornheim|indent=1.6em}}<br /> :*{{comment}} Linking this February thread between the filer and you, for context for the participants: [[User talk:WMrapids#Allegations against NoonIcarus]].<br /> ::I think it would also be helpful if you could specific ''which'' critical mainstream RS sources you're referring to. In {{RSP entry|The Grayzone|[[The Grayzone]]'s|d}} request for comment, you supported that it be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=933946722 categorized either under option 1 or 2], and I supported its deprecation (a decision I wholy stand by, by the way). [https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/ Grayzone's rant about the decision] and their attack against editors, including myself, was one of the reasons why I requested a change for my username. The RfC was also opened three weeks before you filed your own ANI against me four years ago. I really hope this decision of mine is not part of the reason why you're supporting a topic ban. Best wishes. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 23:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No. It's not because of a difference of opinion at a single RfC. It's the POV editing which has gone on for years, which I and numerous other editors have observed and expounded upon here and elsewhere: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's_repeated_block_deletions],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoonIcarus&amp;oldid=1205311327#Edit-warring_on_President_of_Venezuela], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1146#Disruptive_editing_by_NoonIcarus]. If the warnings were heeded, we would not be here, and I would not be advocating for a topic ban.<br /> :::<br /> :::To give an example of this POV-editing, and what prompted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NoonIcarus&amp;oldid=1205311327#Edit-warring_on_President_of_Venezuela this warning]: NoonIcarus kept reverting to his/her preferred claim that the [[President of Venezuela|Presidency of Venezuela]] was disputed. This was no longer tenable ''after'' 30 December 2022, because &quot;Venezuela's opposition national assembly voted...to remove interim President Juan Guaido [and] dissolve his government...&quot; [https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-opposition-removes-interim-president-guaido-2022-12-31/]<br /> :::<br /> :::When at least four editors (one me) tried to remove the claim that the Presidency was still disputed (after 30 December 2022), NoonIcarus reverted, and kept citing an obsolete [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1213024450#RfC:_Is_the_presidency_of_Maduro_currently_disputed? RfC from 10 September 2021] and also despite [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Guaid%C3%B3/Archive_5#RfC:_Is_Juan_Guaido_still_interim_president_of_Venezuela? this RfC closed 3 December 2021] that determined &quot;There is a clear consensus that Juan Guaidó isn’t the interim president of Venezuela.&quot; (In the 3 December 2021 RfC, of the twelve !votes, NoonIcarus was one of only two editors claiming Guaido was still &quot;interim president&quot;.) It wasn't until I filed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1213024450#RfC:_Is_the_presidency_of_Maduro_currently_disputed? this RfC on 9 February 2024] that the matter was settled. It is not surprising that of the eight !votes, NoonIcarus was alone in claiming the Presidency is disputed. I don't consider that cooperative editing and the ability to judge the [[WP:RS]] with [[WP:NPOV]]. It's more like [[WP:OWN|ownership]] and advocacy for the opposition. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 08:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1205354029 A RfC that I suggested myself], about a change that had been disputed by at least two other editors: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=890150780][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131070148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131200793]. It's simply not as you're painting it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209480230 As I said in the RfC itself], if the community is clear on the position, I don't have any issues with the outcome.<br /> ::::I asked before you have been inactive for nearly four years, until WMrapids left a message in your talk page ([[User talk:David Tornheim#Operation Gideon (2020)]]). The actions you're describing are from 2020 and before (already dealt before in the specific ANI) and from this year, not a pattern that has continued over four years. <br /> ::::With that being said, I wonder once again why [[WP:RS/N]] was mentioned here to begin with. Regards, --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 12:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You already provided those exact same three diffs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=890150780] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131070148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131200793]) on the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1214192465#Related_RfC here]. My reply included this text from the [[WP:LEDE]] of the [[President_of_Venezuela |article]]: ''&quot;The Venezuelan presidential crisis was a political crisis concerning the leadership and who holds the office remained disputed till 5 January 2023.” '' All three diffs are ''before'' 5 January 2023.<br /> :::::The last two diffs ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131070148][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1131200793]) were from {{u|TEMPO156}} (fka {{u|25stargeneral}}) who [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1158279306 reversed] saying “Consensus on the Maduro and Venezuela pages that this can no longer be considered current.” You were already shown that those diffs do not support your insistence—which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_Venezuela&amp;oldid=1214192465#RfC:_Is_the_presidency_of_Maduro_currently_disputed? no one else shares]—that the Presidency is ''still'' disputed. Yet, here you are showing those same three diffs again to defend your edit-warring ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1178536520&amp;oldid=1176760058 4-Oct-23], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1179611690&amp;oldid=1179610598 11-Oct-23], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1204670549&amp;oldid=1199503956 7-Feb-24], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1204947051&amp;oldid=1204734755 8-Feb-24]) post 5 January 2023 as acceptable. It’s more evidence of your inability to work collaboratively, listen to reasonable concerns, and objectively assess the RS. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::[[Talk:President of Venezuela#Should we stop claiming the status of the Venezuelan presidency is &quot;disputed&quot;?]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 21:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::{{ping|NoonIcarus}} Do you really feel that an RfC from 2021 takes precedence over the changing circumstances described by the [[WP:RS]] that I mention above? --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]], your support of Grayzone, a deeply problematic media entity that has even gone after Wikipedia, is rather troubling here. Could you explain your position here? [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&lt;s&gt;i do not wish to become involved in this thread even in the slightest but David supported the ''deprecation'' of Grayzone; evidently he does not support the site itself.&lt;/s&gt; &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::He supported &quot;Option 1 or 2&quot;, which suggests we was in favor of keeping it as a source and furthermore says: &quot;Those raised eyebrows are the result of Blumenthal and his writers at Grayzone telling uncomfortable truths that need to be told.&quot; So I'm pretty sure he wasn't exactly supportive of the effort (unless I missed something somewhere else?) [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I misread the comment - {{self-trout}}. Ignore me! &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|David Tornheim}} While we're at it, I also recall that one time, when discussing images for [[Nicolás Maduro]]'s infobox, you described him as follows ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicolás_Maduro&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=933863374]): {{tq|The second image has none of those problems. He is evenly lighted and looks straight into the camera with a somewhat somber but friendly face ready to engage the reporter in an interview. He looks more humble and receptive.}}, and {{tq|Maduro consider[sic] himself to be a man of the people, including the working class, the poor, and the indigenous population, rather than a representative of the elites, as part of chavismo.}}, while also commenting: {{tq|This is problematic given that he is often characterized in the U.S. and Western media--and especially by U.S. officials--as a &quot;dictator&quot; to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives of regime change.}}<br /> :::You have already mentioned your concern about possible disruptive editing by me, but I want to clarify if your POV concerns are because it can differ from yours. Could you provide more insight into these comments? --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> * '''Support topic ban on Latin American politics''' Noonicarus' editing is, in large part, political activism. Noonicarus' is here purely to ensure that articles on Latin American topics have an anti-socialist bias in general, and an anti-Venezuelan-regime bias in particular. While these opinions are perfectly acceptable, in my view, their editing on this topic runs foul of [[WP:NOTHERE]]. All editors, including myself, have political biases, but I am 100% sure that Noonicarus views their contribution to wikipedia as part of the struggle against the Venezuelan regime. <br /> <br /> :They have explicitly declared that they believe &quot;mainstream news sources&quot; to be superior to academic scholarship, which is the opposite to our actual policy. For example, they [[Talk:Caracazo#POV_tag|recently]] spent a long time arguing against the inclusion in the text of the term &quot;massacre&quot; (used by many academic sources) to describe the killing of thousands of civilians by Venezuelan security forces in 1989. Their justification was that some Venezuelan news sources do not use the term. They have also dedicated a massive amount of time to attempting to enforce [[WP:VENRS]], which is an attempt to exclude any news sources from Venezuela which do not have a pro-opposition bias. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 20:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :&lt;small&gt;{{comment}} Boynamedsue is involved in the dispute from this discussion: [[Talk:Guarimba#Tags]] --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 08:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Boynamedsue|indent=1.6em}}<br /> ::I agree with ''all'' of your observations. Since resuming editing on 2/6/24, I have seen this troubling behavior in the articles you mention while it was happening (as well as back in 2019-2020), even if I did not comment on it.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 20:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Context here [[Talk:Caracazo#POV tag]] and here [[Talk:Caracazo#Sources]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 23:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] is well within his rights to enforce [[WP:VENRS]], it {{strikethrough|is a Wikipedia standard policy and}} should not be characterized as &quot;an attempt to exclude any news sources from Venezuela which do not have a pro-opposition bias.&quot; Frankly, I find that choice of characterization very concerning. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{Tq|it is a Wikipedia standard policy}}. [[WP:VENRS]] is not a [[WP:POLICY]]. It is just an essay documenting the WikiProject Venezuela local consensus on those sources. That is useful, and I think the fix there if the list is wrong is to talk it out on the VENRS talk page and then update VENRS. But let's be careful of the terminology we use. VENRS is definitely not a Wikipedia policy. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 19:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Commented [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215643191 below]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' I have many South American election articles on my watchlist and I have regularly seen NoonIcarus making POV edits over a period of several years, mostly to Venezuelan articles, but occasionally to other articles where there is a prominent leftist candidate/party. This has often involved selectively removing information that is inconvenient to their POV with somewhat dubious reasons (which is the original complaint here). Frankly I'm amazed they have lasted this long on Wikipedia given their long history of POV-pushing. [[User:Number 57|&lt;span style=&quot;color: orange;&quot;&gt;Number&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Number 57|&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;5&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;7&lt;/span&gt;]] 00:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN''' per my previous comments. It's very clear NoonIcarus needs something to restrain their blatant NPOV editing. '''[[User:JML1148|JML1148]]''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/JML1148|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#58c8cc&quot;&gt;contribs&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/sup&gt; 05:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to JML1148|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:I assume you mean &quot;POV-pushing&quot; editing, because &quot;blatant NPOV&quot; editing would imply he was doing a blatantly good job. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 01:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support TBAN''' at the absolute minimum with the information provided by {{u|David Tornheim}}. There's [[WP:ROPE|no more rope]] here. – [[User:The Grid|&lt;span style=&quot;color:navy&quot;&gt;The Grid&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:The Grid|&lt;span style=&quot;color:navy&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 16:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' as target. WMrapids accused me of intentionally ignoring content. The diffs that I provided not only show my attention to the sources, but in many cases asking for even further information ([[Special:Diff/1208181859|1]] [[Special:Diff/1210109390|2]] [[Special:Diff/1211947657|3]] [[Special:Diff/1212414419|4]]). These charges against editors that have contested their changes aren't new ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#WikiLeaks edit|1]] [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#RfC: La_Patilla|2]] [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Take a break|3]] [[User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch120#Ownership edits on Venezuelan topics?|4]] [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#User:Elelch|5]]), and the archived ANI complaints show this has been a long standing and unanswered issue ([[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids and WP:ASPERSIONS|1]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#User:WMrapids (blanking)|2]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Filibustering and hounding by WMrapids|3]]). WMrapids' bludgeoning has driven active participants from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela|Wikiproject Venezuela]] away ([[Special:Diff/1183391428|1]], [[Special:Diff/1185249115|2]], [[Special:Diff/1185571771|3]], of which I'm apparently the last one remaining) and the community shouldn't forget either about the excessive RfCs ([[Talk:La Patilla#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|1]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|2]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Source description dispute|3]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 415#RfC: Reliability of La Patilla|4]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#WP:VENRS|5]]) that exhausted unrelated contributors ([[Special:Diff/1159504696|1]] [[Special:Diff/1159920143|2]] [[Special:Diff/1160230663|3]] [[Special:Diff/1159529215|4]]). A TBAN won't solve the underlying issues nor provide an answer to previous complaints. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 01:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to NoonIcarus|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:Responding to your claims of being a target, it is ridiculous as it is plain to see in the responses above that ''multiple'' users have had issues with your editing behavior across the project. It appears that your edits have a POV bias towards maintaining the positive image of the Venezuelan government following the signing of the [[Puntofijo Pact]] (while I have seen a similar description occasionally in sources, you frequently describe it as the &quot;democratic period&quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1211821592&amp;oldid=1211362450][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AHistory_of_Venezuela&amp;diff=1211463049&amp;oldid=1208843652] or similar) and [[WP:BADPOV|discounting human rights abuses]] performed by the &quot;democratic&quot; government ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caracazo&amp;diff=1210485863&amp;oldid=1210441857], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enforced_disappearances_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1212418745&amp;oldid=1212418411], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_massacres_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1197735324&amp;oldid=1197689368], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caracazo&amp;diff=1206271251&amp;oldid=1203757558]) while overtly promoting a negative image of the government following the [[Bolivarian Revolution]]. This is even more clear with your repeated dismissal of academic sources, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APuntofijo_Pact&amp;diff=1213233281&amp;oldid=1204958950 minimizing them as &quot;opinions&quot; for the Puntofijo Pact article], something already mentioned above by {{ping|Boynamedsue}}.<br /> *:Further, while reviewing your edits some more, I even {{underline| found ''another'' &quot;failed verification&quot; edit from 2022 performed by you that was inaccurate}}; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=1122685006&amp;oldid=1117054689 you removed] {{tq|&quot;President Maduro denied the allegations, saying torture had not occurred in Venezuela since Hugo Chávez became president&quot;}} when [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-protests-allegations-idUSBREA1P1AF20140226/ the Reuters article] ''clearly'' states {{tq|&quot;MADURO DENIES TORTURE ... The president says torture ended in Venezuela with the arrival of President Hugo Chavez, his socialist predecessor and mentor, in 1999. 'Commander Chavez never gave the order to torture anyone. We came from that school of thought,' Maduro said.&quot;}} Such repetitive behavior of participating in (using [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213308839 the description] of {{ping|JCW555}}) &quot;'failed verification' lies&quot; over ''years'' raises questions of whether an even more severe ban from editing is justified.<br /> *:Regarding the further [[Wikipedia:Unblockables#What to expect|boomerang attempts]], I learned from my mistakes with feedback from other users, which I have accepted, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWMrapids&amp;diff=1179130217&amp;oldid=1179019455 especially regarding RfCs] (which were mainly opened due to [[WP:STONEWALL|stonewalling]] from NoonIcarus). As for other users not participating, Venezuelan politics are ''very'' contentious and are obviously exhausting to edit about (I feel it, trust me), so of course users will come and go. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Members|Other WikiProject Venezuela members]] are still clearly active and choose not to participate in the articles that you are interested in, which is their own decision, but if there were an issue with my behavior in particular, they could have raised concerns on my talk page or on this very noticeboard. So, exaggerating and saying {{tq|&quot;I'm apparently the last one remaining&quot;}} shows how you view yourself as making some sort of last stand, which is further evidence that you are engaged in [[WP:ACTIVIST|activist]] edits to [[WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS|right great wrongs]] and clearly demonstrates that [[Wikipedia:NOTHERE|you are not here to build an encyclopedia]].<br /> *:After seeing the further deflection, your continued editing behavior that has not improved over years of warnings (especially after [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|the ANI]] raised by {{ping|David Tornheim}} in 2020) and the additional &quot;failed verification&quot; edit mentioned above that occurred years ago raises the question; '''is a {{underline|permanent ban for NoonIcarus}} more appropriate?''' [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 06:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213949723] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guarimba&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214571997] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209296860][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211821592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Torture_in_Venezuela&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208764769], see response above). --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No, a permanent ban is certainly not appropriate, and even a topic ban is marginal. This whole things seems to be a rather roundabout way of you saying you disagree with NoonIcarus about what constitutes NPOV. The best thing to do would be to talk about your differences with respect to what you think NPOV is on these articles in some section of WikiProject Venezuela and come to an NPOV consensus there. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 04:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I see that once again, the sheer volume of text we've produced deters uninvolved people from reading it, and I hope that any further contributions from involved people are both (1) absolutely necessary and (2) very succinct indeed.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I have a question here. Would it be a good idea to call in other editors of [[WP:WikiProject Venezuela | WikiProject Venezuela]] to get a second opinion on these charges. I'd like to get people who know a lot about the subject to comment, and I feel we're missing a significant portion of the community here who might know a lot about the topic, but at the same time, I don't want to accidentally [[WP:CANVAS]]. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 14:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{re|Allan Nonymous}} NoonIcarus [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#Jamez42's repeated block deletions|did this in a former ANI]] and some saw that as inappropriate and borderline canvassing, so we should avoid doing this again. It is also better that we have users independent of the topic who can make their decision solely based on reviewing behavior and edits. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 20:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Probably nobody would answer, at any rate. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' I'm involved to the extent that I am a participant to an [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venezuela and state-sponsored terrorism|open AfD discussion]] initiated by VMRapids on an article created by NoonIcarus, otherwise, to the best of my memory, prior to that AfD, I had not edited articles related to Venezuelan politics. &lt;small&gt;(Subsequent to participation in that AfD I made some edits [[InSight Crime|to a US thinktank]] cited in the discussion).&lt;/small&gt; The key question here is whether there is a pattern of POV editing favourable to the Venezuelan opposition being masked by claims over source veracity. As the Venezuelan government seeks to delegitimise the opposition because of its so-called &quot;foreigness&quot; or so-called &quot;terrorism&quot;, it is understandable that it will be contentious the extent to which the opposition is depicted as lacking endogeneity or engages in actions which may be deemed criminal. Nevertheless, with the evidence presented as it has been, the approriate response would not be to (a) throw accusations back at the filer and (b) to relitigate every edit, but rather to present evidence that one's editing is NPOV via a pattern of equal concern with the veracity of all sourcing in the subject area, not just the veractiy of sourcing which suits the editor's POV. Yet, the attempts to do this show a pattern of edits which reinforce negative aspects of the government or people associated with it and favourable aspects of the opposition. There is a consistent pattern of POV editing in the topic area. There does not appear to be any substantial reflection of a even a single mistake made or a point in time where the editor could have approached issues differently (reducing this to a &quot;technical&quot; issue of incorrect tagging avoids the core issue). FWIW, I think it is reasonable that the community draws VMRapids' attention to a lack of precision regarding their citations and a requirement for pinpoint referencing when possible (ie books, journal articles), especially given many elements of this are broadly wihtin a contentious topic area (post-1992 US politics). Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 23:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''', stonewalling, general combativeness, POV issues, etc. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 11:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''&lt;s&gt;STRONGLY&lt;/s&gt; Oppose topic ban''', while I personally agree that NoonIcarus seems to not have edited in the most consensus seeking way he could, it is clear that these are highly opinionated articles where the interpretation of sources is widely disputed. Hence, he seems to be following one interpretation, and WMrapids seems to be following another. As a result, I believe the best approach is for there to be a general discussion about the factual issues at hand and the sources somewhere to resolve this rather than using topic bans. --[[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous#top|talk]]) 21:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Allan Nonymous|indent=1.6em}}<br /> ::The problem is the consistent rejection of sources which disagree with them, to the point where they edit with an inverted hierarchy of sources: Noonicarus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGuarimba&amp;diff=1185626988&amp;oldid=1185457033 specifically states] that academic journals are inferior to Venezuelan news sources.<br /> <br /> ::They have also carefully curated a list of Venezuelan news ([[WP:VENRS]]) sources which excludes any source deemed to have pro-regime bias, but not sources containing pro-opposition bias, and frequently referred to it to support their arguments. They have shown no self-awareness or contrition here, no desire to change their editing style. Due to their prolific editing, they are, in effect, a one-user article-biasing machine.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :::This is not true. Unreliable anti-government listed in [[WP:VENRS]] include but are not limited to ''El American'', ''Factores de Poder'' and ''Periodista Digital''. You can see an example of me disputing said sources while citing WP:VENRS at [[Pablo Kleinman]], for instance: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Kleinman&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1068240983][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Kleinman&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1115210880][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Kleinman&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169647438] At any rate, WP:VENRS currently prioritizes descriptions from [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]], accepting the community's wider consensus. You can likewise see me recommending academic sources here: [[Talk:Caracazo#Sources]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::If you think that's an issue take that up with [[WP:VENRS]]. He's within his rights to enforce a Wikipedia policy. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 13:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::[[WP:VENRS]] is not a wikipedia policy, it is an essay written largely by Noonicarus.--[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 15:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Ah, I see. Well, in that case, an RfC concerning [[WP:VENRS]] might be a good idea. I think it would be greatly beneficial to get a consensus reliable sources list here given the issue. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 16:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{ping|Allan Nonymous}} Hi. WP:VENRS has had at least three RfCs (where some of the editors here have participated in), all started by WMrapids, of which the first two were withdrawn, in part due to the amount opened at the time and their broadness ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|RfC:WPVENRS]], [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#WP:VENRS|WP:RS/N#WP:VENRS]] and &quot;[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Source description dispute|Source description dispute]]&quot;). I don't want to speak on behalf of other participants, but from what I gather the consensus was that it was better to discuss the reliability of the sources in a case to case basis, if there were any doubts, which is what happened with {{RSP entry|''La Patilla''|[[La Patilla]]|nc}}. One of the points of contention was that I removed many state-owned sources from several articles and cited WP:VENRS as a justification, which is what Boynamedsue is probably referring to. I want to leave clear that I have never claimed that WP:VENRS should be applied as a policy, citing it instead as an example of [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] (just as the list of sources that other WikiProjects have), and since it is clear this has been controversial, I have not done this again since December and don't intend that to do it again. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::@[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]], Why did you ever think it appropriate to remove material and sources on the basis of an article which is clearly marked as &lt;b&gt;opinion&lt;/b&gt;? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::{{ping|TarnishedPath}} I'm not sure if I follow. Do you mean WP:VENRS or the sources themselves?<br /> ::::::::There were to main reasons for this. I mostly focused in references from the [[Bolivarian Communication and Information System]] state media conglomerate (but not limited to it; I also removed scores of references from [[EcuRed]] because its content is user generated, but I did open a thread at the RSN when there was opposition to it), including [[Venezolana de Televisión]], whose comments can be found here: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Bolivarian Communication and Information System|Talk:WP:VENRS#Bolivarian Communication and Information System]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#La Iguana|Talk:WP:VENRS#La Iguana]]. The first reason was [[WP:TELESUR]]'s deprecation at RS/P, because Telesur is part of the conglomerate and other of its outlets routinely cite it for fact.<br /> ::::::::The second reason are the sources individual histories with reliability, including {{ill|Alba Ciudad|es}} (discussion here: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#Alba Ciudad|Talk:WP:VENRS#Alba Ciudad]]), besides the ones mentioned above. The sources lack editorial independence overall or fact checking.<br /> ::::::::I did not remove the sources merely because they are state-controlled or pro-government, but because of the [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability principles]] and of their reliability track record, or in other words, per [[WP:GUNREL]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Boynamedsue and Novem Linguae clarified that it was an essay from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela|WikiProject Venezuela]] before I could. However, I'll link its talk page ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources|Talk:WP:VENRS]]) and note that a rationale and a description are usually offered to justify the classifications, as it would happen in the RS noticeboard. The assesment is not capricious, and the description from [[WP:RS/P]] is always used first when available (which represents a wider community consensus). If anything, more people is invited to participate. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support tban''' as even the more &quot;defensible&quot; uses of failed Verification often seem a somewhat inappropriate and as it does seem like a pattern of POV pushing. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Simonm223|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:I think that NoonIcarus is largely editing in good faith here, and only about half (3/8, from sources cited as concerning by WMRapids) of his most troubling edits were deemed inappropriate. A warning and or 1RR for NoonIcarus seems more appropriate. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 14:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::FYI. I engaged in a brief discussion with {{u|Allan Nonymous}} about the numerous posts at this [[WP:AN/I]] [[User_talk:Allan_Nonymous#Comment_from_David_Tornheim|here]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Allan_Nonymous&amp;oldid=1215346160#Comment_from_David_Tornheim permalink]) --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 16:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks for adding this here! Is there a way you make sure to include the whole page in your link, just in case things things change there in the future? [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 16:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you, that provides additional context which reinforces my support for the tban as the most appropriate remedy. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> *'''Support topic ban''': I guess I can't say I'm an uninvolved editor, as WMRapids cites me as the first one to bring to attention NoonIcarus' dubious removal of sourced content and NoonIcarus and I had many past debates over my bias concerns. It's been my long-held observation that NoonIcarus has been rewriting articles like [[2002 Venezuelan coup attempt]] to push an anti-government narrative using more subtle tactics like overweighting anti-government content/sources, using selective attribution to portray pro-government views as biased opinions (while anti-government views are portrayed as fact), as well as the at-issue tendency to challenge and remove ideologically-inconvenient sourcing and info on, to be generous, ''thin'' grounds. I'm not gonna lie though—it's been cleverly done and I burnt out trying to fight it, hence my lack of involvement in the current debates. I don't vote this way lightly, as NoonIcarus has always been cordial and willing to discuss things, and I certainly don't blame anyone for hating the Venezuelan government. But it seems I'm not the only one alarmed by NoonIcarus' ideological rewriting, and if it's spreading to articles across the entire topic of Latin American politics, I would say it's finally time to stop this. [[User:Mbinebri|Mbinebri]] ([[User talk:Mbinebri|talk]]) 16:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Mbinebri|indent=1.6em}}<br /> *:This is a really compelling argument for a TBAN, and frankly, I share your concerns here. I think it's clear that NoonIcarus should consider making changes to his editing strategy, especially given that this has been raised as an issue before. For now, at least, I still feel that a TBAN is going too far, but these concerns will need to be addressed one way or another. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 16:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::You've made your vehement opposition to a tban very clear by now. But the thing is I remember run-ins with NoonIcarus under their prior handle going back years and it was, honestly, the exact same pattern. They should seriously consider finding some other area of the project to work on where they can operate more collaboratively and I doubt they will without some compulsion. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Personally, the arguments made here have, at least, reduced the intensity of my opposition here. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|Mbinebri}} This really chimes with me, Noonicarus is not here to annoy or troll anybody, and the origin of their bias is understandable. However, the volume of their edits and the lengths they go to in defending them means that very few users have the energy to confront them consistently. Overall this is leading to a bias problem spread throughout our Venezuelan politics articles.[[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 16:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::It seems that this describes [[WP:COMPETENCE]] more than disruptive editing. Still, I thank you for your comments. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I agree with you guys that the volume of the edits made and the aggressive reverts without seeking community consensus are a real concern. If anything this AN/I has taught me the importance of seeking consensus. NoonIcarus, is clearly falling short here often, and I feel a bit of understandable sympathy here (you should see the numbers I used to pull on old articles when I was younger, not my proudest work). At the same time, it is my opinion that NPOV is reached by taking the collective voices and perspectives of a wide variety of editors. My concern with a TBAN is, if NoonIcarus leaves, as a major contributor, could lead to a disproportionate under representation of his views among those who edit Venezuelan articles, leading to a worse [[WP:BALANCE]] overall, even if less edits are made disruptively by the remaining members. If there is evidence this will not be issue, I am more than willing to further reduce my opposition to a TBAN (as I have already done to some degree). This, I think cuts to the core of my concern here. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 17:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{re|Allan Nonymous}} I respect your sentiment and thought the same thing during my initial edits with NoonIcarus. They are fairly knowledgeable about such topics, but it depends on ''how'' you use such knowledge. It is important for us all to recognize that [[Wikipedia:YANI|we are not irreplaceable]] and our misbehavior on the project does have consequences. I've sincerely tried many things to avoid conflict with NoonIcarus ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANoonIcarus&amp;diff=1209395892&amp;oldid=1209308986 including this recommendation], though it returned to edit warring), but as you can see from other users, NoonIcarus' editing behavior has been a repetitive problem. While NoonIcarus portrays themself as {{tq|&quot;the last one remaining&quot;}}, I have shown that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214797142 WikiProject Venezuela members are still active] and others in this discussion (including myself) have shared their own unsympathetic feelings towards the Venezuelan government ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215354288&amp;oldid=1215353940], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215347521&amp;oldid=1215347383]). So rest assured, such topics will be okay, and I'm glad that you are using this opportunity to reflect on your own editing as well. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 18:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Links to some of the own olive branches I have extended to WMrapids in the past:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169157951][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1191955462], and linking full last talk page exchange: [[User talk:NoonIcarus/Archive 10#Future collaboration recommendations]]. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|Mbinebri}} While I naturally disagree with your topic ban support, I want to thank you for your comments about our exchanges being cordial. Stay safe. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> :::::Here's what I feel might be a good compromise? '''Article Ban on Latam Politics''', with a possibility for review at some point. This allows NoonIcarus to participate in the topic through talk page discussions (i.e. to suggest changes in policy/flag sources he may find problematic) without disrupting the articles or leading to edit warring. This might allow NoonIcarus to participate, so long as he remains within consensus as other editors can take up his suggestions. If he shows signs of working well on talk pages, then he can be allowed back on the articles. So far, I have seen him work well in discussions. In addition to this, as a show of good faith, I would hope NoonIcarus would open an RfC with respect to [[WP:VENRS]] so that we could make it more clear which were good and bad sources,as well a more general policy with regards to academic versus media sources (in particular, we should be careful when the academic sources about current political events). This would help reduce a lot of future lack of clarity on vague sources and what sources we should be using which has been a major contributor to this. Let me know your thoughts on this people. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse top|Responses to Allan Nonymous' article ban suggestion|indent=1.6em}}<br /> ::::::{{re|Allan Nonymous}} [[Wikipedia:AAB|Users can request to be unblocked on their own talk page]]. I might have seen custom restrictions before where administrators suggest against blocked users from making a block appeal for a certain period of time (For example: ''User banned from Latin American political topics: May appeal in one year''), but not too sure on this. Wanted to make sure that you know that not all blocks have to be permanent. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 01:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::I am aware here, but my hope is that this will prevent another case of &quot;this user gets TBAN unblocked after a year/two/three&quot; and goes right back to what didn't work before. This sort of approach would might help him and other people find a way to productively work together, instead of just creating a cycle. That's my thought, at least. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 02:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::That's why a topic ban is the right solution and your &quot;compromise&quot; won't work--the behavior extends to talk pages and the disruption would continue there. If NoonIcarus is going to learn proper editing behavior, they need to steer clear of politics.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::It is clear that the primary concern here are edits made to mainspace articles, and the vast majority of concerning edits are made there. I am disappointed to see that you seem to treating this as a punitive response given the general consensus that topic bans are not punitive. I am making an effort here to seek consensus, so I hope you are willing to do so as well. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 12:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::This is a misinterpretation of what has been said. Your continued response to every editor is verging on [[WP:IDHT]] and I would gently suggest your opinion has been heard and it would be wise to step back and allow a consensus to emerge. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::I'm a little confused by your concerns of [[WP:IDHT]] here? I agree that at the beginning of this discussion, I responded to a lot of different editors (this is my first AN/I so I didn't fully understand the discussion protocol and I apologize for that) but this was a response with regards to a consensus seeking solution and is is to an editor I have engaged with multiple times, as part of a discussion largely regarding an effort to &quot;step back and allow a consensus to emerge&quot;. If you could clarify a little more your concerns (maybe on a different page, as this may be off topic to the discussion), I would be more than happy to attempt to address them. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 18:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::Effectively half of this discussion consists of you replying to every other post to argue your case. You've been cautioned about [[WP:BLUDGEON]] once already. You don't need to reply to every post here. Doing so will do nothing more than raise questions about why you are so passionately defending NoonIcarus. So you should really stop. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 10:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::I apologize that at the beginning of this AN/I I replied over enthusiastically, this is my first AN/I so mistakes are bound to happen. At the same time, this section of the AN/I is mostly me asking [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] about my concerns about any action taken, and I was glad so see here that he mostly addressed those concerns. Hence '''I have significantly reduced my opposition to a TBAN'''. Furthermore, I did ask and still have actively raised serious concerns about [[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] citing [[WP:VENRS]] which I have continued to raise and hope he can make a good faith effort to address. I, personally, don't feel my recent efforts fit very well into a case of [[WP:BLUDGEON]] or [[WP:IDHT]], but I do appreciate your feedback here. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 14:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::@[[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]], I have been watching this thread and your replies have been coming up in my notices a lot. You should listen to Simon. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Notifying {{ping|Allan Nonymous}}, since it's their comment after all: do you agree that your comments in these responses to Mbinebri are collapsed? If so, do you have a preference if they are displayed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215867046 this way] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215873477 this way] (the current one)? --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{collapse bottom}}<br /> <br /> ===Indefinite block for NoonIcarus===<br /> *'''Support indef''' - per WMRapids’ opening statements and the statements of [[User:JML1148|JML1148]], [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]], [[User:Number 57]] and others here. This is a clear [[WP:SPA]] account with numerous examples of bad faith editing, resulting in a previous one year editing restriction. Now this. Enough is enough, I’m calling for an indefinite block. [[User:Jusdafax|Jusdafax]] ([[User talk:Jusdafax|talk]]) 23:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===TLDR===<br /> <br /> Disclaimer: I personally am not an &quot;involved party&quot; in the case however, I have interacted with several of the editors in other cases. My position on the topic ban proposed is &quot;STRONGLY oppose&quot;.<br /> <br /> This is an effort to provide a brief summary of the events leading up to and the part of the vast, wall-of-text dispute titled &quot;NoonIcarus and 'Failed verification'&quot; in an attempt to make it easier for other users whose eyes may glaze over at the sight of so many words, inspired by the suggestion of [[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]].<br /> <br /> The dispute here starts with a complaint from [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] concerning [[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] removing a variety of citations and associated text using the tag &quot;failed verification&quot;. Of these, NoonIcarus is a confirmed Spanish speaker and member of Wikimedia Venezuela, WMrapids is a member of English Wikipedia's Peru project. This notable here as the articles the two seem to primarlily edit concern latin american history, mostly, Venezuela. After consulting with members of the Wikipedia discord concernin the best editing practices, it is clear that this is generally considered acceptable within the confines of Wikipedia. Furthermore, in articles for controversial topics, it is considered standard practice (better to say nothing than something controversial). However, it quickly became clear that issue involved was not merely the use of &quot;failed verification&quot; efforts but whether these efforts systematically contributed to a POV. Some of the edits appeared more than defensible, others were significantly more dubious and it may have been possible NoonIcarus was removing sources that were in fact verifiable. From there, debate escalated to a wider debate around whether NoonIcarus' editing approach was approrpiate for the topic, particular concerns were raised about edit warring. A possible mitigating factor was raised that, if WMrapids was making unsourced edits, these may have been partially justifiable. There was no general total community consensus about the veracity of the allegations, but it does seem that at least some of the edits were to actually verifiable content. After this, NoonIcarus was given an opportunity to respond to the complaint. '''[This is Part 1 of a Multi-Part series, more to follow.]''' [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :NoonIcarus provided a report responding to the allegations made. The report was not directly responded to, but discussions on the original complaint did continue afterwards. Soon after, WMrapids, immediately made a request for a topic ban on NoonIcarus concerning Latin American political articles. This was immediately good-faith rejected (and the request was later voluntarily withdrawn) on the grounds that a complaint filer cannot be the one to initiate such action. Another user made supported the request which was then considered the initial request. Tensions at this point were high. NoonIcarus' response to this topic ban attacked WMrapids, claiming the user was a toxic influence on the English language Wikipedia's Venezuela project, and that additionally, a series of aggressive rolling RfCs he had made against existing policies on articles was &quot;exhausting and demoralizing&quot; members of the Wikipedia Venezuela project, as part of an effort to support his agenda. WMrapids and some other involved editors countered these claims with claims he was selectively ignoring evidence that went counter to positions amenable to his own agenda. '''[This is Part 2 of a Multi-Part series, more to follow.]''' [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{comment}} Just to mention that I'd be happy to answer any related questions. I don't want to cram this thread any further, but it could really benefit from clarification to non-involved editors, so they could be broken into sections or collapsed. WMrapids should be given the same courtesy as an involved user, as they probably and understandably will disagree with some of my replies. I'll provide an answer to the POV pushing accusations as a collapsed hatnote below my first response &lt;ins&gt;(added '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215919160 here]''')&lt;/ins&gt;. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 00:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Moved prior comment to correct section. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:Wrong place to put this, this is for discussion and summary, if you want to stake your position on the TBAN, post in that section. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 13:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::I really need to stop using the mobile interface. I intended to post there. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Can we close this?===<br /> Honestly I think this discussion has progressed as far as it is going to. I'd ask for an admin to review and determine appropriate consensus. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I provided one last response regarding POV '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215919160 here]'''. New participants can drop the last thoughts before closure. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 22:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I agree with {{u|Simonm223}}. Having those who have already commented continue to edit this thread and add more diffs and never-ending argument/counter-argument is tiresome for readers. I can suggest one admin who has already shown a willingness to review one of these lengthy discussions (about this topic) and make a final ruling. If another admin believes it is acceptable to ping them and ask for their help here, please advise.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 02:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It might be better, now that a request has been made (and given the fact that this is at the top of AN/I) for you not to ping admins, and for one to naturally come around and close this. [[User:Allan Nonymous|Allan Nonymous]] ([[User talk:Allan Nonymous|talk]]) 03:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> '''SEND TO ARBCOM'''. I am not surprised to see a citation tagging incident escalating to a show of blatant and shameless partisan participation at ANI while I have been on a mostly-break since early December when two of my closest friends died coincidentally on the same day, and I knew that I could not reasonably deal with serious grieving and WMRapids' editing at the same time. Editing around WMRapids since I first looked in to these recurring issues in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User:WMrapids_and_WP:ASPERSIONS Aug 2023] and found few admins or independent editors willing to engage (for example, zero feedback at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_106#Nelson_Bocaranda NPOV noticeboard], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive352#Nelson_Bocaranda BLP noticeboard], and much more in other places) has required CONSTANT citation cleanup, correction of failed verification and flagging the use of non-reliable sources and much more, complicated by WMRapids' failure to engage collaboratively on talk, as documented in three full archives of one article only at least. {{pb}} When I engaged initially, I had hoped that the [[J. K. Rowling]] experience could repeat, via a combination of patience and demonstrating collaborative editing to yield good results, but that was not to be the case. {{pb}} When I had to also deal with serious real life loss and grief, I gave up and left Wikipedia almost entirely, because the situation has such a long history of diffs and behaviors and hounding and aspersions that have gone ignored at noticeboards, that it really belongs at ARBCOM where it can receive a dispassionate and non-partisan examination of long-standing behavioral issues and polite POV pushing, and I just have not been in an emotional place to be able to face the work required. There is plenty detailed in the talk archives of Operation Gideon ([[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5]], [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 6]] and [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7]]) and plenty at WMRapids' user talk, (samples, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;oldid=1180799100#Bludgeoning,_personalization,_and_multiple_faulty_RFCs] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WMrapids&amp;oldid=1180799100#Copyright_and_copying_within]) but I see (again) few people taking the time to understand the full situation.<br /> <br /> I found this thread because I received an email ping this week from Tornheim [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)&amp;oldid=1215578894#Do_we_still_need_the_POV_tag?_If_so,_why? here], on a page where Tornheim admits not reading the talk page, did not examine even the most recent edits, and the POV tag was clearly reinstated by WMRapids,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Gideon_(2020)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209503834] which is easily apparent in recent edits and detailed on talk. It is not surprising that anyone would give up in the environment I experienced in trying to edit around WMRapids, and simply tag their edits as failing verification, as they usually do, as seen in three archives on that talk page, because after months and months of dealing with similar editing behaviors, one tires of having to do all of the EXTENSIVE cleanup required from their style of editing. I am not yet ready to face situations like this again on Wikipedia, but I do have months worth of diffs showing recurring POV and failure to use and cite adequate sources (see the three pages of talk archives mentioned above, but there is much more and in more places). Should anyone take the time to send this situation to ArbCom where it belongs, I could eventually provide diffs including those showing why the community has not been able to deal with this, but I am now on an extended vacation visiting my children and have a long drive home next week. This thread is a fine example of using ANI to eliminate one editor with whom others disagree over something fairly minor in comparison to the other behaviors seen in several articles by other editors. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I wanted to propose this, but I'm unfamiliar with the requirements to start a case there. It will definitely help handling such a complex issue. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 10:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :When multiple users, who even state that they hold a similar POV to NoonIcarus (not being sympathetic to the government), say that there is a severe and consistent POV issue, that is not something &quot;fairly minor.&quot;--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I agree that this needs escalating to Arbcom. I think there's detectable brigading going on in this AN/I and that's why no uninvolved sysop has stepped up to deal with it.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 11:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't agree with your &quot;[[Wikipedia:Tag team|brigading]]&quot; assessment as it appears that the majority of these users have not been involved with one another. Being transparent, David did mention to me on how to correctly present an ANI somewhere before possibly, but this ANI seems clearly appropriate given that NoonIcarus disingenuously applied the &quot;failed verification&quot; tag and removed material.<br /> *::&lt;s&gt;That's not true, though. I've had editorial disputes with the majority of users that support a topic ban against me, which is understandable given how controversial the topic is. I haven't brought it up to not sidetrack the discussion, but I'd be happy to comment more about it if needed.&lt;/s&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::&lt;small&gt;Striking since I misread. Apologies. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 14:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *:SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus do have a history of collaborating together for years, however, which makes it interesting that SandyGeorgia began editing again at the same time this ANI was opened and became involved after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandyGeorgia&amp;diff=1213952863&amp;oldid=1213117743 NoonIcarus contacted them in their talk page.] Allan Nonymous' mention of discussing this ANI on Discord was something new to me, too.<br /> *:As for Arbcom, I'm open for whatever may aid with settling disputes, but there seems to be a solid consensus of users supporting a topic ban for NoonIcarus. MoneyTrees, who is a member of Arbcom, was involved earlier on in this discussion. Would it be appropriate to ping them and ask their opinion? [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 13:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I think the reason this hasn't been closed is because you're right. There does ''seem'' to be a solid consensus. People qualified to close this might be a bit wary of it, though. I very much doubt if MoneyTrees would oppose an escalation to Arbcom in the circumstances, but if you'd like to ask them, you're welcome to do so. SandyGeorgia edits widely in controversial areas and it's not at all unusual for her edits to intersect with someone else's, but if you have concerns or suspicions about her, feel free to raise them at Arbcom when I open the case, or here now, or in any other appropriate place of you choice. Sandy won't be angry or defensive if you do, but she might be amused.{{pb}}To be quite frank, the only reason I didn't open an Arbcom case this morning is because Sandy wants to be involved and this isn't the best time for her. So I'm holding fire.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 14:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I would appreciate feedback from at least one admin about whether they feel it necessary to escalate this incident to Arbcom before we just decide to supersede the obvious consensus here. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::We don't need an admin's consent to escalate to Arbcom, because Arbcom's where you go when uninvolved admins ''aren't'' stepping up to deak with the problem.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 15:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Then I trust, when you've created this arbcom case, it will accurately reflect that the core subject is NoonIcarus' edit history and will notify all editors involved in the AN/I discussion. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 15:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::That is one of the core subjects, yes, although I hope to persuade Arbcom to accept a case whose scope is ''Conduct in articles about the current politics and recent history of Venezuela.'' I certainly don't intend to make ''everyone'' who's posted here a party to the case, and it's not needful to notify non-parties. I'll notify parties to the case on their talk pages, and in the interests of transparency I'll also place notices here in this thread and on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela]].—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Butting in here; some three months ago, I was on the verge of taking these disputes to ARBCOM, because the conduct and content issues are inextricably linked, and there's experienced editors shielding disruptive editors on both &quot;sides&quot; of this dispute. I desisted largely because I wouldn't be able to participate in the evidence phase of such a case. It's been increasingly clear to me that that was a mistake, and I was waiting for the expected non-resolution of this thread - despite the numerous NPOV violations documented from multiple parties - to file a case. If nobody else does so, I intend to do so soon. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I've been caught up in some of the side discussions in this areas with multiple RFCs, or attempted RFCs, happening at RSN, and have thought that it might all end up at Arbcom. -- &lt;small&gt;LCU&lt;/small&gt; '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A&lt;small&gt;ctively&lt;/small&gt;D&lt;small&gt;isinterested&lt;/small&gt;]]''' &lt;small&gt;''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''&lt;/small&gt; 15:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{u|S Marshall}} thank you for that consideration, but frankly, there will be no optimal time for me. The vacation has somewhat helped me regain my bearings post-grief, but when I return home, I am scheduled for hand surgery for a pre-cancerous growth that needs to be excised, so I don't know what typing ability I will have. Growin' old ain't for sissies, but we all know the arbs are heaving a huge sigh of relief to hear that my typing might be affected, and my typical verbosity might be curtailed, but I will have timing issues regardless. The reasoning for opening the case is well summarized to the one sentence in this thread by Moneytrees; finding the extreme list of previous dispute resolution will be more time consuming, and unfortunately I have most of that back at home. The behaviors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard should also be within the scope of the conduct, and one can easily see in all of those threads who the other parties are. {{pb}} {{u|Dustfreeworld}}, thank you for the concern (I haven't actually read the majority of my talk page yet-- as I said, I came to this thread by looking in to an email ping from Tornheim when I was settled in at my son's house and able to review my email), but in the interest of length, the new casting of aspersions and failure to assume good faith re when or why I returned to editing are better explored with the facts and diffs in the arbcase, as they demonstrate a pattern. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::{{heart}} --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 16:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{re|S Marshall}} I'll trust your judgement on this then, though I do want to get the opinion {{ping|Moneytrees}} as well. I've always advocated for more involvement in these disputes, so the more the merrier in this case. I'm just glad that these issues are getting some attention. Thanks for guiding us through this. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 16:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Hi there, as an uninvolved editor, may I ask {{highlight|what’s the problem with a user (Noonlcarus) replying to my message expressing [[WP:Wikilove]] to a [[WP:Missing Wikipedian]]?|lightgreen}} Sandy already said that she had lost two close friends recently in the same day. May I also draw your attention to [[WP:Kindness campaign]] and [[WP:Editor retention]] as well? [[WP:ABF|Thanks]]. --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 14:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::There's nothing wrong with this, but the timing is curious to post something to a talk page which will be usually emailed. I don't know Sandy's personal background, so of course condolences to them, but I am more concerned about NoonIcarus' gamey behavior due to their history of unconventional canvassing. [[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 16:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I did email her months before all of this happened, because it's not the first time and she mentions she has gone through a difficult time. I found the WikiLove after looking for diffs to add to this case, and I'll remind that this is not the first time that you accuse me of canvassing for questionable reasons ([[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources#RfC: VENRS|Talk:WP:VENRS#RfC: VENRS]], hence why the aspersions casting is also an important issue in all of this). I'll ask you again to not throw stone in a glass house after your own potential canvassing in previous and related move discussions. --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::@[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]]. Thank you for the reply. I know nothing about your/Noonlcarus’s background either. I don’t know what do you mean by “usually emailed”. If user’s talk page can’t be used to express [[WP:Wikilove]], what is it used for? Used for arguing or [[WP:ABF|assuming bad faith]]? At least 10 users have replied to that [[User talk:SandyGeorgia|post]] of mine with messages such as “stay safe” already. What does that mean?<br /> *::::1. It’s not “usually emailed” as you said. 2. Sandy is a well-respected and much-loved user. {{pb}} &lt;small&gt;Aside, just curious, have you ever sent any Wikilove to other users on their talk page?&lt;/small&gt; --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 16:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::&lt;small&gt;Just for the record, I'll link once again the Wikilove I left for WMrapids in Christmas: [[User talk:WMrapids#Season's greetings]].&lt;/small&gt; --[[User:NoonIcarus|NoonIcarus]] ([[User talk:NoonIcarus|talk]]) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::{{u|Dustfreeworld}}, just an FYI ... because of my dislike of the pingie-thingie, I have my preferences set so that I see pings only via email; that way, they don't disrupt my concentration when I'm in the midst of complex edits. For most of late December, and until early March, I wasn't up to even checking my email. I did see the Tornheim ping via email because it was the most recent when checking in after I arrived at my son's house for Holy Week, and I was finally feeling ready to see if the Venezuelan editing situation had improved during my absence. As this situation has long needed to go to ArbCom, now seemed to be the time to say so. I'm sorry I won't be able to help out at my typical rate for medical content for at least the near future; after a long absence, catching up can be daunting, and I'm not sure I'm ready, as I also see [[J. K. Rowling]] descending into non-collaborative editing, which is discouraging. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::{{u|SandyGeorgia|Sandy}}, no worries, RL is more important. I hope things will get better soon. People like you,[https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&amp;platform=all-access&amp;agent=user&amp;redirects=0&amp;start=2024-03-28&amp;end=2024-03-28&amp;pages=User_talk:SandyGeorgia%7CUser_talk:Jimbo_Wales] so please, be well and take good care of yourself. {{heart}} {{smiley|:-)}} --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC); edited 02:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{re|SandyGeorgia}} I know you have a lot going on, but I have to respectively ask since you have become involved; why haven’t you commented on NoonIcarus' behavior (either in support or opposition) and have instead focused on users who have had to deal with their POV editing? <br /> <br /> Now, I also have to respond to your accusations about my citing and copying within Wikipedia. Regarding the citations, your &quot;sample&quot; is from about ''6 months ago'' when I first was getting involved in controversial articles (I now know about exceptional claims needing exceptional sources, etc.) and we discussed above how I could be more specific when creating citations. Understandable. As for attribution, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_91#Attribution_edits I have already discussed this with a patroller and they said my edits have improved]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Rosales&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215951085 In a recent edit], I even made sure to attribute when it was my ''own'' original edit.<br /> <br /> So while you have tried to make the point that I am some sort of troublesome user, there is direct evidence that I have responded to the feedback and have improved my editing. This isn't the case for NoonIcarus, however, so that is why I have to ask, Sandy, why have you decided not to comment on their misbehavior? Why haven't you discussed on how they are removing information while making false &quot;failed verification&quot; edit summary claims? Again, my sincerest condolences for all that you’re going through, but this is something that needs to be discussed as well.--[[User:WMrapids|WMrapids]] ([[User talk:WMrapids|talk]]) 20:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Tornheim pinged me to an immediate question for which the answer is obvious, and that is what brought me to this ANI. You reinstated a POV tag that had been resolved, as you re-added UNDUE material that had been many times discussed, without engaging talk,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Gideon_(2020)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209503834] and that is the (immediate) pattern of editing behavior I've observed over the long haul, which hasn't improved. You take long absences, then don't engage talk at all or ignore requests and questions, and then come in to edit as you please regardless of what has been discussed on talk, sometimes having found sub-standard sourcing or sources that either don't verify content or conflict with higher quality sources, ([[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7#Use of scholarly sources]]) and then leave the citations and other cleanup to others until the next lather-rinse-repeat cycle, and don't appear at times to have read or digested what is written on the page (eg the most recent aspersion in this thread). And you can be extremely polite when under a microscope of scrutiny, but less so with the constant casting of aspersions in talk discussions, which derails productive discussion. {{pb}} As to whether your editing has improved, I haven't had time to check for good faith engagement on talk, but I see the same casting of aspersions as always in this very thread; you seek out obscure journal sources to back your POV (aka cherrypicking via apparently google searching on terms eg [[Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7#Use of scholarly sources]] rather than relying on a preponderance of higher quality sources); you leave the burden of discussion on others while the content you edit war in stands for months as others won't edit-war it out again; and the finger-pointing and the aspersions are persistent (see above), as is the tendency to not see that you do everything (and more) that you accuse NoonIcarus of doing.{{pb}} Beyond the immediate instance that brought me here, I haven't taken time to look at anyone's recent editing, because a) I am visiting my son, b) all of these matters should be examined before ArbCom, not here, c) the issues with NoonIcarus in this instance are already beaten to death, and d) discussions with you (as with me) tend towards verbosity that will simply exhaust other readers. I am well aware that at times NoonIcarus's editing is also sub-par in several ways, but he has a full command of the sources, context and history, and a full and fair airing of a complex situation is unlikely with an ANI pile-on. The aim of my posts here is only as is appropriate to outline why an Arbcase is called for and context for the immediate issue here (failed verification tags as cleaning up after your edits can be exhausting and it is difficult to get you to engage talk). And I note that, unlike you, NoonIcarus is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to his command of English and being able to explain himself (eg, the misunderstanding about his objection to how some scholarly sources are frequently misused in Venezuelan content, and he is not the only editor to have noticed that). There is no need to fill up this ANI with further analysis of NoonIcarus's editing; what was not represented here at all was both sides of a complex situation in which users with less command of the sources frequently show up. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::ArbCom. --[[User:Dustfreeworld|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy&quot;&gt;'''Dustfreeworld'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Dustfreeworld|talk]]) 22:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Now at Arbcom===<br /> Please see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Venezuelan_politics]].—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 10:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' - Please do not close this thread while ArbCom is considering whether to open a case. If ArbCom accepts the case, they will of course have the final say about NoonIcarus. If ArbCom declines the case, the community should take action, so that dummy edits will be useful to prevent this thread from being archived without action. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Follow up from [[WP:VPM#A personal analysis and proposal|VPM]] ==<br /> {{mbox<br /> | type = style<br /> | image = [[Image:Emblem-WikiVote.svg|50px|Not a vote]]<br /> | text = If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is '''[[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|not a majority vote]]''', but instead a ''discussion'' among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]] regarding the encyclopedia's content, and '''[[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]''' (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, ''not'' by counting votes.<br /> <br /> However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] on the part of others and to [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your posts]] on this page by adding &lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt; at the end.<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;'''Note:''' Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|single-purpose accounts]]: &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:spa|spa]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt;, suspected [[Wikipedia:Canvassing|canvassed]] users: &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:canvassed|canvassed]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt;, accounts blocked for [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry|sockpuppetry]]: &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:csm|csm]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;{&lt;nowiki/&gt;{subst:[[Template:csp|csp]]&amp;#124;''username''}&lt;nowiki/&gt;}&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/small&gt;<br /> }}&lt;!-- This is the Not a ballot template --&gt;<br /> === Topic ban proposal for Rachel Helps ===<br /> <br /> :{{userlinks|Rachel Helps (BYU)}}<br /> :{{userlinks|Rwelean}}<br /> :[[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal]]<br /> <br /> Per the evidence I outlined at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal|this VPM discussion]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;oldid=1213522218#A_personal_analysis_and_proposal permanent diff]), Rachel Helps, the Wikipedian-in-Residence at [[Brigham Young University]] and operator of the above two accounts, has for years engaged in extensive undisclosed [[WP:COI]] editing on Wikipedia in collaboration with her employees and professional colleagues. This misconduct falls well short of what is expected of any editor, let alone a paid Wikipedian-in-Residence, and as I have been informed that en.wp has no ability to revoke said position, I propose that '''Rachel Helps be topic-banned from LDS Church-related topics, broadly construed''', which should achieve the same result. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Don't know if this is of any importance, but this sandbox page showed up just recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlomorrIDTech/sandbox Seems to have something to do with BYU, not sure if it's important [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 21:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Original page deleted, archive [https://web.archive.org/web/20240317214235/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlomorrIDTech/sandbox here] [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 23:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> &lt;small&gt;Pinging editors who participated in the prior discussions per [[WP:APPNOTE]]: {{ping|ජපස|WhatamIdoing|Horse Eye's Back|Rosguill|JoelleJay|Bon courage|Aquillion|Hydrangeans|BilledMammal|FyzixFighter|Levivich|Primefac|Vghfr|David Fuchs|Pigsonthewing|BoyNamedTzu|Fram|Certes|Naraht|Guerillero|Awilley}}&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> * How anyone can read Rachel Helps (BYU)'s user page (even before recent edits) and say her CoI is &quot;undisclosed &quot; beggars belief. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **Please take the time to reread the above post and the linked discussion. If you feel that everything outlined in that analysis is perfectly above-board, may I ask if you have performed comparable edits while a WiR? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **For example, taking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rwelean&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213525368 this recent diff into consideration], have you ever created a page for a friend while a WiR, and subsequently edited it after you had co-authored an article together and/or one of you had begun to supervise the other's education programme? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***Now try addressing what I said, rather than some other imagining. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *** And '''don't''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213531040 edit my comments]. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 17:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ****My sincerest apologies, I think that was an edit conflict (you added it in a separate edit presumably while I was replying to you). [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *****NP, I've also just had an EC with no notification. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 17:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. There seems to be some idea (such as advanced by Andy above) that merely disclosing ''a'' COI absolves you of any possible infractions; that is not the case, as the evidence at the VPM discussion amply demonstrates. There's apparent evidence of off-wiki coordination that obfuscates COI editing. I see the concern that there are much ''worse'' offenders here, and Helps' self-identification makes picking out the COI edits that much easier... but that doesn't materially change the problem, discussed at length [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Wikipedia_in_Residence:_is_this_a_way_around_conflict_of_interest_rules? in the wider VPM thread], that Helps and similar editors have materially distorted and overemphasized coverage of LDS topics in ways that are not keeping with due weight. This is probably an issue with a ''lot'' of GLAM/WIR stuff, so I'm not surprised Andy is circling the wagons, but this is a pretty egregious example. [[User:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 16:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **First you misattribute a view I do not hold to me, then you impugn my integrity. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Overwhelming Support.''' WP:COI editing is bad enough, but considering that WiR is involved and that the COI violations are related to religion (which is already a subject that requires great care to maintain NPOV), Helps should absolutely be topic banned from LDS articles. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:* And to further comment on this, these violations seem to be contrary to the purpose of WiR, which is for an existing editor to &quot;''accept a placement with an institution to facilitate Wikipedia entries related to that institution,''&quot; ''' ''not'' ''' to have an person with existing ties to the institution to &quot;facilitate&quot; Wikipedia articles on their institution<br /> *:[[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 16:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''', the disregard and disrespect this paid editor has for our COI expectations is staggering. The attitude is not that they should follow best practices, its that anything not explicitly prohibited is permitted and permitted in infinite quantities. An example of this attitude: &quot;Also, if something is &quot;strongly discouraged,&quot; it sounds like it's actually still allowed. A rule that can't be enforced is not really a rule.&quot;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zeniff&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213375632] So lets do what we have to do and enforce our community expectations, otherwise people will continue to ignore and disrespect &quot;A rule that can't be enforced&quot; [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''' I do see violations of COI policies but they are not an end in themselves and exist to protect the reliability of our content. So, can I get some examples of shoddy content being injected into our articles by Rachel Helps? Thanks, [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 16:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:jps wrote in the linked discussion, {{talkquote| I continue to find poor writing, sourcing, and editorial approaches on page after page dedicated. The cleanup that will be required to recover from this is tremendous ...}}Some diffs are in order? [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 17:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I listed diffs in that thread. Happy to list them again, but it may be a bit repetitive. Also, you can check my article space edit history from today as I’ve begun the long process of dealing with the fallout and that history may be illustrative. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose'''. Apparently Airship was posting this while I was posting my disagreement with the evidence presented in the other thread. Yes, she seems to have written an article about an (apparently notable) co-author. More than half the evidence presented is about other editors (how dare she help newbies?). There have been previous discussions about her editing, and they've agreed that [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board]] applies. She has [[User_talk:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)/Archive_6#c-Rachel_Helps_(BYU)-2020-12-03T17:38:00.000Z-SlimVirgin-2020-12-02T23:11:00.000Z|confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things]]. More generally, I think that much of this is based on fear of religious editors. For example: She is accused of – over the course of 18 years and nearly 10,000 edits – writing two (2) articles that some editors (including me) think she might be too close to the subject to do so independently, and that it would have been more appropriate to send through [[WP:AFC]]. That's 4% of her article creations. Banning someone for a procedural error in 4% of contributions is not a proportional response. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You know it should be 100% through AfC right? &quot;you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;&quot; Thats incredibly damning. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No, I don't agree that articles she needed to send articles such as [[Stretch Armstrong (ska band)]] and [[List of inmates of Topaz War Relocation Center]] and [[Anarchism and Esperanto]] and [[Hidden Figures (picture book)]] through AFC. Can you think of any reason why, e.g., she should consider herself to have a conflict of interest with a Japanese interment camp that was closed before she was born, then do please explain that. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Because she was paid to make them. Thats a direct financial COI. I didn't say she needed to send the articles to AfC, I said she should have sent the articles to AfC. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 01:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{u|WhatamIdoing}}, a couple of things: the co-author is also a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rwelean&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213525368 Master's thesis supervisor], which isn't great; as there is precisely one &quot;newbie&quot; named in my analysis (the others being employees, editors with [[User talk:Thmazing|extensive COI history]], and a bureaucraat currently at ArbCom for a CoI issue), I would ask you to consider your words more carefully. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{redacted}}. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::A large proportion of our articles on universities and their staff are probably heavily edited by external relations offices and staff of the organisation, but they generally do it very professionally, under the radar. If we nobble this editor, we need, in fairness, to do the same to all those others too. But the articles are often accurate and well-written (because they've been written by someone who actually knows what they're talking about). Apply COI rules with caution lest you end up with an encyclopaedia written entirely by clueless people using out-of-date sources. Remember, most academic/institutional COI editing won't be reported because the person who knows (a) that the University of Somewhere's article is edited mostly by JSomeone, and (b) that the public relations officer happens to be called John Someone, can't actually do anything about it without outing themselves as another staff-member, and DOXing Dr Someone. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 18:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Isn't this argument the equivalent of saying &quot;If the cops don't have the knowledge and resources to give every single speeder a speeding ticket then nobody should get a speeding ticket&quot;? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::No, it's like saying that if ''absolutely everyone'' is speeding down a particular bit of road, then maybe something's wrong with the speed-limit (or the overall approach to its enforcement) and issuing one ticket won't solve the problem. Our COI policy is wildly naive, and particularly good at punishing those who admit their COI rather than those who just deny everything. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 20:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::But your argument isn't that everyone is speeding, your argument is that most roads have been sped on. Do you really think that &quot;absolutely everyone&quot; is doing egregious undisclosed COI editing? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::If you happen to see any other paid contributors, grandly titled &quot;Wikipedians-in-Residence&quot; and promoted by the WMF as an example of Wikimedia-public relations, who undermine COI to this extent, give me a ping and I'll certainly !vote to &quot;nobble&quot; them. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 18:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Nobble is actually a word, huh. Also, another day, another {{u|Primefac}} LDSuppression — when will it end? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::In fairness he's also been taking action to resolve these COI issues off-wiki, see discussion on his talk page. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 21:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|She has confirmed that her employer does not choose her topics or pressure her to write certain things.}}{{pb}}Contrast this with her COI declarations:{{pb}}{{tq|However, curators and other librarians sometimes request that I work on certain pages.}} ...&lt;br&gt;{{tq|One of my students created the page for James Goldberg at the request of a curator, in conjunction with the library acquiring his personal papers. I assigned this to one of my students rather than myself because I know James personally.}} ...&lt;br&gt;{{tq|When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work. When I wrote the page for Steven L. Peck and his bibliography at the request of our 21st-century manuscripts curator for my work, I was a fan of his work.}} ... &lt;br&gt;{{tq|At the request of one of my curator colleagues, I improved the page for Glen Nelson.}} ...{{pb}}{{tq|I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon. I participate in this community of Mormon artists. Their shows have featured work by artists whose pages I have worked on for work, for example, Matt Page (artist), whose page I created when our 21st-century curator requested that I work on his page after acquiring some of his personal papers.}} [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::People make suggestions for topics; sometimes she agrees. So? People ask me to make edits, too; sometimes I grant their requests, too. I'd bet that if people in your life know you edit Wikipedia, that you also get such requests. That's not a conflict of interest.<br /> :::I'd also like you to think about what {{xt|I am a current patron of the ARCH-HIVE on Patreon}} means. It means she gives money to them, not the other way around. Shall we ban Wikipedia editors who donate to the WMF or one of the affiliates from editing anything in [[:Category:Wikipedia]]? Shall we tell editors that if they buy Girl Scout cookies, they can't edit [[Girl Scouts of the USA]]? Kick all the devs out of the open-source articles? Merely being a minor donor or a minor customer is not automatically a conflict of interest. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Are you just...willfully ignoring all context now? Because this is starting to look like bikesheddy obstructionist nitpicking for the sake of...who knows?{{pb}}Here we have an ''employer'' requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer, because Helps is officially employed in a WP liaison capacity with that employer. Helps says she fulfills some of these requests. All of this is above-board PAID (but not necessarily COI) editing and is utterly different from your hypothetical of some random person suggesting you write about some topic neither of you has a COI with. It also happens to contradict your claim that Helps says BYU doesn't choose topics for her to write about, which wouldn't actually even be a problem if those topics weren't connected to her or BYU (and I'm not alleging they are!).{{pb}}Your second paragraph is somehow even more of a strawman. Nowhere in the comment above did I allege Helps has a COI with any of those examples of employer-requested editing, and certainly nowhere did I suggest editors can't edit on things they've ever spent any amount of money on. It's almost like you are replying to some synthesis of my comments in this thread, but I know that can't be true because if you had actually read my one other substantive comment in this ANI discussion you wouldn't have made that ridiculous comparison to Girl Scout Cookies in the first place when it's abundantly clear Helps' COI with ARCH-HIVE goes way beyond simply donating to them on Patreon. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 22:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{u|JoelleJay}} my editing experience with {{u|WhatamIdoing}} has been {{mdash}} their Wikipedia editing style comes across as inexplicably argumentative or contrarian on most any topic. I don't recall if they eventually come around or change their mind, such as after somehow ferreting out a truth during a particular confrontation or argument. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 21:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::{{xt|Here we have an ''employer'' requesting Helps write WP articles on specific topics chosen for their relevance to that employer}}:<br /> ::::::No, we don't. Here we have ''colleagues with no authority over her whatsoever'', often from unrelated departments, who think they've identified a cool subject for Wikipedia, chosen for their relevance to ''the colleagues' own interests and activities'', and an employer who thinks Wikipedia is cool enough that they let her spend part of her work time making that information freely available to the world. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Are you really suggesting someone whose position is &quot;Coordinator of Wikipedia Initiatives at the Harold B. Lee Library&quot; is being paid to edit in whatever topic areas they want with no expectation from the university that this work ever ought to benefit the university or further the interests of its owner? Or that a BYU employee requesting an article on a former BYU professor after the employee helped procure some of that professor's own works for BYU's collection, might be making this request on behalf of BYU as part of their ''job''?{{pb}}Do you think, in the above example, that someone serving in an official, Wikipedia-supported expert editing instructor position would believe COI from their extensive personal relationship with the subject is eliminated by assigning that article creation request to their own BYU employees? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 00:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''' in response to ping: frankly, I haven't read the mountain of evidence in enough detail to !vote, but I don't think this problem is limited to a single editor. We may need to take a more holistic approach rather than hoping that removing one person will make everything right. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 17:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' and agree with Certes above that this is only part of the problem. I became aware of the BYU walled garden of sources, awards, and editors through the Nihonjoe ANI discussion and subsequent Arbcom case. Looking at their edits, I first noticed the problematic editing and undisclosed COI of [[User:Thmazing]], who will warrant an ANI section on their own. But other names which kept popping up where &lt;nowiki&gt;[&lt;/nowiki&gt;[[User:Hydrangeans]]&lt;nowiki&gt;]&lt;/nowiki&gt;, who keeps denying the obvious COI issues, and Rachel Helps (and her other account) and her large number of paid BYU students (who list her as their employer). <br /> :When I look at an article like [[Second Nephi]], completely rewritten by these editors over the last few months[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=1212916834&amp;oldid=1166026852] (apart from [Hydrangeans] and Rachel Helps, I count 3 other paid BYU editors there): the page is expanded, but hardly improved. Claims like &quot;J.N. Washburn, an independent scholar, cites that 199 of 433 verses from Isaiah appear with the same wording and proposes that Joseph Smith used the King James Bible version whenever it was close enough to the original meaning of the plates he was said to be translating and used the new translation when meaning differed&quot; not only treat the &quot;he find some old plates he translated&quot; as truth, but try to claim that &quot;independent&quot; scholars support this, even though Jesse Nile Washburn was a LDS missionary who had studied at BYU before he published his books on Mormonism, so no idea what's &quot;independent&quot; about him. The whole article, just like most articles rewritten by Rachel Helps and her employees, are written from a distinctly in-universe, uncritical perspective. <br /> :For some reason she is very reluctant to note her COI on the talk page of these articles, insisting that the declaration on her user page is sufficient. She also takes it upon herself to remove critical tags from the pages, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Noah&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1202040173 here] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Omni&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213185725 here], or to remove correct[https://books.google.be/books?id=QDsALaUZapUC&amp;pg=PA150&amp;dq=%22Brian+Thomas+Kershisnik%22&amp;hl=en&amp;newbks=1&amp;newbks_redir=0&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiwr7-i7PGEAxVhdqQEHZOOANkQ6AF6BAgOEAI#v=onepage&amp;q=%22Brian%20Thomas%20Kershisnik%22&amp;f=false][https://www.smofa.org/uploads/files/219/LA-StoryboardBuilding-a-Movie.pdf] but unsourced info and revert to equally unsourced info for unclear reasons[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Kershisnik&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196164460]. A typical edit is something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tree_of_life_vision&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1195021060 this], supposedy &quot;more detail for the naturalistic explanation section&quot; but in reality removing two of the four sources and changing the more general claim about the non-religious origin of some Mormon belief to a much more LDS-friendly version. Just some examples from her 100 most recent mainspace edits... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 18:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> &lt;s&gt;*'''Support''' per Fram's evidence and others. I should note the above mentioned [[Second Nephi]] refers to another &quot;independent scholar&quot; (Matthew Nickerson) and then cites an article that appeared in a journal published by BYU. I would also hope that if a ban is enacted, it explicitly covers the [[Association for Mormon Letters]] and related topics, including fellow members, per the information provided in the Village Pump thread. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 18:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/s&gt;<br /> ::I'm striking my support for this topic ban (you can call me neutral I guess) though I still support the one for Thmazing below. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 23:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support''', not because Rachel Helps has undisclosed COI (she discloses BYU and AML on her userpage), but because she helped other editors with undisclosed COI (e.g. BYU, AML) make undisclosed COI edits, and did things like nominate their articles to DYK, or move their articles to mainspace. The diffs are at [[WP:VPM]]. I also agree with Certes that this problem is broader and includes the editors who have/had undisclosed COIs, but that doesn't absolve Ms. Helps of her role in what now seems to be an actual conspiracy of AML people to use Wikipedia to promote themselves, their work, and by extension their religion, by using a combination of undisclosed accounts and paid BYU editors. The unfortunate thing is that if everybody affiliated with AML had just disclosed it, there wouldn't really have been a problem... except they would have had to wait for editors without COI to do things like approve drafts, but I don't get why that would have been a problem. Undisclosed COI editing is a problem even if it's ''good'' undisclosed COI editing because it undermines trust. It's really quite dangerous to the mission of an encyclopedia anyone can edit: the whole venture rests on the belief that editors will follow &quot;the honor system&quot; and either avoid or be transparent about their COIs. Finally, '''a note to anyone commenting''': If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::One of the reasons I still support a full TBAN and not a lesser sanction is that Rachel Helps has been editing longer than I have. And unlike me, she was paid to do it. If she cannot learn in eight years of paid editing what I learned in five years of volunteer editing in my spare time, then I'm not sure there is much hope here. She's not new at this, and this isn't the first time these problems have come up. I'd have more sympathy if she had less experience or if this wasn't a repeat issue. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 15:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::On one hand, I'd support a topic ban on the paid student employees. Certainly going forward that's what I think is best (''employees'' of the BYU WiR should not edit articles related to Mormonism... let them do that on their own time), but then TBANing the WiR should be sufficient to prevent problems with student employees in the future (and per her note below, she is already reassigning them to other topics).<br /> ::On the other hand, I don't like the idea of sanctioning any of the student employees because they were &quot;just following orders,&quot; and if their orders were different, they'd have followed the different orders, so I don't view the student employees as being culpable or even being able to act independently of their supervisor (the WiR), I see them as proxies/meatpuppet accounts except they understandably would think their proxying was OK because it was directed and supervised by a WiR. So I think I come down on the side of giving students a pass for past policy/guideline violations as long as there are clear guardrails for the future. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :'''Support with regret'''. I really wish this could be done differently, but I think things have come to a head now and there may be no way to fix it without this kind of drastic approach. I tried to have a conversation yesterday with Rachel about improving her sourcing guideline, and I think that she is likely trying her best to act in good faith, but she is well past being able to collaborate with those who are going to question the [[WP:FRINGE]] nature of the claims that many apologists for the Mormon religion continue to make about their holy books. I could handle that (indeed, we see that sort of issue a lot here) if it was not also coupled with institutional support from Wikipedia as well as BYU in a way that I think was never done properly. If we are going to pay students to edit Wikipedia, they ought to be allowed to edit it freely. BYU students are at a risk in being active here. If I saw one of them make an edit that looked like apostasy, I could report them to their stake or bishop or the school itself and they could be found in violation of the strict honor code and expelled. I don't think we have thought clearly about what that means given the openness of this website and the unusual closed-ness of the BYU system. For the benefit of all involved, it is probably best that this partnership be ended with a clean break. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. Rachel Helps has now disclosed a massive amount of COI on her user page. Given how extensive and egregious it is, as well as her repeated emphasizing that she uses her personal account to publish articles she feels would be in violation of PAID if published from her BYU account, I get the impression that she still does not understand what it means to have a COI and how that should impact her editing. Initially this put her actions in a slightly better light to me, since it seemed many of these violations were done in mostly good faith and simply weren't recognized by her to be COI (or at least not ''that'' big of a COI, which is more of an institutional problem), rather than intentional concealment of edits she knew weren't kosher. I would have been satisfied with a promise to avoid editing or directing others to edit articles where there is even a whiff of apparent COI and an agreement to limit LDS-universe sourcing. However, reading this [[Special:Permalink/1213529782#The_ARCH-HIVE_moved_to_draftspace|dissembling exchange]] she had on her personal account talkpage with an NPPer regarding COI and blatant PROMO for ARCH-HIVE, I have a hard time believing no deceit has occurred: {{tq2|Hi Celestina007, first you said that you draftified it because of sourcing issues and notability issues, but now because of promo and possible COI? A little consistency would be nice. I thought about what you said about the page having too much promotional language, and I removed most of the background section. I have an interest in the page (otherwise I wouldn't have written it), but I don't think it's a COI. I don't make any money from the ARCH-HIVE's success, and I have not been paid to write the page.}} This was in Feb 2022, well after she had started writing blog [https://www.arch-hive.net/post/in-praise-of-funeral-potatoes posts] and [https://www.arch-hive.net/post/the-arch-hive-holiday-gift-guide-2020 participating] in exhibitions for the group, and well after she [https://www.associationmormonletters.org/2020/05/rachel-helps-reviews-2019s-mormon-novels/ served] on an AML judging committee the same year ARCH-HIVE won an award. This led me to look into some other potential COI edits involving authors she has reviewed for the AML: [[Dean Hughes]], whose wiki page has been edited extensively by Helps' student Skyes(BYU) (66 major [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Skyes%28BYU%29/0/Dean_Hughes edits], 8000+ bytes added, including bibliography entry for the book Helps reviewed); [[D. J. Butler]], to whose bibliography Helps [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._J._Butler&amp;oldid=952515895 added] the book she judged, sourced to an AML announcement by her colleague, and to which Skyes(BYU) [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Skyes%28BYU%29/0/D._J._Butler added] 11 major edits; and [[Steven L. Peck]], 85% of whose page was [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Steven_L._Peck written] by Helps between 2017 and 2023. I'm sure I could go on. Incidentally, pretty much all of these pages have also been edited by Thmazing (AML president) and NihonJoe (ArbCom case)...{{pb}}All of this goes well beyond what we could reasonably expect even a novice editor to understand are COI edits, let alone someone in a ''paid'' position of authority who is mentoring other ''paid'' employees of BYU on how to edit wikipedia articles! Honestly I think ArbCom might be the next place to go given the amount of promotion of minor Mormon contemporary authors by what seems to be a heavily interconnected group of BYU-associated editors with un- or under-declared COIs. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''' I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI. The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground. This will happen as long as anonymous editing is allowed on Wikipedia. But what I think is far more important for determining a possible topic ban for myself and my team is the quality of my edits in the topics the ban is aimed at covering. I believe an underlying assumption is that since I work for the BYU Library, I wouldn't say bad things about Mormonism (broadly construed), the LDS Church, or BYU. I have edited on many pages in these topics and many have changed the way I think about the LDS Church and BYU, and not in a good way. Some examples are [[Battle at Fort Utah]], a page I expanded about a one-sided attack on Timpanogos families supported by Brigham Young that lies at the heart of the city of Provo's founding. What about [[Seventh East Press]], a page for an independent student newspaper at BYU, which was banned from being sold on BYU campus primarily because of an interview with Sterling McMurrin where he said that he didn't believe the Book of Mormon to be literally true (which I promoted on DYK)? The fact that [[Lucinda Lee Dalton]] requested her sealing to her husband be cancelled and it was revoked posthumously? [[Ernest L. Wilkinson]]'s spy ring controversy? Dallin H. Oaks's negative evaluation of [[Nothing Very Important and Other Stories]]? My own students have said things like &quot;I've summarized stuff I disagree with&quot; (and they have published it as part of their job). Some people have expressed shock that as a professional writer, I'm messing up all the time. Guess what. There's no degree in Wikipedia editing! If you examine my considerable edit history, you are going to find errors! But I believe that on the whole, the work I and my students have done has improved Wikipedia. We have added so much accurate information, cited in-line, to reliable sources. We have helped to make more sources discoverable by summarizing and citing them. Is it that surprising that my years of editing Wikipedia in Mormon Studies have led me to gain some expertise in my field and made me want to study Mormon literature professionally? I've attempted to list all the possible COIs I could think of on my user page, and I stand by the NPOV of all of my edits. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment'''. Yes, I'm a paid student editor who works on LDS topics. But that doesn't mean that I have been out to present a construed vision of Mormonism. When people have pointed out a lack of neutral point of view (which was wholly unintentional on my part and consisted of a few words) I have made an effort to fix it and invited them to help me. Other than that, I'm not seeing where there is a lack of this neutral point of view. Is summarizing what other people say about Mormon topics considered a violation of NPOV? Because I didn't think it was. If you're worried about the Mormon authors, keep in mind I have also used sources from Elizabeth Fenton (not a Mormon), John Christopher Thomas (a man who follows the Pentecostal tradition), and Fatimah Salleh (a reverend). [[User:Heidi Pusey BYU|Heidi Pusey BYU]] ([[User talk:Heidi Pusey BYU|talk]]) 22:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{Hat|reason=Getting a bit off-topic. ජපස seems OK with hatting this. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 01:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> *:The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here. You may feel that you run no risk of falling out of favor with your bishop, but if that happened because of your attempt to include content that was critical of your church, ‘’you could be expelled’’. This is what your school says in its policies. Now, maybe they don’t enforce those policies anymore, but I can only go by what I read of BYU’s rules. And according to those rules, it’s not really safe for you to try to accommodate the radically open ideology of this website as you work for and are enrolled in a school which has an entirely different ideological commitment. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Have you seen anything in my edits that is harmful to the LDS Church or to anyone else? [[User:Heidi Pusey BYU|Heidi Pusey BYU]] ([[User talk:Heidi Pusey BYU|talk]]) 22:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You don’t seem to be understanding my point. It doesn’t matter what I have or haven’t seen in your edits. You are free at this website inasmuch it is an Open Culture Movement website to explore, edit, study, and expand your horizons to whatever extent you would like. We encourage that on principle. Normally, I would welcome such engagement. But here is the thing: you are employed by BYU to write here. You are also a student. My commitment to radical openness then is now necessarily tempered by my greater concern for your well-being as a student and student worker because, frankly, that is far more important than the openness of this website. And if your school had a commitment to academic freedom, free speech, and so forth, there would be no tension there. But the fact remains that BYU has really strict policies. To be clear: You aren’t doing anything wrong! But we can’t stop your school from mistreating you on the basis of what I would considered normal activity at this website. If you came out tomorrow as a promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist (and I’m not saying you will… just go with the hypothetical) then while we would welcome you, suddenly you find yourself without support from the institution you rely on. And so we’re stuck. I think we can’t operate according to our own community rules because doing so puts you at risk and we need to figure out how to fix that. Having you contribute to article space is almost certainly not the right answer. If you had a sandbox where you could offer quotes from sources or apologetics or what have you that would help maintain your ecclesiastical endorsement, then there would be less of a problem. But you are duty bound to maintain a fealty to your church and your faith which this website should not be challenging because it can cause you problems. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Acknowledging my [[user:Hydrangeans|disclosed past connection to BYU]], I can't help but think it's a little disingenuous, howsoever inadvertently, to frame this as humanitarian concern for Heidi Pusey (BYU) and kind of paternalistic to insist that she can't assess for herself what her situation at BYU is like and whether there's any {{tq|risk of falling out of favor with your bishop}}, to use your words. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 00:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::The concern is not whether she made the correct or incorrect assessment. I trust that she knows what she is doing. ''I'm assessing the entirety of the situation for myself as a member of this community.'' My goal generally (it has nothing to do with this user specifically) is to make sure that all people are taken care of as best they can be. I see the following situation: (1) BYU has rules (2) this website has rules (3) those rules are by my reading at fundamental odds. I think that the ''best thing we can do'' given that, as a website community, and given that I have absolutely zero sway over BYU, is to prevent a situation where students acting as compelled editors (that's part of what getting paid to edit does, as fun as I find it to be since I do it for free) edit content that is directly relevant to those rules. It's that simple. Because let's say ''there is no risk'' of her running afoul of such. Then that is equally a problem in my mind. This stamps out the very radical openness we are trying to promote and makes me worried that the BYU student who is in the closet about their scholarship that identifies problems with the Book of Mormon would not and ''should not'' take this job. This can of worms is ugly and it gets worse the more you look at it. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 00:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::1. I am not in the closet about my scholarship and do not appreciate such an assumption. <br /> *::::::2. I do not appreciate you attacking my identity and saying I could hypothetically become a &quot;promiscuous anti-Mormon atheist.&quot; Such an assumption is unfounded and unacceptable. I will not tolerate it.<br /> *::::::3. I will no longer reply in this thread. [[User:Heidi Pusey BYU|Heidi Pusey BYU]] ([[User talk:Heidi Pusey BYU|talk]]) 00:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::Y'all don't see the problem here? This is an editor who can't follow a hypothetical and she's being ''paid'' to write about Mormon exegesis. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|The concern here is you are putting yourself at risk by contributing here.}} I do not think it is our place to try to sanction or remove adult editors from our community because we as a third party judge they are taking on too much risk by editing here. I think this argument is very weak. This is an ANI thread about sanctions. We should stick to discussing and sanctioning actual, demonstrable misconduct. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 00:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::They are at a risk ''because of our toleration of the situation of paid editing through this program''. Shut the program down and it is no longer a risk. The misconduct was done by her boss. I support sanctioning the boss. I'm not sure what to do about the student, so sure, close this whole commentary as off-topic. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{Hab}}<br /> *'''Support''' The evidence seems to be quite clear. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 22:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' based on Rachel Helps' own defense above. {{tq|The more we punish undisclosed and disclosed COI editing, the more we drive COI editing underground}} is not a good reason to allow blatant COI editing. I'm okay with driving it even further underground. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 02:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': The COI editing stuff was not my main concern (I'm far more worried about the paid editing junket), but I just thought I'd let the watchers here know that I tagged an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Austin_%28writer%29&amp;diff=1213610933&amp;oldid=1213479191] just now. It's a puff-piece pure and simple and the evidence for COI is pretty straightforward if y'all have been paying attention to these posts. I agree, this needs to be stopped. I'm pretty close to striking my &quot;with regret&quot; which gives me regret. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Honestly, this entire situation shows that we need to take a step back and take a look at possibly changing policy to prevent this from happening again. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::This may need to be kicked to Arbcom. It involves at my last count at least 5 editors not even counting the students. Oh dear. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 02:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': I worry we're conflating separate issues. <br /> ::1) Rachel Helps' involvement with articles about AML, ARCH-HIVE, and Michael Austin strikes me as a clear COI issue and a breach of community trust.<br /> ::2) There's a broader question around how to interpret COI when it comes to BYU and the LDS church. I think the COI argument here is plausible, but much less clear cut than #1. I do worry about creating a chilling effect for e.g. an Oxford professor citing a colleague who was published by Oxford University Press, or a math teacher at a Catholic school editing a page on the Trinity. If we do need to consider this COI, I think we should take our time and define the problem narrowly and precisely.<br /> ::3) There are NPOV and sourcing concerns around some Book of Mormon articles. I'm skeptical that a topic ban will improve this, or that the articles are worse for BYU editors' involvement. [[Second Nephi]] and [[Ammonihah]] are in much better shape than, say, [[Jason]], a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid. The BYU team seems to take these concerns seriously and make good faith efforts to include non-LDS sources. If individual articles aren't notable, we can delete them. <br /> ::4) Finally, there's a concern about implicitly endorsing BYU policies and potential risks to BYU's editors. I agree with [Hydrangeans] that this feels paternalistic, and I don't think this standard is workable. Even if we assume the worst of BYU, should we shut down any attempts to engage editors in China, in case someone writes something that upsets the CCP?<br /> <br /> :I would support a sanction that's more narrowly tailored, e.g. blocking Rachel Helps from edits around AML and BYU faculty, while still letting her write about scripture and history. It seems excessive to block her from absolutely anything LDS related (e.g. [[Battle at Fort Utah]]) or to shut the program down.<br /> <br /> :(In case there are any concerns: I've never met any of the editors involved, I've never attended, worked for, or even visited BYU, I learned what AML was earlier this afternoon, and I've never been a member of the church). [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 03:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Courtesy Break (1)====<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose''' Topic bans should not be punitive and are reserved for editors that engage in [[WP:TE|disruptive]] behavior within that topic area. I just don't see the hallmarks of disruptive editing that I've encountered in other situations, particularly in physics-related topics, that did result in topic bans. I do see very poor judgement when editing with both disclosed and undisclosed COI and operating with the gray zone caused by inconsistence guidance in the COI guidelines (Gray zone example, in one part COI editor should identify in all three places, in another it says that editors may due it in one of three places - an editor who tried to push the former with regards to Rachel was told by multiple admins that their interpretation was more expansive the intended COI guideline). I do find her response to HEB regarding this gray zone very troubling, but not disruptive. This should have been raised at COIN, prior to being elevated to ANI. I would note that Rachel editing and her WiR function have been brought up there before which did not end with sanctions, so it seems like bringing the dispute here has the appearance of forum shopping - might not be given new information since that discussion. I also disagree with the insinuation that because her COI is with BYU, she is incapable of editing in an NPOV manner when it comes to the LDS Church under some kind of threat, spoken or unspoken, from the religious leaders and therefore inherently disruptive if she edits in that topic. BYU teaches evolution in its biology classes, teaches the standard 4.5 billion year age for the earth in its geology classes, teaches a human history/prehistory that does not kowtow to Biblical or Book of Mormon teachings in its anthropology and archaeology classes, and so on - so the argument that the BYU employment means she has to edit inline with church doctrine is based on faulty assumptions and extrapolations. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 03:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:If Microsoft hired people to create articles about its products, and these editors disclosed they were paid editors but in some cases promoted some of these products while working with other Microsoft employees who edited with undisclosed COI, Wikipedia would siteban all of them with little discussion. It doesn't matter if Microsoft doesn't tell the editors exactly what to edit, or tells them explicitly to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter if the articles about Microsoft products are totally NPOV and policy-compliant. Advertisement is advertisement, and this is advertisement. It doesn't matter if it's the LDS Church or Microsoft, it doesn't matter if it's articles about characters in the Book of Mormon or articles about characters in Microsoft video games. In both cases, it's just paying people to raise the profile of their products and their brand on Wikipedia. A TBAN from promoting the product seems actually lenient to me, like the minimum preventative measure Wikipedia should take in this situation, not punitive at all. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 04:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|It doesn't matter if the articles about Microsoft products are totally NPOV and policy-compliant.}} Sounds like you're saying that it doesn't matter the quality of the edits, if the motivation for making the edits is wrong. Is this correct? Some might disagree with that statement, preferring to accept high quality edits regardless of motivation. Although maybe we should discuss this more at [[WT:COI]] rather than here. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::No, not the ''motivation'' for making the edits, and no, this is the right place, this is about whether this proposed TBAN is preventative or not. I'm saying &quot;it doesn't matter&quot; in several different ways, but the motivation of the editor isn't one of them, who knows or cares about people's motivations, since we have no way of determining an editor's motivations.<br /> *:::If an edit violates one rule, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate another rule. If an edit violates COI or PAID, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate V or NPOV. If an edit violates NPOV, it doesn't matter that it doesn't violate V or COI or PAID. If V or NPOV editing excused COI or PAID editing then we can just mark those pages historical, what's the point of even reading them?<br /> *:::It also doesn't matter because a policy-compliant, high-quality Wikipedia article is good advertising. A TFA is the highest-quality level of article that Wikipedia offers, and also the highest-quality advertising placement. If someone is trying to promote themselves or something on Wikipedia, a high-quality article is going to be better than a low-quality one, and while a puffery article might be the best, an NPOV article is still better than no article. Companies/people/churches/other orgs will pay to have policy-compliant articles created about themselves or their products because it's good advertising, it's good for their reputation, which is good for business and the bottom line. It's about $$$.<br /> *:::And just to belabor that point a little bit, think about it: how much are they paying per article? Hundreds of dollars? A thousand or a few thousand? Where else can you get guaranteed top-of-Google SEO placement for ''any'' search term for that cheap? And it's a one-time cost when they pay a paid editor to put it on Wikipedia, whereas ordinarily SEO of that quality is a monthly payment not a one-time. I think paid editors are like 90% cheaper than traditional SEO. Damn, I should advertise :-P<br /> *:::But if you step back, by piggybacking on volunteer labor, organizations can use paid editing to save themselves a ''ton'' of money on internet advertising while breaking ''no'' Wikipedia rules (if done properly). If we were smart we'd bypass paid editing and the WMF and just set up an actual job board on Wikipedia and have some kind of group Patreon account. Instead of making donations to the WMF, buyers could just pay for articles about whatever they want, and editors can get paid for writing articles, like $50 for a stub, maybe $500 for a GA, $1000 for an FA. Channel it all into an official channel and kinda kill two birds with one stone, I say. (And I'd be happy to administer it all for a reasonable management fee.)<br /> *:::So anyone who wants to invest their marketing $ in paid editing is actually free to do that, as long as the editors disclose and otherwise abide by the rules. But in ''this'' case, we have undisclosed COI and PAID editing by a number of people, and in the situation where an organization's marketing $'s are going not just to policy-compliant editing, but also to non-policy-compliant editing, then it seems like barring the non-policy-compliant editors from editing about the organization, broadly construed, is appropriate.<br /> *:::As an aside, it also bothers me that paid undergraduates are involved. Teaching the wrong lesson here. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Do you have these concerns about GLAM in general? Suppose the British Museum pays me to write about obscure parts of their collection. This will be great SEO and may encourage people to visit, and even though the museum is free, many visitors will probably make a donation. If I use the best available scholarship and teach millions of people for free, and the museum gets donations, would you object? [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 07:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::GLAM walks a fine line, no question. That's why it's extra important that people who participate in that sort of program as leaders be extra careful to keep their noses clean and think very carefully about the implications of their actions and activities, as far as I'm concerned. The alternative can easily devolve into this mess. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *:::::@[[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]]: I don't know much about GLAM, but yes, same concerns, no reason to treat galleries, libraries, archives, and museums, as any different from other organizations (companies, non-profits, churches). In your hypothetical, you'd still be hired to promote the museum's product (their collection), no different from Microsoft paying someone to promote one of their products. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::The problem with COI-tainted editing is that it given us an encyclopedia (and community) different to what we would have with if unconflicted editors were at work. It skews the process. It is &quot;dirt in the gauge&quot; as [[WP:COI]] used to mention. In practical terms we seem to have ended up with Wikipedia giving disproportionate/undue and often credulous coverage to this religion. The argument that &quot;COI doesn't matter if the edits are good&quot; would justify lifting restrictions on [[WP:PAID]] editing (and is often delpoyed by paid editors). [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 05:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::If it truly is a prescriptive ban, intended to enforce adherence to COI guidelines, then the TBAN should be narrowly applied to where she has actual COI, as defined by those COI guidelines. In this case, the COI is BYU and AML. I am not convinced that it extends to the LDS Church or LDS topics generally. She is a BYU employee, not an LDS Church employee. BYU employees can and do say things that contradicts the church, and the same is true for Rachel - some examples that immediately come to mind are her edits that do make look the church look good (see her list above) and even her use of &quot;LDS Church&quot;, which indicate the arguments that her terms of employment affect LDS-related topics generally are easily disproven. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 12:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::That's like saying an [[Altria]] employee only has a narrow COI to the company, and is free to write about the [[Health effects of tobacco]]! If you're paid to write a load of stuff about Mormons, the COI problem resides in doing just that. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 13:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::{{tq|She is a BYU employee, not an LDS Church employee. BYU employees can and do say things that contradicts the church}}{{pb}}This is completely false, as BYU is ''owned'' by the LDS Church and its honor code (literally the Church Education System Honor Code, sponsored by the LDS Church) expressly prohibits actions that go against church doctrine:{{tq2|As faculty, administration, staff, and students voluntarily commit to conduct their lives in accordance with the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ, they strive to maintain the highest standards in their personal conduct regarding honor, integrity, morality, and consideration of others. By accepting appointment, continuing in employment, being admitted, or continuing enrollment, each member of the campus communities personally commits to observe the CES Honor Code approved by the Board of Trustees: &lt;br&gt;Maintain an Ecclesiastical Endorsement, including striving to deepen faith and maintain gospel standards}}{{pb}}Multiple ''BYU professors'' have been fired for supporting--off-campus and strictly in a personal, sometimes even private, capacity--things the LDS church considers against-doctrine[https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4969940&amp;itype=NGPSID][https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2006/10/27/fired-byu-professors-speak-out/][https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2006/10/27/fired-byu-professors-speak-out/][https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/19/mormon-university-instructor-fired-after-facebook-post-supporting-lgbt-rights-she-says/][https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2022/02/16/byu-professor-says-she-was-let-go-lgbtq-advocacy], so there is absolutely reason to believe they would fire a mere student employee for expressing such opinions. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 13:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::It is an extrapolation beyond the stated honor code that you quoted to say &quot;principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ&quot; equals &quot;church doctrine&quot;. If that were true then all members of the faculty and employees would have to be members of the LDS Church (they aren't), not teach evolution (they do), not teach the big bang (they do), not teach a completely non-theistic abiogenesis and creation of the earth (they do), not teach that human civilization extends way past 4000BC with no mention of Nephites, Lamanites, or Noah's ark (they do), or not use &quot;LDS Church&quot; (they do). Again, it's demonstrably false the claimed level of control over BYU employees in general and specifically in this case. --[[User:FyzixFighter|FyzixFighter]] ([[User talk:FyzixFighter|talk]]) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Please read the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#A personal analysis and proposal|original thread]], this is discussed in great detail. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 13:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::You are conflating the acceptability of BYU profs lecturing on ''what is the mainstream, secular perspective on those topics, outside the context of the church'', and BYU profs opining on what is &quot;true&quot; about those topics ''in relation to church doctrine''. The former is endorsed by BYU, the latter can lead to threat of excommunication.[https://www.chronicle.com/article/mormon-scholar-facing-excommunication-for-research-gets-a-reprieve/] ({{tq|A professor at a Washington State community college who expected to be excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over an article he wrote regarding the Book of Mormon has had his disciplinary hearing postponed indefinitely. &lt;br&gt;Thomas W. Murphy, chairman of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, came under scrutiny for an article he wrote for American Apocrypha, an anthology published in 2002 by Signature Books. In the article, he reviews genetic data to refute the Mormon assertion that American Indians are descended from ancient Israelites. ...}}) [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-feb-16-me-mormon16-story.html][https://www.smh.com.au/world/mormons-excommunicate-australian-author-20050805-gdltir.html] ({{tq|An Australian author who wrote that DNA evidence fails to support the ancestral claims outlined in the Book of Mormon has been excommunicated by The Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints.}}) This is also blatantly obvious from the examples I gave above of BYU lecturers' personal opinions on homosexuality and feminism directly leading to their termination of employment. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::All BYU employees are directly employed by the LDS Church, there is no separation between the two. I'm surprised that someone who primarily edits in the LDS topic area wouldn't know that. Its also a bit odd that you're holding up evolution, age of the earth, Big Bang etc up as ways in which BYU contradicts church teachings when the LDS Church doesn't take a position on evolution and doesn't take a position on the age of the earth or how it/the universe was created beyond a rather wishy washy one. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 14:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *::::Note: a query to {{noping|FyzixFighter}} about any potential COI elicited this strange response.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FyzixFighter&amp;curid=2607466&amp;diff=1213843417&amp;oldid=1213808563] [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 13:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Thats not terribly surprising, at this point it looks like all of the editors besides FyzixFighter who were harassing anyone who question Rachel Helps (BYU) have disclosed COIs. Its a shame they have chosen to retire rather than face the music but thats their choice. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' If you aren't allowed to be neutral on this topic per terms of employment, you shouldn't be able to edit. Wikipedia has a lot of stuff not related to this to edit. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood|talk]]) 04:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose broad topic ban''' Oh no, don't ban my second-favorite wiki-gnome! Seriously, though, it saddens me to see someone who is so clearly a net-positive getting hauled off to AN/I like this. Though I don't recall collaborating directly with Rachel Helps, we've crossed paths many times over the past several years, and I've always been impressed by her approach to editing and interacting with others here. I've found her to be polite, intelligent, and honest, if perhaps a bit naive. I remember being confused the first time she crossed my watchlist...my knee-jerk reaction was &quot;why is an official BYU employee/representative editing articles about Mormonism&quot;? Then I looked at the substance of her edits...adding sources here, reverting vandalism there, removing copyvios, expanding articles about Mormon women, and refusing to take a stance on controversial issues where she thought she might be influenced by bias. Whenever there was a consensus on something, she would follow that consensus. If she wasn't sure about something, she would ask. I think I remember seeing her report herself to a noticeboard somewhere when another editor continued challenging her on something where she thought she was right but wanted to make sure the broader community thought so too. Look at her response to this. She's not digging in—she's trying to understand and comply with the community's expectations. If you look at her recent edits to [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)#Conflict of Interest statements]] you'll see that she's gone waaay overboard on trying to declare every possible conflict of interest. She's openly admitting fault where she was wrong, and is clearly committed to doing better. I hope the people !voting here and the closing admin will take that into consideration. Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 04:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't get the impression she is trying to understand me or anyone else who is concerned about the sum total of the mess that is Book of Mormon articles. There is absolutely no engagement with the issues at hand and when I tried to explain [[WP:FRINGE]] sourcing, the answer came back &quot;yes, we disagree.&quot; That's fine, but one of us is being paid to be here and has a ready paid group of students who look to her for editorial guidance, right? You haven't been in conflict with her. If you end up in conflict, do you think the wider context would be a problem? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 11:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I don't know that I'd call it &quot;conflict&quot; but I can recall instances where I've disagreed with edits I saw her making. In each case, she immediately stopped what she was doing and listened to my objections. If she wasn't convinced by my argument, she sought a wider consensus. I've never seen her edit against a consensus. <br /> *::A few years ago there was a big influx of newbie editors trying to scrub the words &quot;Mormon&quot; and &quot;Mormonism&quot; from the encyclopedia because of recent remarks from the correct LDS president/prophet saying that use of the term was offensive to God and a victory for Satan. (The LDS church has had a long on-again-off-again relationship with the word.) I personally thought it was best to continue using the word on Wikipedia, both to be true to how reliable sources talk about Mormonism, and to be accessible to readers who are only familiar with the common name. But I suddenly found myself in the minority in opposing the changes. I suspect that personally Rachel Helps wanted to follow the command of the LDS president and that her colleagues and possibly employers at BYU were hoping that she could make Wikipedia comply with the church's new style guide. But she didn't. She participated in some discussions about the disagreement, but she didn't push hard for any particular outcome, and she (afaict) has continued to this day to respect and enforce Wikipedia's own style guide that still explicitly allows calling people Mormons, probably to the chagrin of church leadership. <br /> *::Anyway, my point is that as far as disagreements go, Rachel Helps is one of the more pleasant people I've ever disagreed with. I wish more Wikipedians were like her in that respect. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 15:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I don't think pleasantness is an issue. There is a common misconception on Wikipedia that COIs are inherently somehow &quot;bad&quot;, but in reality the more you do in life the more COIs you accrue. It's only people who sit in their basement all day who don't have any COIs. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You didn't really answer my question. Here's where I am as of two days ago. This user has stated ''point blank'' that she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources. In the last two days, after going through hundreds of edits at dozens of articles I notice that this is the ''primary'' kind of sourcing that her students are inserting into articlespace and they are still active. I get the distinct impression that she will not be directing her students to re-evaluate their sourcing guidelines or engage with me in discussion about this topic. Now, if I had a bunch of students I could employ to check up on all this, maybe that would be an equal footing dispute. But I don't think the idea here is to start a paid editing arms race, is it? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Sorry, I definitely wasn't trying to dodge a question. I guess my point is that I think Rachel Helps is the kind of person who would voluntarily direct her students to follow whatever policy, guideline, or consensus you pointed her to. I think she could also be convinced by logic alone, but I can't say for sure...people like that seem to be rare these days. I wouldn't be surprised if, to comply with a consensus, she asked her students to nominate their own articles for deletion. That said, I am not really clear on what you mean by religious sources that have been noticed by other religious sources. Are you talking in general about religious academic sources citing each other, or specifically about Mormon academics citing other Mormon academics but without getting cited by non-Mormon religious scholars? (There are probably better forums than AN/I for that discussion.) &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 16:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::If you're interested, this discussion that ground to a halt is still on her user talkpage. Feel free to check it out. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::So this whole long thing arose out of a dispute over whether religious sources could be reliable? She wouldn't agree that reliable religious sources needed to be validated by reliable secular sources, or that verifiable information should be omitted entirely when nobody could find a reliable secular source on the subject, so you started a COI discussion at VPM and now we have a topic ban proposal?<br /> *::::::Why didn't you start an RFC over whether information only available in religious sources should be excluded wholesale from all of Wikipedia, instead of trying to get rid of one editor who disagreed with you? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::That is ''not'' what this arose out of. ''That'' dispute arose because I asked if she would consider hitting pause on her program and she came back with a set of sourcing guidelines that I found problematic. I asked her to hit pause on the program because I saw widespread issues that I am still working my way through and then noticed that all these students were being organized by one coordinator with what essentially amounted to the blessings of the GLAM/WIR system. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I want to offer an addendum that since I wrote this comment, Rachel Helps has begun engaging with me on her talkpage. I find this encouraging. I still think on the balance having her and her students move away from LDS topics is a good idea, but there is discussion happening and as long as that is happening there is hope. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Reply|Awilley}} did you see Levivich's request &quot;If you have or had any connection with AML or BYU, please disclose it.&quot;? We know you're involved and not a neutral admin, but do you have any conflicts of interest you should be disclosing? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 14:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::That's kind of a weird litmus test for participating in an AN/I thread. I'd like to think that people should be judged based on the strength of their arguments rather than assumptions about their motivation. But if you insist, I attended BYU from about 2006-2012. I would have no idea what AML was if I hadn't just read the thread on village pump. To my knowledge I don't know and have never met any of the people in this or the other thread IRL, though it's possible we crossed paths without my realizing it. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::: Its not weird if its an AN/I thread about undisclosed BYU related editing... Ok, I'm planning to open a new subsection about canvassing in a minute. Specifically regarding you and BoyNamedTzu. Is there anything you can tell me which would suggest that I should only open a discussion about BoyNamedTzu? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Eh, what? I don't know who BoyNamedTzu is. I logged in yesterday after getting a ping to the VP thread because I had participated in an older thread about you and Rachel Helps. Then I got another ping here because I had participated in the thread yesterday. I don't know what you're looking for, but since I've got your attention, I'd appreciate it if you could clue me in on what the invisible game of baseball is you mentioned on the VP thread. Because your response here seems a bit disproportionate. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 17:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Yes, it is your sudden and inexplicable participation in that older thread about Rachel Helps and I which forms the basis for the canvassing concerns. I believe I said it was a game of inside baseball with an invisible ball... Unfortunately I can't provide any of that information due to WP:OUTING concerns, but it has been provided to ARBCON. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose broad topic ban'''. If we banned people who had any formal association with a Christian church or worship group from editing articles about Christianity, and the same for all religions and sects, we would have nobody left to edit the articles about those important topics, except maybe culture warriors from opposing beliefs, and who wants that? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 07:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I think you have misunderstood Rachel Helps relationship; it goes beyond a &quot;formal association&quot; - she is an employee, and one who is paid to edit. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Do you think it's ok for a BYU employee, who is paid and pays others to edit Wikipedia, to publish a puffy {{diff2|1073250079|article}} about a Mormon organization she was actively writing pieces for; whose citations toward notability are an interview with one sentence of secondary independent coverage of the org, a piece on an exhibition organized by/featuring org members that also has only one sentence of secondary coverage of the org, and an award from another Mormon company for which this employee served as an awards judge the same year? Is it ok for this employee to initially deny COI with the claim she's merely &quot;interested in the page&quot;? And then, even after concerns about COI have been raised and seemingly acknowledged by her, and after the article was first draftified and then declined at AfC, to still recreate it? {{pb}}Is it ok for her to direct her employees to write articles on subjects ''because she can't write them herself due to COI&quot;? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 12:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', per above. I also believe we should be considering topic bans for the other involved BYU editors. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 08:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose such a ban'''. Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page, for example January 2023[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)&amp;oldid=1131332465] at a location allowed by [[WP:DISCLOSE]]. In brief, [[WP:COI]] says &quot;There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs) — Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations ...&quot; ([[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board]]) though there is considerable further nuance which requires careful consideration. Different people may legitimately have different understandings. The status of Wikipedians in Residence has for long been a contentious matter and the problems should not be visited on particular individuals. My own experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 12:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **What has your &quot;experience of her editing has been entirely in non-BYU contexts and has been extremely positive.&quot; to do with a proposal to ban her specifically from BYU editing where evidence shows that it is not &quot;extremely positive&quot; as in neutral, but has too often a clear pro-BYU stance, reducing the emphasis on scientific positions and increasing the emphasis on non-scientific, partisan positions? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 12:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': I just added COI tags on ''&lt;s&gt;ten&lt;/s&gt;twelve more articles'' that are connected directly to the COI campaign to promote the [[Association of Mormon Letters]]. Friends, this is really gigantic problem. It's been going on for years. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''': Not being paid by Microsoft is not an excuse for being paid by another lobby group while acting against our trustworthiness guidelines. [[User:Pldx1|Pldx1]] ([[User talk:Pldx1|talk]]) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Courtesy Break (2) ====<br /> <br /> *'''Question''' - Is this a situation that could be resolved with some careful voluntary commitments? The primary issue, it seems to me, is about COI/PAID and not otherwise about competency or a pattern of violating NPOV (I understand there are side conversations about NPOV/RS, but it doesn't seem to be the primacy concern). A topic ban from LDS would not, then, address COI matters to do with any other topic and ''would'' prevent her from working on articles with no COI (unless we say belonging to a religion means you have a COI for articles about that religion and anyone else who happens to belong).&lt;br/&gt;What about a voluntary commitment to (a) maintain a list on her userpage of articles edited with a conflict of interest, erring on the side of inclusion; (b) adding a notice to the talk page of any article edited in connection with her job (there's another parallel discussion about templates/categories which could accomplish this); (c) specifically noting if an edit is made at the request of an employer? That, combined with the knowledge that her edits will receive additional scrutiny due to this thread, seems like it would resolve this without a topic ban, no? &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 13:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Can you explain how it would be possible for a paid edit not to come with a COI? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 14:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't think I understand your question. If an edit falls under [[WP:PE]], there is a COI. The trouble in this case, I think, is in the line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and paid editors. That's a big, messy question. Ditto the relationship between Mormon subjects broadly, BYU, LDS, etc. (not whether there is one, but how we should think about COI). &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Wikimedian in Residence is a type of paid editor, there is no line between the two. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm not sure what point you're making, but for clarity I will edit my words above: {{tq|line between how we generally regard Wikimedians in Residence and ^how we treat other^ paid editors}}. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::So if every edit that falls under PE has a COI... And every edit made by a wikipedian in residence falls under PE... How can a wikipedian in residence work on an article with which they don't have a COI? Any article they work on is one they have a COI with. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::This has not generally been how the community chooses to interact with Wikimedians in Residence. We expect them to take a &quot;warts and all&quot; approach to editing, and to be cautious, but we also do not expect or AFAICT want them to spam {{tl|edit COI}} on most of their contributions. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::And the Wikimedian in Residence in question here has met neither of those expectations. They have not taken a &quot;warts and all&quot; approach to editing and have been about as far away from cautious as its possible to be. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Note that they were first cautioned about this back in 2016 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amgisseman(BYU)/Archive_1&amp;oldid=854327236#COI] and yet the issue there &quot;main concern is breach of our terms of use and COI&quot; is the same issue here because they did not heed the caution. At some points Helps must have wondered why dozens of editors she didn't know were raising issues with her edits and why the people defending her were almost all people she knew personally. She's not a stupid person, she pretty clearly knew that what she was doing wasn't kosher from at least 2016 onwards. She continued to do it anyway. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I would like to understand how this would prevent, for example, the coordinated editing from the Church of Scientology that we banned. We don't enforce disciplinary measures against people on the basis of their religious adherence. But here we have a group is being paid by an institution which is directly involved in the promulgation of said religion. When that happened with the Church of Scientology, we ''blocked the associated IP addresses'' on the argument that there basically was no way they could contribute to the encyclopedia ''at all''. And to be sure, a lot of those accounts did good work other than being part of that coordinated effort. How is this different ''at all''? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The Scientology case began with extensive NPOV violations achieved through sock/meatpuppetry/coordination. We didn't ban them because they were scientologists writing about scientology; we banned them because they were scientologists writing about scientology ''contrary to our policies''. Such evidence hasn't been presented here as far as I've seen. Some level of coordination, yes, which should be disclosed, but not to game the system. That's a fundamental difference that makes the scientology comparison misleading. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Did you read the VPM thread? I document a few of the diffs there and it's basically a litany of the same. Here we have a group of editors who are adding prose that basically takes the Book of Mormon ''on its own terms'' as a text. When called out on it, the ringleader declared that she fundamentally disagrees with people who object to that behavior. It's exactly the same kind of thing the scientologists were doing. And, I mean, I was there for that one and saw it happening. Do me a favor and look at ''any'' of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group. Or look at all the pages I just tagged with COI and see how many of them were connected to Rachel. This is a complete clusterfuck. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Scanned it, but apparently I have more to look at. Will check it out before !voting here. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 16:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I could use a pointer to the evidence you're referring to. I see diffs about COI, but not diffs of edits made my Rachel which violate our policies. The content-related diffs I do see (e.g. in your 17:06, 12 March 2024 comment) were made by others, who aren't the subject of this section. {{tq|Do me a favor and look at ''any'' of the articles about individual passages, people events, settings, etc. in the Book of Mormon. Check the sourcing. See whether it was added by this group.}} Is this an argument about over-coverage (in which case I'd rather see evidence of lots of deleted pages created by Rachel rather than focused efforts to cover a subject -- I'd argue we have overcoverage of a lot of religious subjects, including Mormonism, and a whole lot of editors focus on specific subjects), or is it an argument about use of inappropriate sources? Regardless, this isn't a topic ban for a group, it's a topic ban for one person so we'd need evidence that Rachel is editing in a non-neutral or otherwise problematic way (not just COI, which seems like something that can be resolved with transparency/assurances). It seems to me there's a bigger conversation that needs to happen regarding use of sources published in connection to a religion and/or by members of that religion. I don't think I peruse religious articles as much as you or many others, but it seems to me like most of them rely on such &quot;in-universe&quot; sources. I don't think that's ideal, but I'm wary of singling one out. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 15:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Hmm... are you saying that you don't think that she should be accountable for the edits that she paid her students to make? I can give you some examples of edits that she made if that's more to your liking, but I'm somewhat surprised that you are so dismissive of student edits which she has later defended on talkpages (but it's possible you aren't looking at larger context due to time). [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::How does a tban for RH prevent her students from doing anything at all? How would it prevent anything that happens off-wiki? As with any student program, if a student is persistently making bad edits, sanction them like you would any other user. If an instructor displays a pattern of disregard for our policies such that their students are a consistent net negative, that's a different kind of sanction (and I don't think there's enough evidence for that here, either, though that doesn't mean there haven't been problems). What I would expect for a tban on an individual is a pattern of harmful edits made to that topic area. That case hasn't been made sufficiently. The case that has been made, insofar as I've seen, is that there have been some clear COI problems and a difference of opinion when it comes to sourcing religious topics. On the latter, I think you and I are probably on the same page, but I don't see it as an entirely resolved policy issue. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Wouldn't a TBAN mean paying her students for making any particular edits in that area would be sanctionable for both her and the students? So any edit made in LDS topics by the (BYU) student accounts would be a TBAN violation, but they would be free to edit in that area on their personal accounts. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 19:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::The students would be stopped by [[WP:MEAT]] because they receive assignments from RH. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::The relationships are a little confusing to me. We're talking, I think, about effectively interns/research assistant/student ''workers'' on one hand and students being students on the other hand. If RH were to be tbanned, that would make any students hired/directed to make specific edits by RH fall somewhere between MEAT and PROXYING, yes, which is a bad place to be. I don't think a general instruction to &quot;edit Wikipedia&quot; would be prevented, though. Nor would students hired by someone else and merely supported by RH. And a tban wouldn't prevent RH from what I suspect is the more common scenario: helping students, faculty, staff, and others to edit according to their ''own'' interests (i.e. not directed but supported). And that's IMO a good thing, not just because that attempts to reach too far off-wiki with on-wiki sanctions, but also because while the COI stuff should definitely be avoided, RH is better equipped than a typical student (or even faculty) editor to provide best practices/instruction, etc. I'd say that's probably more rather than less true after this thread. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 14:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::The way RH has set up the projects is that she guides the students ''very carefully'' in what they do. This is actually one positive thing she does that does not happen with other similar programs I have seen, so good on her for that. The upshot is that I would not want this kind of guidance on her part to end if this paid editing program continues, so her students would ''effectively be TBanned'' as well. If we started to see lots of edits the way they have been editing, that would, in my mind, constitute a topic ban violation. I cannot speak for RH, but I suspect that she would have them move away from Mormonism topics if she were TBanned which would be ''the best possible outcome'', as far as I'm concerned.<br /> ::::::::::And, no, I am not convinced that things are going to get better just because of this discussion. There seems to have been an enculturation over the last few years which has provoked a kind of perfect storm of bad editing practices that I have been digging into over the last few days and it is not going to be easy to figure out what to do about all this. There seems to be an over-focus on treating the Book of Mormon as literature which is the main thrust behind RH's favored approach and that of others conflicted with the [[Association of Mormon Letters]]. Right now, we have lots of articles on weird little topics within the book of Mormon which treat the thing as though it were literature like Tolkien or Dickens I guess as a way to sidestep questions related to the religious beliefs that surround these things. The students she has coached seem to have adopted this approach in part while also maintaining delightfully matter-of-fact retellings of the mythology as though it were fact. It's a mess.<br /> ::::::::::But the students aren't really to blame here. They're being led by a much-lauded (by enablers you can see in this very thread) Wiki[p|m]edian in Residence who has been scrupulously trying to follow the rules and no one bothered to tell her that maybe editing about a religion as controversial as Mormonism ('''to which she belongs and is employed by the religious authorities of that religion through their in-house institution of higher education with strict rules on what she can and cannot do vis-a-vis that religion''') maybe is not going to sit well with some in the Wikipedia community that takes things like [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:FRINGE]] seriously.<br /> ::::::::::So here we are. Your idea to get her to clean things up means unlearning years of training that she invented without input from the community. I look forward to seeing what kind of program you might be able to invent that could address that. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Voluntary commitments, really? No I wouldn't support that because a number of the editors involved have previously lied about not having COIs when asked. Also because this is years of undisclosed COI editing happening here. So, no, it'd be crazy of us to trust any voluntary commitments from people who have actively deceived us for such a long time and up until so recently. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]], and similar action against other COI editors should be considered, per [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]. This is an area where WP should take a hardline stance. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 14:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per [[User:Vghfr]], [[User:Fram]] and others. But I think we have a wider issue with LSD-related articles here that a few topic bans will not solve it. I agree with [[User:JoelleJay]]'s comment in the other discussion about the lack of NPOV in &quot;topics that are only discussed in publications by LDS members and thus exclusively reflect LDS-endorsed teaching on the topic&quot;. We have a massive walled garden of hundreds if not thousands of these obscure, otherwise NN topics sourced only to LSD-related publications which could pass the surface of GNG and easily [[WP:GAME|game]] the notability rules. --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Our articles on Catholicism mostly reflect Catholic sources. Our articles on Judaism mostly reflect Jewish sources. That is natural and only to be expected. Why is it suddenly a problem when the same thing occurs in our articles on LDS? The people one would expect to be interested in and write about LDS are...LDS people. That is the nature of the sources. It is not a conflict of interest to use the mainstream sources that are available. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::While [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]], that has ''not'' been my experience as I edited those topics. In fact, many of our Catholic articles have sources which are explicitly critical of the Catholic Church nearly to the point of vitriol. By contrast, Judaism is so irreverent and delightfully self-critical that I am at a loss for why you think the comparison to those pages is at all apt. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Yes – if and when those other sources exist, are reliable, are relevant, etc. <br /> *:::But from your comment above that {{xt|she disagrees with my suggestion that explicitly religious/apologetics sources should not be used as source material for Wikipedia if the only sources that have noticed them are likewise religious sources}}, it sounds like the complaint you have here is that some content is being added from LDS-related sources when no non-religious source has ever disagreed with the LDS-related source. <br /> *:::I have not seen any disputes in which someone adds information about a Catholic or Jewish religious idea, from a reliable source written by a religious organization, and someone else demands that the reliable source be removed on the grounds that non-religious sources haven't published anything on that subject. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Then you haven't been looking at disputes over the [[Shroud of Turin]]. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Why would we even need specific examples from Catholic or Jewish editors when we had a whole arbcom case surrounding exactly this behavior from Scientology adherents? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Because a new religious group with something on the order of 10 thousand members is not the same as a 200-year religion with 17 million members. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::LDS is a [[new religious movement]] the same as Scientology. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::What does the number of years a religion has been around or number of members of a religion have to do with anything? The only thing I can think of is that there are probably more sources if there is more time and people involved, which is true. But on the substance these things are the same. I mean, Mormonism and Scientology are actually ''very'' comparable. There are a great many excellent sources which show that. In fact, that was at one time one of the articles on my list of articles to write. The funny thing is that neither the Mormons nor the Scientologists like the comparison. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that ''actually might have happened'' and so are of interest to secular historians, enough primary interpretations of scripture to engage dozens of generations of academics, and far broader and more significant impact on human culture in general, permitting even more opportunities for interdisciplinary scholarship. We should not be treating every religious movement as if they're each equally likely to have the depth and independence of sourcing needed to support pages on minor aspects of their faith. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Well, some new religions too. For example, the foundational sacred texts of the [[Nation of Islam]] has some fascinating description of what life was like in the African American community of Detroit in the 1930s. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Re &quot;Older religions also have a much greater likelihood that their scriptures reference things that actually might have happened&quot;: this reads as straight-up prejudice to me (and I have zero connection with LDS). You might just as well say have a much greater likelihood that those older religions' texts contain fabulations, misreadings, and other material we wouldn't want to take as literally true, simply because they've had so much longer to accumulate that sort of material. But we are not basing our content on the content of the Book of Mormon; we are basing it on the accounts of their historians. I would tend to imagine that, while biased, those accounts are maybe more likely to be accurate, because they are from a more recent time with better records, while the writings of the early Christian church historians have the same tendency to their own bias. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 00:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::Yes, the older religions generally do have much more fabulist text, as well as a lot more material that has taken on mythical aspects or been reported by apologists (e.g. miracles) over hundreds or thousands of years. But that's irrelevant to what I am saying, which is that it's far more likely texts recounting religious narratives that we can accurately date to c. 300 AD will also have some bits of real history and info on life at the time that can't be found anywhere else, and would thus be of intense interest to modern scholars in many fields, than scripture written more recently (as contemporaneous writings become more numerous, the preciousness of any single one as a major primary source across multiple disciplines outside religion decreases) or scripture that wholly fabricates ancient history and is virtually useless to anyone actually studying its purported time period. {{pb}}There are extensive secondary analyses of secondary analyses etc. of scholarship on Jewish or Catholic scriptural and metaphysical questions, and new external sources or theories on the cultural/geopolitical/philosophical climate of a time continue to be discovered and incorporated into what we know about a spiritual topic ''beyond'' exegesis of scripture. We don't need to rely on unreliable primary or old secondary sources to do this because we generally have plenty of modern secondary sources, often in multiple nonsecular fields, to use in writing a comprehensive and neutral article on a subject. We ''don't'' have this for LDS topics because the furthest back historians can go from BoM et al scripture is 200 years ago. But LDS historians are still analyzing their scriptures in the sincere belief that they recount actual events from thousands of years ago, making the same kinds of extrapolations and interpolations from their holy books to reconstruct that past that any other historian would do with genuine ancient text, except ''none of it corresponds to real history''. No questions in anthropology or archaeology or history are being answered in any way that is meaningful outside of LDS faith, and so no secular researchers in those disciplines have any reason to publish academic commentary on the LDS scholars' theories. The result is that we have hundreds of pages on minor characters and events from BoM where the only sources are from adherents collaboratively building what amounts to a fictional literary universe &lt;small&gt;(or, perhaps as a more fitting analogy, a new, Hardy-hard branch of pure math)&lt;/small&gt;, except it's dressed up in the same historiographic structure as we'd have on a topic with thousands of years of history. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 02:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::It's my view, not necessarely agreeable, but if an LSD topic has no sources outside LSD sources it is likely unnotable, and writing a balanced article about it is impossible. Also, I am not necessarely referring to strictly religious topics, eg., we have obscure, semi-amateur and poorly released films only sourced from ''[[Journal of Religion and Film]]'', byu.edu and similar, same with books and other products. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 19:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I think this is a sensible rule. However, I worry about defining &quot;LDS source&quot; too broadly. ''Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction'' is written by a Mormon, but it's published by Oxford University Press and targeted at a non-LDS audience. Oxford also publishes an annotated Book of Mormon. I think we need to narrowly define what falls into this category, and have that conversation in a less heated atmosphere than ANI. [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I agree with Cavarrone about notability, but I think the solution there is not to announce that only a secular source could possibly be acceptable for explaining the symbolism of the story, and that if no secular source ever wrote about the symbolism, then symbolism can't be mentioned in Wikipedia, but to take the article to AFD.<br /> *::::When we're talking about a notable subject, though, I think our usual rules work perfectly well for this subject. We don't require independent sources for everything that gets mentioned in an article, and that's true whether you're writing about how many employees Microsoft has, or what the symbolism of the story is, or why the artist chose to put a colorful blanket behind the cow's skull. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Let me give a concrete example to help focus the conversation. On multiple articles I found years given for events described in the Book of Mormon. Some of those years were laughably specific. Some of those years are repeated by many, many Mormon sources. Now, I would love for there to be an article in Wikipedia about [[Ascribing dates to the stories in the Book of Mormon]] or something like that to explain exactly the weird calculus that Mormon apologists go through in arriving at these dates and why certain dates are more popular with certain Mormons than others, but the fact of the matter is that this has been so little noticed by independent sources that in many cases it ''has not even occurred to the authors of our own articles'' that putting in years might be a problem. The easiest solution I think is to excise them, but sure, it's not the only possible solution. But the solution cannot be, &quot;let's just put those dates in the articles and call it a day.&quot; which was, as far as I can tell, the standard operating procedure. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::No, but the solution ''could'' be &quot;Let's put the dates in with [[WP:INTEXT]] attribution&quot;.<br /> *::::::The main point of this sub-thread, though, is to talk about whether we're treating all religions equally. Have you seen a similar thing in, say, Catholic articles, in which someone adds some papal pronouncement, and other editors say, &quot;Oh, no, you can't add that unless you have a secular source, too&quot;? I haven't. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::Absolutely! As I pointed out above, when there are clear fabrications (as in, for example, the case of [[Marian apparitions]]), we do the same thing. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::By the way, these students got the memo about [[WP:INTEXT]]. The problem is that that often goes like this, &quot;According to [PERSON'S NAME THAT IS UNMENTIONED EXCEPT FOR RIGHT HERE], this story is all about...&quot; Or, worse, &quot;According to historian [HISTORIAN]...&quot; and you research the historian and come to find that they are a professor of history at BYU who wrote the book, &quot;How I KNOW the Book of Mormon is true&quot; or whatever. So, no, [[WP:INTEXT]] isn't cure-all. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Neutral'''Yes, things are not okay. But I have serious trouble with the fact that a topic ban can cost her her job. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px&quot;&gt;[[User:The Banner|&lt;span style=&quot;color:green&quot;&gt;The&amp;nbsp;Banner&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:The Banner|&lt;i style=&quot;color:maroon&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/i&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:If this ban will cause loss of employment as a Wikipedian in Residence, wouldn't this be seen as a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] as this is threatening the editor's livelihood? Furthermore, wouldn't the effort to have editors who have any affiliation with [[Brigham Young University]] in relation to [[Mormanism]] cause a [[chilling effect]] and diminish the improvement of articles around that topic? [[User:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B22234&quot;&gt;'''Right'''Cow&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background-color: #C2B280; color:#3C3B6E&quot;&gt;'''LeftCoast'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;Moo&lt;/span&gt;]]) 23:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Surely you could ask these questions about any analogous remedy addressing a WiR or systematic COI. Surely these positions aren't immune from scrutiny; we're concerned about people being paid by BYU to edit Wikipedia, not every individual affiliated with them in any way. If you're making some other point, I am not able to tell what it is. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 23:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Strong oppose'''. Rachel Helps has been a consistent positive contributor to an essential area of religious discourse. She is professionally talented, responsive to community, an active participant on multiple open networks of movement organizers, and an ambitious trainer and supervisor for others. There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed and aims to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion. There are plenty of COI battles to fight; this isn't one of them. [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]&lt;sup&gt; [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]&amp;#124;[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:To clarify, are you opposing the topic ban for Thmazing (not Rachel Helps)? [[User:Ghosts of Europa|Ghosts of Europa]] ([[User talk:Ghosts of Europa|talk]]) 20:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I've moved it to the correct section. Apologies and thanks for the tip! [[User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]]&lt;sup&gt; [[User talk:Ocaasi|t ]]&amp;#124;[[Special:Contributions/Ocaasi| c]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **{{u|Ocaasi}}, you appear to have a) !voted in the wrong section and b) failed to read anything more than the section heading, as then you would know that the issue is that their work has not been &quot;disclosed&quot; or &quot;rigorous&quot; on subjects they were professionally connected to. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 20:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't think &quot;aiming to improve the encyclopedia in a rigorous fashion&quot; is necessarily good enough. Otherwise [[WP:CIR]] bans/blocks wouldn't be a thing. Now, maybe you oppose those bans/blocks too, but I am ''deep'' in the weeds right now of seeing how Rachel Helps's students were treating material relevant to their religion and... hooboy... even if their hearts were in the right place they are doing us no favors in articlespace. I am very, very happy she has finally told her students to work in sandboxes which, if that had been happening all along I probably wouldn't be involved in this, but the conversation I'm having with her right now is one the &quot;Open Networks of Movement Organizers&quot; should have had with her ''years'' ago about her programming. Y'all did her dirty and I'm actually angrier at her enablers than I am at her. She honestly did not know this was coming and by running defense this whole time after multiple people have sounded alarms (just look through her usertalkpage archive), you did not give her the support she would have needed to actually make something like this work (or choose to not do it at all in case, as I suspect, it would be impossible to make this stuff work). [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Point of order: she knew this was coming for the last four years at least[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Brigham_Young_University]. Thats what makes the refusal to improve and meet the standards/practices outlined by the community so bad. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Thanks for bringing that up. You neglrct to mention that there was no administrative acton resulting from that discussion, and no community admonishment or sancation. Indeed, even the person raising the issue noted {{Tq|1=&quot;They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable.&quot;}} and, later, {{Tq|1=&quot;I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions.&quot;}} &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *::::Well yeah, that discussion got mobbed by people we now know had major undisclosed COIs. You're selectively cherrypicking in a way that seems misleading at best, especially considering the things you say in that discussion. We have the same thing happening there as here, Rachel Helps is informed about best practices and rejects them saying for example &quot;In my opinion, best practices should be defined by the people doing the job.&quot; [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{tq|They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable.}} I don't really have time to go back into the history of four years ago to check if that was true then, but it is ''absolutely not the case right now''. I have been going through dozens of Book of Mormon articles that were being edited by this crew and with ''very few exceptions'' they are not NPOV nor well-sourced -- many are either [[WP:PROFRINGE]] or written in something like [[WP:INUNIVERSE]] with bizarre assumptions, turns of phrase, etc. I am finding all kinds of sources being used that have 0 citations according to Google Scholar! [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmmonihah&amp;diff=1213862128&amp;oldid=1213852106 Rachel Helps (BYU) is defending this practice of keeping such shoddy sources in these articles] much to my disappointment. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Ping|Ocaasi}} Are you also an active participant in those open networks of movement organizers? Any conflicts you should be disclosing? Pardon the question but we seem to be having an issue with undisclosed COIs on a number of levels in this discussion. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Strong support''' per Rachel Helps: &quot;{{brown|I will concede that I had undisclosed COI for editing on my personal account. I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI.}}&quot; I am unable to trust this user in this topic area any longer. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 01:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **I believe the above admission I highlighted contrasts with several opposers' rationale, and I quote from each of them: (1) {{tq|How anyone can ... say her CoI is &quot;undisclosed&quot;}} (2) {{tq|Banning someone for a procedural error}}, (3) {{tq|Rachel has for for a long time shown a COI declaration on her user page}}, (4) {{tq|There's is nothing that says WIRs can't work in areas where there is controversy, or even have a point of view, as long as their work is disclosed}}. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***Please don't quote me (and others) out of context; even if you do neglect to give attrbution when doing so. What I wrote and what I was replying to when I did so is avaialble for anyone to see, at the top of this thread. What you quote Rachel saying does not negate my comment. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ****{{re|Pigsonthewing}} - you defended Rachel indicating that she disclosed COI on the (BYU) account. But, she admitted undisclosed COI on the other, personal account. The same person is behind both accounts, so I am afraid she didn’t handle COI properly. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 00:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Hesitant oppose''', because I'm a little worried we're conflating some related but separate issues here. It is quite clear that Rachel Helps did a poor job of disclosing her COIs, and lost perspective when editing some topics on which she had a COI. It is clear that many BYU-affiliated editors have been writing poor content. And it is clear that many pages related to Mormonism have too much material from uncritical sources (but this isn't limited to Mormonism by any means). But I don't see this topic-ban addressing any of those issues, and indeed I think it might worsen them, because Rachel is better placed than many editors to help fix these issues. I do think her ''students'' need to be moved away from LDS-related topics: whether because they're being paid, or the rules of BYU, or their upbringing, or some combination thereof, there seems to be a recurring pattern of poor content that others need to fix. But at this moment I don't see how this TBAN would achieve much besides being a punishment. It wouldn't even fix the COI issue, because as best as I can tell religion is sort of incidental to those COI issues; it's just Rachel editing about things she's involved with in RL, which is a problem to be sure, but isn't limited to Mormonism. It seems to me Rachel is taking the concerns expressed here seriously, and we'd do better to focus on the problematic content other editors, including her students, may have introduced. For the record, I consider myself quite firmly in favor of avoiding apologetic sources and in-universe sources for religious subjects, and have argued for this position in numerous cases involving most major religions. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 03:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Okay, this is a convincing (to me) oppose. Only reason I stay supporting the ban is that I see a topic ban from LDS would probably encourage a lot of the best-case scenario stuff to happen anyway and it might get accomplished and probably more quickly. Yes, she is well-placed to fix issues and I'm sure she wants to fix them, but maybe it would be better if she and her students focused on other things that could be done at that library. The flora and fauna of the Great Basin, for example. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 05:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future (minor, because major ones receive editorial scrutiny and attention from critical sources; it's the ones that don't that seem to be the focus of the problem). [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::In that case, why not topic ban just to make it clear? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Because there's a big difference between &quot;shouldn't add substantive content to these pages going forward&quot; and &quot;isn't permitted to discuss these topics in any way shape or form&quot;. I stand by what I said above that Rachel herself is best placed to help us clean up some of this mess. Not to mention that TBANNing her when she still has active students would be quite silly; those would then be completely unsupervised. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Why would that be silly? We're all completely unsupervised and these are adult in college, not children in middle or high school. They should be entirely capable of editing wikipedia on their own, we all do. Also note that while these are student employees they are not her students in the sense that they are enrolled in a class where she is their instructor. She is an employer/manager not a teacher or professor to these editors. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::So you're describing a TBAN from articlespace? I agree that this is where most of the damage is happening--discussion spaces are much less problematic. As for your &quot;unsupervised active student&quot; argument, I don't understand it even a little bit. You already said &quot;I fully agree that her students - and possibly Rachel herself - should stay away from Mormon doctrine, and from minor LDS-affiliated organizations in the future.&quot; RH would still be able to supervise them to edit articles on the flora and fauna of the Great Basin. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Very simply, those students are a net-positive largely because of Rachel's supervision, and as such I oppose any TBAN on those grounds until we simultaneously apply it to all students she is responsible for. She may technically be able to supervise them on non-LDS topics, but that's quite unworkable in practice. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' Even though the COI is greater than Mormonism this would at least serve as a warning that Helps' COI editing is causing concern. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 12:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **&quot;serve as a warning &quot; You think this thread doesn't do that? &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:Some warnings may need to be more forcefully made than others. I sympathize with the idea that Rachel Helps (BYU) probably thought everything was fine and that the complaints that had been leveled against her over the years were nothingburgers. Unfortunately, those complaints were serving as warnings that obviously went unheeded. And, to be frank, I think people like you are to blame for enabling her and not being honest with her that this was coming. Now, maybe you didn't know this was coming, but ''someone'' in your group of WMF/GLAM/WIR in-person conference/wiknic attendees should have noticed and taken her aside and given her the advice that right now is coming down like a pile of bricks. But it didn't happen. Years went by and here we are. That's right, I am much angrier at ''you'' (and the position you are representing right now) than I am at her. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' per Vanamonde93. While there are some issues, they don't amount to the kind of egregious problem that would warrant such dracionian action; and there is no previous sanction, let alone one wilfuly disregarded. I might suport some lesser remedy, such as mentiorship. or a probationary period after which we can reviist the matter if issues persist. But I believe Rachel's work has been shown to be - and wil contnue to be - a net benefit to this project. &lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn&quot;&gt;[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]&lt;/span&gt; (&lt;span class=&quot;nickname&quot;&gt;Pigsonthewing&lt;/span&gt;); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]&lt;/span&gt; 14:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Reply|Pigsonthewing}} I see this isn't your first rodeo[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Brigham_Young_University]. Can I ask how opinion has changed since the first time you commented on this issue four years ago? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Maybe we should start asking the harder question whether involvement in WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest. Because I see wagon circling. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::There's no question it does, the only question is whether its enough of a COI to be an issue (signs point to yes BTW given the wagon circling). [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::{{tq|WMF-sponsored programs like GLAM/Edit-a-thons/Wikipedia-in-Residence constitutes a conflict of interest}} - ''Does'' WMF fund this WiR? Most WiR positions these days (AFAIK) are funded by the hiring institutions. I would be shocked if the WMF were funding this one just based on the fact that it involves on-wiki editing, which has been a line for the WMF, historically. Likewise most GLAM projects have nothing to do with the WMF. If you go to a museum and say &quot;can I tell you about Wikipedia&quot; or &quot;want to upload some photos to Commons&quot; or &quot;want to host an edit-a-thon&quot; then you're involved with a GLAM project, regardless of who funds it or whether it involves any funding at all. The extent to which the WMF is involved with most edit-a-thons is to fund an affiliate, who then e.g. buys a couple pizzas for attendees. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 16:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I don't think that sponsored and funded are synonyms there... Anything under the banner or that is allowed to use the branding is sponsored even if there is no funding provided. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *:::::Agreed. While more-or-less radically open to anyone, someone (the community) ultimately does have to agree that GLAM is appropriately attached to something so that it can be called that. This is usually pro forma, but it still ends up supported. If &quot;sponsored&quot; is the troubling word, choose another synonym that means the same without necessarily monetary support. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 17:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' - I started typing this yesterday, and find that Vanamonde has articulated some similar reasons, so partially &quot;per Vanamonde&quot;. I see evidence of insufficiently disclosed COIs, evidence that RH is working to address those problems, evidence of years of good faith engagement with the Wikimedia/Wikipedia community, evidence of problematic edits made by ''other'' people, a big thorny question about independence of sourcing in religious articles that's better addressed elsewhere, and not nearly enough diffs showing violations of our content policies by RH to justify a tban.&lt;br/&gt;That said, I would strongly urge RH to set some boundaries in the WiR role and to articulate those boundaries on their user page. Our COI guideline is messy and applied inconsistently, and often with a rhetorical flourish that tries to combine the negative connotations with ''close'' COIs and the technical definition of COI that includes ''distant'' COIs we don't actually view as a problem. All of this makes things challenging for anyone who does any editing with a close or [moderate?, for lack of a better word] COI, since you have to be able to judge how much COI is going to be too much, and be prepared for that scale to slide based on other factors (as in this case, the role of money and the role of other affiliated editors). Being transparent goes a long way, but my own $0.02 is that you should absolutely abstain from editing or assigning anyone to edit an article on any subject you've received money from, that you're on the board for, that you have a nontrivial personal relationship with, etc. That's what {{tl|Edit COI}} is for. The COI guideline doesn't ''require'' you stay away, but editing those articles while being paid is a recipe for disaster. I worry that it erodes the thin line between &quot;the kind of paid editing we like&quot; and &quot;the kind of paid editing we don't like&quot; such that the life of future WiRs will be more difficult. Enwiki's view of COI seems like it will only become more volatile.&lt;br/&gt;All in all, I think having a highly experienced Wikipedian on staff is very much a good thing. RH has the ability to translate the complicated and ever-evolving PAGs (and their interpretations) for a large community. As long as most of the problematic ''content'' edits are other people's, it would be good to have RH available to help. Besides, as I started off saying, the evidence just isn't here to justify a tban. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 17:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Mostly I agree with you, however I do assign greater accountability to RH for what you're calling &quot;other people's&quot; edits. In these cases she is both acting as the supervisor of, and ''paying'', these other people to make those problematic edits, which I think elevates her responsibility quite a bit. Especially given several of the articles she assigned to students were assigned because she felt she had too much of a COI to write them herself... [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Yes, if you have a COI and assign/pay someone to edit it, that doesn't negate the COI. It just creates another level of PAID and/or a [[WP:MEAT]]/proxy-based COI, which is probably going to be regarded as worse insofar as it obscures the COI. Along the lines of voluntary commitments and clear articulations of boundaries that I've been talking about, I'd hope something acknowledging as much would be in there, if she hasn't addressed it already. &amp;mdash; &lt;samp&gt;[[User:Rhododendrites|&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;&quot;&gt;Rhododendrites&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup style=&quot;font-size:80%;&quot;&gt;[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/samp&gt; \\ 19:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::The best I can say is that she is asking her students to sandbox. That's the full extent of it that I've seen. She will be stepping away for a few days, but maybe you could ask her when she gets back to implement something that would make you comfortable? I'm kinda of the opinion that the more ways we try to solve this the better. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 21:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Courtesy Break (3) ====<br /> <br /> * &lt;u&gt;'''Support''' per {{u|Aquillion}}&lt;/u&gt; &lt;s&gt;'''Oppose''' per {{u|Awilley}}, {{u|Rhododendrites}}, {{u|Vanamonde93}}, {{u|FyzixFighter}} [&lt;/s&gt;I admit that the comment pointed out by {{u|Starship.paint}} is troubling.&lt;s&gt;], but at minimum a strong warning and possibly some edit-restrictions and proposals like agreements by {{u|Rhododendrites}}.&lt;/s&gt; I did &lt;s&gt;not&lt;/s&gt; see evidence of a strong warning for the behavior when it was discovered followed by a recalcitrant refusal to comply and/or apology with repeating the behavior. (If that was the case, I would reconsider.&lt;u&gt;It was per {{u|Levivich}} (thank you for providing this link: [[WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University]]), and I have hence changed my !vote&lt;/u&gt;) It appears her editing is not so much a problem as the failure to disclose the COI and paid-editing, e.g. {{u|Awilley}}’s comments. As for her students' editing as described by {{u|Vanamonde93}}, that is another matter&lt;u&gt;. I explain my position on that below in response to jps and Grandpallama&lt;/u&gt;&lt;s&gt;--I'm not sure how best to handle that. I'm not in favor of a topic ban for all of them--but consquences for those that have problematic behavior, were warned, and continued. Would support this done on case-by-case basis. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the two examples kindly provided below to see if such mass action is best.&lt;/s&gt;<br /> :&lt;s&gt;As much as I am opposed to paid editing, unfortunately, we allow it, so--unless I have misunderstood [[WP:PAID]] (and [[WP:PEW]])--our greatest concern by allowing compensation for edit (or COI) is on their ability to follow [[WP:NPOV]]. If they can’t follow [[WP:NPOV]], then the COI and paid-editing are aggravating factors favoring restriction or prohibition of editing in that area. And although non-disclosure is certainly a problem and must have consequences and accountability, it’s not clear to me there was an intent to deceive or other behavior so severe that we can’t seek an alternative accountability measures than a topic-ban.&lt;/s&gt;<br /> :I don’t know what typically happens when a failed disclosure is revealed. Has it *always* been the case that such discovery resulted in a topic ban from the subject area, site ban, or similar? Is it true as {{u|Levivich}} opined {{tq|If Microsoft hired people to create articles about its products, and these editors disclosed they were paid editors but in some cases promoted some of these products while working with other Microsoft employees who edited with undisclosed COI, Wikipedia would siteban all of them with little discussion.}} Are there such examples?<br /> :&lt;s&gt;I believe we warn the editor, give them another chance with a short leash, and bring them right back here if it continues.&lt;/s&gt; --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 23:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;small&gt;[revised 05:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC); 06:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)]&lt;/small&gt;<br /> ::Scientology is the obvious example. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 01:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Editing around Falun Gong has also had similar problems. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 17:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{ping|ජපස|Grandpallama}} Thank you for the examples. Would you mind giving me a link or two for the mass action?<br /> ::::I do ultimately think what is done with the students might best be adjudicated separately with evidence for each student involved--if that was done sufficiently already here and I glossed over it, my apologies. I was focussed on the incorrect assumption that Rachel Helps had ''not'' been warned. That really changes everthing about my thinking about both her and how it impacted the students behavior.<br /> ::::Any that we know conclusively were paid and didn't disclose it, I would support a topic or site ban. I don't care if she said it was okay not to disclose.<br /> ::::For any that are unpaid, it is likely she misled and incorrectly advised them about proper behavior here. So, the key question, did WE advise them about proper behavior -and- did we warn them when they crossed a line? Any student who crossed the line after OUR sufficient warning--regardless of what she might have told them to the contrary--I would support an indefinite TB for students falling into that case. Those students might realize they were duped, apologize, and come clean. I do see this as a &quot;teachable moment&quot;, and I would hope we can retain some of the students who really are interested in following the rules and helping to build an encyclopedia that is NPOV. They may actually gain respect for us for holding her accountable.<br /> ::::Any in this second category that are allowed to stay here, I'd say we give each an immediate stern warning about the result of what happened to her and why, about COI and POV-editing and the consequences for their instructor for such inappropriate behavior. Let them know they will be under scrutiny moving forward and that they are on a short leash in that topic area.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 05:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> :::::I guess let [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology]] be your light reading today. There is a lot here and I'm not sure I can help wade through it all. RH and her students ''have'' disclosed that they were paid. I am not sure there are any unpaid volunteers or not, but that would be good to clarify. The warnings about COI were thwarted in the past through certain COIN discussions that were closed with &quot;no action&quot;. This was definitely unfortunate because here we are back today. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 10:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I agree with SCI (which was almost entirely about a situation like this), not so much with COFS (which was more about [[User:Shutterbug|User:COFS]]). I think [[WP:Requests for arbitration/Hunger|THP]] or [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors|MrW]] is better reading here than COFS. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 23:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thanks for the links. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{ping|ජපස}} Thanks for the links. I started to continue to write about what I thought should happen with the students given the fact that they are all paid, but the more time I spent trying to articulate a fair position, the more I realized it would be better to give space to those like yourself who know what typically happens in these cases and the policy involved. From first reading about this, I was inclined towards {{u|Levivich}}'s position of not holding the students unduly responsible for poor supervision, but my concern about paid editing is closer to {{u|Aquillion}}. I'm stepping back.--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''2020 COIN''' - [[WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University]] - just want to make sure everyone is aware of the time this issue was discussed in 2020. Among the people claiming there was no COI editing at that time was Nihonjoe. We now know that the concerns raised then were real, some of the people defending it had undisclosed COI, and the discussion did not lead to improvement in how COI was handled by Rachel Helps. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Oh dear. From that thread: {{tq|Hi, I disagree with the idea that all pages I edit are COI. My job doesn't depend on showing people in a positive light.}} What she fails to say that if she started showing [[Russell M. Nelson|certain people]] in a negative light, she absolutely runs the risk of running afoul with her employer. I had a discussion with her about this on her talkpage and she said that she was worried about that when she started and her supervisor assured her that her students could write whatever ''as long as it was attributed to sources''. So if a student wrote, &quot;The Book of Mormon contains anachronisms&quot; as a statement of fact without attribution, I am not sure they would be protected by that. But more to the point, the BYU authorities themselves are not bound by this agreement. The social control that is exerted over people who are in the employ of BYU is ''absolutely real''. There is a reason that only a mere 5% of faculty at that college are not members of the LDS church. Y'all, there are lots of reliable sources that identify Mormonism's cult-like behaviors. It is on display here ''loud and clear''. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 15:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Using a term like “cult-like” is prolly not helpful here. A lack of academic freedom regarding theologically sensitive topics is pretty normal for unambiguously sectarian universities. If [[Al-Azhar University]] had a WiR, how do you think that would go down?<br /> *::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 18:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', since just asking nicely in 2020 ([[WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University|COIN]]) did not have any positive effect. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 15:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It is worth noting that, per [[WP:PROXY]], this topic ban would effectively ban any student/employee to edit under the supervision of Helps in any way that bypasses the terms of the main topic ban. So it might make sense to formally extend the sanction to any and all BYU programs. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 19:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * For Detective Levivich of the COI Bureau: While I have never had any affiliation with BYU, the LDS movement, or anything adjacent, I know more people who go/went to BYU than I can count on two hands. Which means that I know not to click on [[Soaking (sexual practice)|soaking]] in the LDS template footer, I already knew that the second item in the [[Church Educational System Honor Code]] is &quot;be honest&quot;, and I can see the irony in the editors of [[Second Nephi]] engaging in small deceptions (28:8, c'mon!). On-wiki, I spent a great deal of time about five years ago in grinding arguments at AfD over articles about non-notable LDS subjects sourced mostly to official LDS sources, church-owned media, and LDS-focused blogs. So I also have a sense of how much valuable editor time can be burned up bringing that sort of content back in line with English Wikipedia policies/guidelines.{{pb}}Rachel Helps has breached community trust while modeling behavior for students under her supervision. And it looks like we've got some content issues around assuming that stuff that's important within the LDS movement is important outside of it as well. Both of those things are bad. But a lot of the edits are good. So for us here at English Wikipedia, I think it's a matter of finding a way to rebuild trust while keeping the good parts of the BYU WiR project going.{{pb}}I '''support''' a topic ban on the WiR and all student workers, because it will clarify an important difference between 1) the BYU WiR project's main goal is to improve this encyclopedia, and 2) the BYU WiR project's main goal is to legitimize/normalize the LDS movement and institutions, and to spread its doctrines and lore by getting as much LDS-related content as possible into the highest-visibility website that still allows people to sign in and add stuff. Sometimes those goals align, but clearly there have been some problems when they don't. So for me a topic ban is not punishment, but rather a chance to recalibrate the relationship and rebuild trust. If BYU will still pay the WiR and (BYU) editors to contribute to English Wikipedia on the approximately millions of other topics, and they do that, great, let's have another conversation about lifting the topic ban once that trust is regained. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 18:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;small&gt;*chomping cigar* All right, boys, this one checks out, let 'em through. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *:I appreciate your rational approach here. I'm not the expert, but I think the role of the BYU WiR is quite a bit more narrow than just 1) improving the encyclopedia and sideways from 2) legitimizing and spreading Mormonism. Rachel would be a better person to clarify, but I understood her role more along the lines of facilitating access to and improving content related to some of the more unique collections owned by the BYU library. Most of those collections will probably have some connection to Mormonism. <br /> *:One of the things I've appreciated most about Rachel's editing is the nitty gritty source work that she does. For example: many editors are somewhat sloppy with sources... They'll take a sourced statement and modify it a bit without changing the meaning too much and move the source somewhere, maybe to the end of a sentence or clause or paragraph. Then someone else will come along a year later and do something similar. Eventually you end up with sources that are completely disconnected from the statement they were meant to support, or that original statement may be gone altogether. I've seen Rachel fixing long term problems like that, as well as immediately cleaning up after other editors when they move soures around in a sloppy way. I've also seen her cleaning up copyvios, circular references, wrong page numbers, random {{cn}} templates, and other tedious gnomish work that so many of us avoid, ignore, or take for granted. I would love to see her be able to continue this kind of work in the topic area where she has expertise.<br /> *:I think it's clear from the above that the community agrees that Rachel fell short in disclosing COI when editing and creating articles about people and organizations close to her. I personally think those shortcomings were exacerbated by scope creep, unclarity, and even contradictions in our own guidelines and expectations, but let's set that aside. There are also a lot of people who see problems in the work of her student editors, which I'm not familiar with myself, so I'll take that at face value. That suggests a lack of training, supervision, etc. on Rachel's part. I have not, though, seen significant criticisms of Rachel's own edits. <br /> *:So my question to you is: would you support some kind of narrower sanction that directly addresses the above problems but still allows Rachel to do her job as WiR and make the kind of helpful edits I mentioned above? That might include a ban on directly creating articles and a ban on editing articles where she has a (well-defined) COI. Or maybe even a ban on editing articles outside of citation management. And likely more strict restrictions on her students. I don't know what would work best, and some workshopping with Rachel would probably be helpful when she comes back from break. Thoughts? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 21:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{ping|Rhododendrites}} Okay, I'm not going to let this excuse that &quot;it was all her students&quot; slide anymore. RH has made some absolutely atrocious edits over the last few months. Fram, above, documented the result in the actual article of [[Second Nephi]], but here they are the diffs ''from her'':<br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210504480]<br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210463754] <br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207877166] <br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204248142] <br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204242867] <br /> *::These diffs are all inclusive of an extreme amount of unduly weighted apologetics content from obscure Mormon Theologians. This also, infruriatingly, includes apologias for the abject and abhorrent racism in the text. That’s right, RH is trying to apologia away the racism in her faith’s scripture. Lest that not be enough evidence for you:<br /> *::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204666111] Here she is whitewashing away the fact that Joseph Smith instituted racist dogma.<br /> *::I'm sure she saw nothing wrong with that. It's the frog in the boiling pot of water. In the LDS Church, this kind of game-playing is what happens as a matter of course. We are not the LDS church. We have a standard that is not apologetics. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::@jps: The first 5 diffs you cite are not apologetics, they're analyzing how different themes/ideas in the Book of Mormon &quot;Second Nephi&quot; have been interpreted and have influenced LDS thought and belief over time. As far as I can tell her citations are to secondary reliable sources from reputable publishers. In the 6th diff she is reverting a blatantly POV IP edit and attempting to make a clarification along the way. The original sentence, before the IP's edit, incorrectly stated/implied that Smith taught that dark skin was a curse for &quot;premortal unrighteousness&quot;. That's false, and you can verify that by scrolling down to the body of the article and doing a Ctrl+F for &quot;1844&quot;. Apparently Rachel had missed that the sentence could be read in a different way: that Smith had taught it was a curse, and that LDS leaders after Smith had taught that the curse was for &quot;premortal unrighteousness&quot;. Fortunately 2 days later, editor Pastelitodepapa (the article's original author) came along and removed all ambiguity. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1204666111] This is a normal interaction on Wikipedia. People write ambiguous sentences. People misinterpret those sentences and make mistakes. People fix the mistakes. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 06:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::@Awilley They ''absolutely are apologetics''. What they are doing is trying to recast/reframe a discussion of this book in a way to encourage understanding the text ''as though it really happened'' and offer apologia for the ways in which it clearly runs into anachronism and error. Reliability is always contextual and the context here is that these sources are being used to support preaching and proselytization (that's their raison d'etre). The claim that the IP edit was &quot;blatantly POV&quot; as absurd. The IP edit is correct. Joseph Smith supported the racism of the Mormon church as you even show ''was confirmed later on''. RH reverting that edit was acting in accordance with her faith and not in accordance with the facts. Whether intentional or not, the whole point is that this is a paid editor gatekeeping at Book of Mormon articles, paid by a Mormon faith-based institution to edit our encyclopedia. She needs to be held to a higher standard. This is faith-based POV pushing. [[WP:Civil POV-pushing]], but POV pushing all the same. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 12:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::@jps, You've got it backwards. Take a closer look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204467979 the IP edit]. It most certainly is incorrect and POV. Read the edit summary. Note the phrase &quot;...in the church we believe...&quot; Rachel was not the one trying to whitewash in that interaction, she was reverting a Mormon IP who was erasing a big part of the racist history (premortal sin theory) and pushing the modern LDS POV. Feel free to hat this as &quot;extended discussion&quot; so it doesn't bog down the AN/I. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::AH! You are right that the IP edit was bad... but now RH's edit ''is even worse''. She ''removed'' the mention of Joseph Smith, I guess in deference to the sensibilities. This is also a misleading edit summary. This is not just a revert. This is an introduction of a whitewash of RH's own making! And you're still defending her? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 22:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::No, she most likely read the sentence as &quot;...Joseph Smith taught that dark skin was a sign of God's curse for premortal unrighteousness&quot; and tried to correct that. Joseph Smith never taught that. It was after Smith's death that people came up with the &quot;premortal unrighteousness&quot; garbage. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::No, Smith did it too: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/43200880]. I know it's popular to give him a pass. The LDS apologetic line. But, again, Wikipedia is ''not for apologetics''. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::The earliest mention I can find of that rationale is from Orson Hyde in 1844 or 1845. I just looked up the reference in the paper you linked. The reference was to Brodie's ''No Man Knows My History'' page 173-4, which I happen to have on my shelf. Brodie does indeed suggest that the idea originated with Smith, but she doesn't provide any evidence to back that up. Her only citation for that is to a 1845 speech/pamphlet by Orson Hyde. This may be part of why Brodie now has a reputation for going beyond what the actual evidence supports, and why her book is listed as &quot;additional considerations&quot; on the project page instead of &quot;generally reliable&quot;. Or maybe I'm missing something. Either way, Rachel Help's edit summary said she was summarizing the article, and that is indeed what the article says. If you think the article is incorrect, a discussion on the talk page would be the logical next step. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 23:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::::Are you really unable to see the issue here? &quot;Oh, the person who claims that Smith taught about this curse doesn't back it up because it was only found in a pamphlet by Orson Hyde.&quot; Forget it. At this point, you're running interference. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 23:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic-ban''' - This smacks to me of the same type of COI editing that led to the creation of [[WP:GS/CRYPTO]] and [[WP:ARBSCI|the SCI contentious topic]], and I get the sense that the scope of this will lead to [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management|COI]] including a CTOP of some sort. The long-term deception and obvious lack of clue as to what best-practices for a COI entails are both extremely problematic, and either on their own would have justified a topic-ban with or without a CTOP designation. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose'''. I am an atheist with a long-time interest in world religions who wrote a Good Article about the [[Laie Hawaii Temple]] in 2008. In the intervening years, I have never once encountered a problem from other LDS members on Wikipedia, only my fellow non-theists and atheists, one of which, [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Black]], destroyed my work and has now made it eligible for delisting.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;diff=1118395610&amp;oldid=1105336403] [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:?? That diff shows HEB removed the citations to one dubiously-reliable apologist source, he didn't even remove any content; saying he &quot;destroyed&quot; your work is a pretty groundless aspersion. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 03:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::He removed a reference to an older version of the material because he failed to look at the date of the source, thereby making it unsourced and eligible for delisting. Furthermore, he removed links that others had added, non-controversial links to BYU computer scientist Rick Satterfield, who had spent years collecting and formulating a database for LDS. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::It doesn't matter what version of the material was being cited when the underlying source for all versions is unreliable. Even if the author was a &quot;BYU computer scientist&quot;, which he obviously isn't, that would be irrelevant since exemptions to SPS require recognized academic subject-matter expertise. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 05:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I disagree. In 2004, when user Gerald Farinas originally added the external link to the article,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;oldid=4512140] it was in wide use in LDS articles. When I arrived to the article in 2007 and tagged the source as unreliable (at the time referred to synonymously as &quot;verify credibility&quot;, whose history has beeen now lost)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;diff=167113393&amp;oldid=166990503], another user started a discussion on the talk page in response to my tagging. They assured me that the source was reliable. I looked at it, and found that the &quot;about page&quot; said that Rick Satterfield created the site as a project for his computer science classes before getting his computer science degree in 2001. In the ensuing years it had become a go-to hobbyist site for statistics about LDS architecture, which is exactly how it was used in the article. It was not used to make religious claims, it was not used to make political claims, it was used only to make factual statements about architecture. In this regard, and per the discussion, I acknowledged that it met the exemption (this was 2007) and compromised by removing the tag, a tag that I originally added. So, to recap, I was the one who originally questioned the reliability, I was the one who discussed it on the talk page with another user who argued for its use, and I was the one who engaged in the art of compromise to allow the source to be used in a specific, narrow way. I was not, however, a drive-by editor like HEB, who just arrived to the article one day and removed the source and the content on a whim because I didn't like the words in the URL. Keep in mind, in the ensuing years at some point, long after I had left the article, the URL had changed from the neutral-titled &quot;ldschurchtemples.com&quot; to &quot;churchofjesuschristtemples.org&quot;. And I continue to maintain that the underlying source for all versions was ''not'' unreliable. And it's not irrelevant that Satterfield collected the data for his computer science classes. BYU has numerous, front-facing student sites today that are and continue to be reliable sources for Wikipedia. Like ldschurchtemples.com, which provided a unique resource in the past for obscure archeological data, I continue to draw upon research from [[Brigham Young University]] for articles I write. For example, I recently wrote [[Flathead Lake Biological Station]], which cites writer Abbey Buckham of Northern Arizona University, who wrote the most comprehensive history of the station that is currently online. Her work was published by the [[Charles Redd Center for Western Studies]] which is part of [[BYU Research Institutes]]. So no, I don't agree with you, and I will continue to draw upon BYU students, graduates, and their research for my articles. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::You seem to be ignoring my entreaties on your usertalkpage, so maybe I have to respond here.<br /> *:::::I think, as others are trying to explain to you, you are making a [[strawman argument]]. There is sincere and strong evidence that this group has been skewing dozens of pages on the Book of Mormon in a very particular way that is going to take a lot of work to clean up.<br /> *:::::This proposal for a TBAN is not an attempt to ban everything coming out of BYU. We aren't even asking to end the WiR/GLAM/Paid Editing program. In fact, what you ask at the end about Flathead Lake Biological Station is exactly the sort of thing I would hope that RH's students would have been working on instead of the sloppy and over-detailed exegesis they've been focusing on for the last months. Not everything that comes out of BYU is about LDS. <br /> *:::::Yeah, with a TBAN you're not going to get RH or her students to help you write about LDS temples. Sorry. But given the streams of awful I've been wading through in the past few days trying to make sense of what is going on at Book of Mormon pages, I think that this sort of collateral damage is likely more than worth it, sorry to say. Your happy editing on one article does not excuse the 100s of articles that are absolute messes. That said, this TBAN would make it ''more likely'' that you could benefit from BYU student editors on articles like Flathead Lake Biological Station. This is likely to be a win for you since those are far and away the more common articles I see you working on than the LDS temples. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::{{ping|ජපස}} If RH and the students were TBanned, would the students really be more likely to edit in other topic areas?<br /> *::::::[[User:Heidi Pusey BYU]]'s conflict of interest statement on her user page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Heidi_Pusey_BYU&amp;oldid=1210501729 currently reads] (emphases added):<br /> *:::::::{{tq|I am employed and '''paid''' by the Harold B. Lee Library to edit Wikipedia pages '''about the Book of Mormon ''on behalf of Brigham Young University.''''' I am a student employee of [[user:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] and '''I specialize in research for early Book of Mormon studies''' as well as literary studies of the book. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I am extensively familiar with the Book of Mormon but seek to edit with a neutral viewpoint.}}<br /> *::::::Heidi's employment appears to be specific to Book of Mormon pages. It is on behalf of BYU, which makes me wonder about the academic freedom questions raised elsewhere. Isn't this declaration inconsistent with Wikipedia goals like NPOV writing without an agenda? Further, if Heidi's specialty is in this topic area, would she be interested in paid non-Book of Mormon editing... and would BYU be interested in paying for it?<br /> *::::::I wonder whether a TBAN will actually produce the outcome you describe? [[Special:Contributions/1.141.198.161|1.141.198.161]] ([[User talk:1.141.198.161|talk]]) 00:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::From what I understand in brief discussion with RH, this was set by her in discussion with RH. This topic focus could be changed. But good to confirm with RH that this really is the case, for sure. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 10:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Hi. I am currently in the process of changing my students' pages they are editing to pages that are unrelated to the LDS church or BYU. I will be changing Heidi's assignment when I see her later today. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::{{ping|Rachel Helps (BYU)}} Thanks for that information, that sounds like a wise decision in the circumstances. Heidi has commented at her user talk page that she did not intend the phrase &quot;on behalf of Brigham Young University&quot; to be taken literally, which is good to hear / know. I can see how this phrase might be chosen by an employee without considering the implications, and Heidi has acted to change the wording. I suggest that you check for any similar phrasings because, in an environment of heightened attention and scrutiny, they can create an impression that is unhelpful. In fact, I encourage you to reflect carefully on how your subordinates' words on user pages might be interpreted by outsiders. I doubt that BYU would be entirely comfortable with a statement that every action of a student editor was made on its behalf, no matter how well intentioned the student or the statements. In my various positions working for Universities, I would not have presented my every action as on their behalf, and I suspect that you would not present yourself that way either.&lt;p&gt;On Heidi's comment that her employment was specific to Book of Mormon topics, is her position (prior to the changes you are about to implement) actually tied to working on that specific topic area? If so, did focus on a narrow (compared to the scope of your library and WP broadly) that is squarely within the area of COI not raise any concerns for you or anyone connected with WiR, etc? I ask because, in charting a course forwards, it can be helpful to understand what has happened to now and how it happened. From your perspective, were any concerns raised and adequately (or inadequately, in retrospect) addressed? What might have been done differently by WiR or WP or others to have avoided the present situation?&lt;P&gt;I'm willing to assume that there were good intentions throughout this process, but can't avoid feeling that something (or multiple things) should have brought these issues into focus long ago. It looks to me like a systemic problem, made worse by some instinctive / reactive responses where considered reflection was needed. Does this seem accurate / inaccurate / partially accurate, from your perspective? Any other thoughts? Thanks, [[Special:Contributions/1.141.198.161|1.141.198.161]] ([[User talk:1.141.198.161|talk]]) 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::: Heidi's job title is Student Wikipedia Editor. When I hired this batch of students last fall, I did tell them that I wanted to start a project to work on Book of Mormon pages (an initiative started by me). However, I hired my students based on their writing experience, not based on any specific experience with Book of Mormon topics. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, so please ping me again if you have a follow-up question. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 22:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Satterfield does not have subject matter expertise as recognized by strong citations by academics in academic publications. Therefore his SPS ''is not reliable''. Everything else you've said is irrelevant, though I'll note that student projects simply hosted by the university are ''also'' never reliable as published academic work and I would hope you haven't been adding them as sources. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Just because you've never encountered any issues before doesn't mean Helps is innocent. Have you read anything in this thread and the corresponding thread?? [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 03:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:What does that have anything to do with the sanction being proposed here or the user it's being proposed against? I see virtually nothing in that !vote rationale that actually addresses such matters; the only thing that ''might'' come anywhere close is the vague anecdotal claim {{tq|I have never once encountered a problem from other LDS members on Wikipedia}}. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:First of all how do you know that I am a &quot;fellow non-theists and atheists&quot;? Second that source may look legitimate but its actually a non-expert self published source unaffiliated with the LDS Church, the LDS editors actually agreed that it was a source that should be removed/improved. I didn't destroy anything or change its eligibility, looking at other articles you've significantly authored (for example [[Claude AnShin Thomas]]) it looks like the issue may be with your sourcing practices and not mine. I apologize for causing you distress but I also have no idea what that would do with your vote unless you're voting in an AN/I discussion based solely on spiting another editor. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 03:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::You're mistaken again. My sourcing is entirely reliable, and is accurately reflected in the final GA review.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;oldid=231936007] As can be seen in that link, the sources you removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laie_Hawaii_Temple&amp;diff=1118395610&amp;oldid=1105336403] were not the versions of the sources I originally added,[https://search.worldcat.org/title/367548072] however both sources support the same, accurate information. You neglected to actually ''read'' the article you edited, because if you had you would have noticed that the citation you removed said &quot;Retrieved 2007-07-17&quot;, which refers only [https://web.archive.org/web/20070308044728/http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/laie/ to this version supporting the material]. You removed the newer version instead, which had been revised. You then left a citation needed tag in its place. As of today, there is a more current database listing on the revised site.[https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/statistics/features/] You couldn't be bothered with any of this, of course. One wonders if your poor judgment here is reflective of your other baseless criticism, such as that over at Claude AnShin Thomas, which has no known problems either. One wonders how much this kind of bias infects the rest of this discussion. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::But churchofjesuschristtemples.com/&lt;wbr&gt;churchofjesuschristtemples.org is a non-expert self published source. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Opinions differ, and policies and guidelines dynamically change over time. When the article was written, those sources were acceptable, and the author was a computer scientist at BYU who had created the only site on the internet that collected and maintained statistical data about the temples. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 04:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::I don't think they ever were a computer scientist at BYU... I see a bachelor's degree in computer science from BYU but no teaching or research position. Today that source is not acceptable and I don't think that it was when the article was written either. Looking at the talk page it looks like the reliability was actually challenged all the way back in 2007 ([[Talk:Laie Hawaii Temple/Archive 1#Credibility of source]]). [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Yes, questioned by ''me''. Did you read the discussion? [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 05:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::I did... Didn't see a consensus that the source was reliable. I'm actually confused as to how that source remained in the article after that discussion. I also double checked and he was never a computer scientist at BYU (and even if he was I don't see how that would contribute to him being a subject matter expert in this context). And again none of this explains your vote here, even if everything you say is completely true your vote makes no sense. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::Yes, you are confused. '''I am the one who questioned the source in the first place and originally tagged it'''. As that discussion indicates, another editor arrived to discuss it, and I removed the tag. Should I have disagreed with myself? That seems to be what you are saying here. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::::::I must be confused, because this none of this substantiates &quot;destroyed my work and has now made it eligible for delisting&quot; nor does it substantiate that the author was a a computer scientist at BYU nor does it explain what any of this has to do with the larger discussion (besides possibly the author's BYU connection?). [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::::You are free to see my new comments up above that address your confusion. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::::[[Ignoratio elenchi]]. [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 17:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Saying that every problem you've encountered on Wikipedia has come from non-theists and atheists is quite a remarkable statement. How are you able to determine the religious affiliation of your fellow editors? And even in the unlikely event that it is true, what relevance does it have for this issue? The question at hand is about one particular editor, not all LDS members or all atheists. [[User:CodeTalker|CodeTalker]] ([[User talk:CodeTalker|talk]]) 05:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Ping|Viriditas}} woah, I just noticed that you're referring to me as &quot;Horse Eye's '''Black'''&quot; in both of the original comments here. What is that supposed to mean? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::It means my keyboard is broken [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 18:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::How does a broken keyboard result in [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Black]]? Its not a misspelling, its a pipe. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Looks like a copy and paste from a typo. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 19:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Ok sure. Thank you. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 19:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::You probably need to take a step back from this discussion if you're looking this hard for implied slights. [[User:Parabolist|Parabolist]] ([[User talk:Parabolist|talk]]) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' I would have suggested a warning, but in light of the extensive COIN discussion from 2020 that appears to have not resolved this issue, I think we'd just be back here sooner or later for another rodeo.[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 05:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Exactly, its not a new phenomena. They were warned in 2020, clearly warned by admin. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 13:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose.''' Generally concur with the comments by Awilley, Ocaasi, Pigsonthewing, Vanamonde93, and FyzixFighter. I do not see anything presented that rises to the level of requiring a topic ban, and I see plenty of evidence of the positive contributions this editor has made to Wikipedia. [[User:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;Gamaliel&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/small&gt; 13:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' - I find the general oppose reasonings to be particularly uncompelling and that it does not adequately address the evidence presented in this and the prior discussion. The attempt to present this discussion as a referendum on theist vs. non-theist editors completely misses the point of the evidence provided. The only oppose rationale thus far that strikes me as valid at all is Vanamond93's comment, but I ultimately agree more with jps's rejoinder to Vanamonde93's perspective. &lt;sub&gt;signed, &lt;/sub&gt;[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' However much good faith (no pun intended) can be ascribed, this a situation which needs to be addressed directly. Treating this as a generalised COI issue to be addressed via a review of policy/guidelines elsewhere will not address the specific instutional arrangement which is engendering systemic failures with regard to core tenets - neutrality, due, fringe and reliable, independent sourcing. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Strong support'''. The opposes all miss the point entirely; paid editing that directly touches mainspace is basically never acceptable. This is not a case where &quot;positive contributions&quot; matter, not at all. Even if done with the best of intentions, it completely distorts our processes; the fact always remains that someone whose paycheck is dependent on an organization is not going to make edits that might get them fired. Even the absolute best, most well-intentioned edits, otherwise policy-compliant in every way, will distort the balance of articles when made in a systematic way by large numbers of editors whose views are all distorted in the same way by the same financial incentive. Therefore, &quot;they've made positive contributions&quot; is never a defense against a [[WP:COI]] issue. It is simply never acceptable to seriously edit mainspace in areas where your employer has a strong perspective or vested interest. If this were any other organization, that would be obvious - would we accept the arguments above for an editor paid by Amazon or Microsoft or OpenAI or some cryptocurrency startup, who wanted to edit pages obviously relevant to those topics? From the Democratic and Republican parties, or from individual political think tanks who hire and send in numerous articulate, intelligent editors who share their views? How is this different? And how, exactly, could volunteer editors maintain neutrality in the face of that? [[Wikipedia:GLAM/Wikipedian in Residence]] isn't meant to be an exception to these rules - per [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedian_in_residence the description on Meta] {{tq|In this context, there is a custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution, but rather share the knowledge of their institution.}} Furthermore, look at the examples there - it's meant to be an uncontroversial role for museum curators and the like, not for a church to employ people making sweeping sorts of edits on topics related to their faith or for a political think-tank to employ someone making edits about their politics. I think that we might want to look at some of the related policies in order to tighten them up and make them more clear, if people are somehow confused about all this, but this particular example is so far over the line that an immediate topic-ban is obvious. EDIT: Support shifted to strong to emphasize how strongly I feel that none of the rationales people are presenting are policy-based and how important it is to establish that they carry no weight. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 15:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Aquillion, I agree in general with your take on this. COI and PE are often issues that result in editing that skews away from our principles, policies and guidelines. However, in this instance Rachel and her Posse (or crew) were never concerned about &quot;making edits that might get them fired.&quot; Take a look at this conversation here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rachel_Helps_(BYU)#Academic_freedom] (Section title &quot;Academic Freedom&quot;). Essentially, throughout the whole Q &amp; A it becomes clear that none of these editors are constrained by fear of an employer or policy. It doesn't take long to read. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 20:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> :::That makes no difference to me at all, for three reasons. First, [[WP:COI]] is unequivocal that the ''appearance'' of a COI is sufficient; it does not matter one iota how thoroughly someone is convinced (or can convince others) that they are capable of being impartial. It is a red line with no exceptions. Second, this is because influence can be subtle and sometimes not even obvious to those exercising it; words are cheap, actually making the people they paid to edit Wikipedia impartial is... impossible. Third, most importantly, even if someone manages to adhere rigorously to that freedom, and even if they are flawless immaculate saints incapable of ever considering who pays their paychecks, paid editing still allows the employer to &quot;stack the deck&quot; on particular subjects by hiring people to edit prolifically simply because they know what they believe and what areas they will edit in. This doesn't even have to be intentional; it's no different from the principle of [[WP:CANVASS]]ing - unless they're hiring people ''totally at random'', they're going to be stacking the deck based on who they hire and what pool they hire from. There are ''no'' situations where someone should be getting paid to make nontrivial mainspace edits on Wikipedia, or even to contribute to discussions without the extremely rigid restrictions placed on disclosed COIs (even those restrictions are truthfully too loose for me, but in this case no one even paid lip service to them.) This is ''actually important''. Pushing back against COIs is vital to keeping Wikipedia functional; most pages and topic areas only have a few dozen really active users, or a few hundred at most, and even they have no real hope of keeping up with editors whose entire job is to edit Wikipedia. If we didn't maintain a hard line, any topic area that was targeted with paid editing would be rapidly drowned in it, with every discussion and every effort at consensus-building dominated by whoever their employer decided to employ. There's no such thing as someone being a &quot;good egg&quot; as a paid editor, because the problem is the entire structure behind their editing and what it would mean for Wikipedia if allowed to proliferate. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 04:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks. I agree with your concerns about paid editing--we should get rid of it. I've never bought the argument that making it &quot;ok&quot; means that paid editors are more likely to divulge COI. Case in point here. --[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 06:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''', English Wikipedia has done a gang buster job, in the past to get individuals who could contribute positively, on this platform to chase them away. &lt;!-- In addition limiting what is considered a reliable source to ensure that certain points of view, and certain subjects, are presented with a certain bias based on what has been left to be allowed as sources. --&gt; The individual editor in question has done a great job with bringing individuals who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy to improving content on this encyclopedia. Yet, there is this effort to limit that effort. What does this say about our community, but to enforce the view that English Wikipedia is not neutral, is exclusionary, and doesn't want individuals who might not align a certain way onto this encyclopedia, especially if they contribute within spaces which certain alignments oppose.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B22234&quot;&gt;'''Right'''Cow&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;background-color: #C2B280; color:#3C3B6E&quot;&gt;'''LeftCoast'''&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;Moo&lt;/span&gt;]]) 18:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{tq|who might otherwise not choose to devout time and energy}} ... no doubt an unintended Freudian slip; but that's precisely the problem, institutional devotion here has created a systemic inability to edit according to our policies and guidelines. It's irrelevant what one's intention is; the cascading effect of the relationships have created a swathe of articles and edits which are non-compliant with our tenets. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 02:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::We don't have ''tenets'' on Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines. These were applied to the best of Rachel's, her colleagues', and students's ability most of the time. And actually, their efforts and goals were the opposite of institutional devotional editing. There may be some obscure Mormon religious-character-articles that don't have good coverage. But, that is an oversight that is happening in other areas of Wikipedia in a likewise fashion. And I have to say, I have not seen you involved in any of the recent discussions on LDS/''Book of Mormon'' talk pages. So rather than denigrate the hard work of other editors I recommend pitching in. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 19:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *:::This response exemplifies the problem. This is not about well-intentioned mistakes - this is about a systemic COI failure to ensure neutrality, reliable sourcing and due. Every editor has a right to be concerned about this issue, irrespective of their efforts towards the particular topic, precisely because of the far reaching effects beyond the topic. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 23:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose.''' What Gamaliel said. Also, I would like to support this Wikipedian in Residence, and acknowledge their contributions. [[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Would you also like to acknowledge the concerns raised below (now within a collapse) by BilledMammal, which were also posted on your talk page? [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 19:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Sure. Accepting or declining in-person meetings in the workplace is pretty standard in my world. By contrast, almost every single conversation in this online environment seems like nothing but trouble. I thought that meeting a person with shared interests and a public-facing job, in a public place might be a way to clear up misunderstandings. I did not know that suggesting people try talking things over in person is considered unacceptable here. Now that I think it over a little more, I suppose that if this is literally &quot;the encyclopedia that anyone can edit,&quot; gosh knows what sort of awful, terrible person might show up at a library. Perhaps someone would delete the earlier remark for me? I've always respected the LDS for their wholesome lifestyles (even if I'm too attached to coffee to ever become LDS myself), and wouldn't want to create difficulties for the folks at BYU.-- [[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 00:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' Rachel is a positive contributor. Sure there are missteps, but those can be worked through without going to the nuclear option. Similar to Rhododendrites, I would strongly urge Rachel to institute strict standards for the content she and her students produce and to keep a very close editorial eye on her students' edits, but overall I see her work as a ''net positive''. [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon7|talk]]) 02:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Conditionally support a &lt;u&gt;time-limited&lt;/u&gt; topic ban''' provided that the topic ban is interpreted in such a way as not to preclude commonsensically non-church-related topics such as the [[Bakemono no e]] which according to a presentation here [https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&amp;article=7628&amp;context=facpub&amp;type=additional] she worked with. All university libraries have a lot of holdings, and there are many ways she could continue to be a productive WiR without getting into Mormon archaeology and stuff. I also think some sort of restrictions or advisories/warnings for her student helpers could be worth considering. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I had been seriously considering striking my vote for several potential reasons including RH’s cooperativeness, the issue of proportionality, and the fact that this could set a dangerous precedent based on certain statements by a few of the most aggressive supporters. However, given 1) the apparent interactions between Rachel Helps (wearing whichever hat) and other AML-related persons of interest and 2) the apparent inability on the part of the quality-control system to effectively handle the volume of contestable changes being made by the BYU group (which is by no means the latter’s fault per se, but there is still much room for improvement).<br /> *:At the same time, I am not completely convinced that a community-imposed topic ban is the best solution and I am interested in seeing more discussion. And possibly a “no consensus for now” close that allows RH and the BYU group time to further improve their practices, because I do believe there is a possible overlap between the desire of LDS scholars and The Encyclopedia as a whole in terms of documenting LDS topics more completely. And it does sound like a lot of the LDS content had been start-class poorly sourced and OR type stuff from novice editors, the same sort of stuff that you often see in Indian local articles and Judaism articles.<br /> *:However, I think the proposal about Thmazing is ripe for a close. The community, including yours truly, has a dim opinion of the behaviors that he’s engaged in, amply. And while I’m concerned about the AML situation I would like to see more evidence of any systematic collusion.<br /> *:[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 01:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I'm the one who [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_166#Brigham_Young_University|opened the COIN in 2020]]. If Rachel would have simply agreed that she and her students would place a COI notice on article talk pages, I wouldn't be here. But she repeatedly resorted to arguing that it wasn't strictly required, so she wasn't going to comply with the request that she do so. Multiple other WiRs came in arguing that requiring her to do so would threaten the WiR system; they're here, too, opposing this. I hate to lose the BYU folks' contributions, which I believe are generally helpful, and which we'll probably lose if there's a Tban. But until Rachel agrees to disclose '''on article talk''', even though not required to, I'm a '''support''' for a topic ban from LDS articles for Rachel and her students. {{u|Rachel Helps (BYU)}}, please, just agree to disclose. It's such a small request. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :* At this point I'm happy to comply, the difference between the TOS and the guideline seems like a hill I don't feel like dying on right now. Just tell me how you want me to do it. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:I'm sincerely glad to hear it. Best practices, even if not required, is a good thing for someone who is a WiR and in education to try to follow. You and your students can disclose at article talk by adding the &lt;nowiki&gt;{{Connected contributor|User1=username}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; template into the headers. The first person to edit a particular article can create the banner and put their own username as User1, and others who follow along can just insert |User2=, etc. There's documentation for other parameters at [[Template:Connected_contributor]], but really I'm satisfied with a simple list of COI contributors. <br /> :*:If you'll agree to make that routine going forward for all edits to articles related to BYU/LDS by you and your students, broadly construed, I'll strike my support for a tban. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::@[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] This seems reasonable. I'm curious what the threshold would be for adding the template. I ask because I've often seen Rachel reverting vandalism or other unhelpful edits or just fixing a source here and there. A quick look at her contributions shows that there are over 900 articles where she's made only 1 or 2 edits. It should be possible to find the intersection of her edits with articles within the LDS wikiproject, but I would expect the list of articles to be at least several hundred long. Should there be some threshold for what constitutes a substantive edit, or would you prefer having her place the template even for minor edits? Or would a more narrow range of articles be reasonable, like articles specifically related to the BYU, LDS Church, BYU people, etc.? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::@[[User:Awilley|Awilley]], just off the top of my head: any edit that could reasonably be marked as minor -- typo fixes, grammar fixes, expanding or combining or renaming a reference -- doesn't need a COI tag. If there's content work, and it's related to BYU/LDS, tag it. Willing to be persuaded that this isn't the appropriate threshold, though! I wouldn't want to have to tag an article talk every time I edited something for the first time, that would double the work on many minor edits and maybe discourage me from making them. I don't want this to be onerous, as I do value the contributions these folks are making, and I appreciate BYU's willingness to fund a WiR to provide access to its records. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 20:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * [[User:Valereee|Valereee]], why not make it required? What harm would that do? It seems rather bizarre to make it a condition when it's not a requirement, especially for so qualified an editor as Rachel, who is a huge asset here. (We aren't making it a condition for other COI editors, many of whom have dubious motives, making the difference in treatment even more bizarre.) The solution is to make it required for all COI editors. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#0bf&quot;&gt;PING me&lt;/span&gt;]]''''') 17:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{ping|Valjean}} - To make this a &quot;requirement&quot; rather than currently what it is as a &quot;best practice,&quot; would require community consensus. No one person can make it a requirement. Someone would have to initiate an RFC. And there is probably good reason for this not be a requirement as deemed by the community. For me, the reason for &quot;strongly discouraged&quot; (or whatever) is probably to cover most of the circumstances, with some flexibility, in contrast to overbearing rigidity. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:As said in the opening of [[The Warriors (film)]]: Can you dig it? ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:: Hi Steve. I understand and largely agree about the proper procedure. What considerations might there be against making it a requirement? What harm would it do? -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#0bf&quot;&gt;PING me&lt;/span&gt;]]''''') 18:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I believe I indicated the potential harm. With the wording as it is, there is some flexibility rather than strong rigidity. The community seems to operate best with flexibility. In any case, this is veering off topic in this forum. You might want to open a discussion about this elsewhere. Maybe the Village Pump or the COI talk page or wherever else? Also, anyone feel free to hat this part of this ANI. ----[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Valjean|Valjean]], because we'll never get buy in from other WiRs. Unfortunately it's just that simple. <br /> *:The thing is, it doesn't need to be required in order for it to be best practices, and when multiple other editors are requesting you to do something that isn't strictly required in policy ''and only costs you three seconds of time'', why would you not ''want'' to comply with those requests? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I'm not sure where to respond here, but yes, I'm happy to comply and talk to other WiRs about best practices. I just told my students that we're going to include talk page connected contributor banners from today, and it will probably take a few days for everyone to start using them (one of my students is only working on Fridays this semester). I can do the pages we've worked on in the past--does anyone know if there is a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category? Or I can dedicate a few minutes each day working on it over the summer. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 18:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::{{tq|a way to do an automated edit based on a maintenance category}} <br /> *:::You could try a [[WP:BOTREQUEST]]. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::AWB is also an option where you can make semiautomated edits to pages based on an intersection of categories. Like pages in the LDS Wikiproject that you have edited. Ping me on me talk page if you want help. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 15:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' per Vanamonde93. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 18:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' per Vanamonde93 and Awilley [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 02:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban, broadly construed.While it's true that her userpage is a whole heap of disclosure, the real problem is her (undisclosed) willingness to encourage other's undisclosed COI. Per Fram and Levivich: in Effect. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 18:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per the reasoning of {{U|Levivich}} - which I find particularly alarming due to the walled-garden character of a lot of BYU articles. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Weak Oppose''' per Vanamode93. Even if the COI stuff is properly resolved, or Rachel Phelps is topic-banned, we still have a massive number of LDS topics with no critical sources. This does not necessarily mean that the articles will improve. As a religious editor myself, it can sometimes take me up to an hour to find a non-fringe scholarly source to support whatever perspective I want represented. This is frustrating, but I do not try to bend the rules if I cannot find a reliable source mainstream enough to support a pro-religious perspective. See [[WP:NOTTRUTH]] for more information. However, I am opposed to a topic-ban because in my experience, student editors tend to do such a terrible job following policy, that I cannot support a topic-ban without us at least doing something about the WikiEd program as a whole. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I suppose it's possible that some of the student employees being paid by the BYU Library to edit Wikipedia are also involved in WikiEd somehow through their regular classes, but this is the first time I've seen someone bring up WikiEd as a problem here. {{u|Scorpions1325}}, since it's important enough to inform your vote, could you explain what the connection is? [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 00:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Forgive me. I misspoke. I am saying that it is not wise to let people employed at universities or anywhere else edit here for pay if they are not well-versed on policy, which is the case of BYU's students. At [[WP:AFC]] I found myself removing [[WP:PRIMARY]] and non-[[WP:INDEPENDENT]] sources every day. Paid editors, disclosed or not, tend to cause time-consuming work. Being a Wikipedia editor is something that requires commitment. Sometimes, learning the ropes can take months. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 00:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I've read this over four times and no matter how I look at it, you seem to be arguing in favor of restrictions (or rather, that it would be &quot;not wise&quot; to oppose restrictions in this specific paid editor situation, where we agree that there are problems). But maybe that's just a sign that I should have shut up an hour ago and left this for the closer. Which I'll do now, with apologies for dragging this on longer. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 00:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::It's a yes, but only if situation. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 01:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Topic ban for Thmazing=== <br /> <br /> On the basis of [[User_talk:Thmazing#Conflict_of_interest|this discussion]], I think we need to topic ban [[User:Thmazing]] from pages related to [[Association of Mormon Letters]] broadly construed. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 13:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Editors may also consider a wider topic ban on [[Mormonism]]. Note the time of this post, editors commenting before '''04:13, 15 March 2024''' will not have seen this post. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 04:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' This user has a large number of COIs, and refuses to discuss them. They are still editing, but will no longer engage in questions regarding editing about themself and their friends. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood|talk]]) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. As &lt;ins&gt;he is&lt;/ins&gt; a former president of [[Association for Mormon Letters|AML]] and current Managing Editor of its journal [[Irreantum]], I see Thmazing as the &quot;highest-ranking&quot; editor in this COI group (that I know of), and thus the most culpable. Far more culpable than Rachel Helps, who is listed as AML's Discord Admin (and I believe is a current or past board member). Thmazing should have been the one to disclose, require the disclosure, or otherwise reign in, all this undisclosed COI editing coming from AML board members, staff, and other associated editors. A TBAN from AML is really too little IMO, I would ''at least'' TBAN from all of Mormonism (same scope as Rachel Helps) for the same reasons: prevent him from not only editing about AML but also about its &quot;product,&quot; which is Mormon literature, and thus by extension, Mormonism itself. Heck, due to his high ranking nature and his particularly obstructive involvement in this entire fiasco, I'd also just support a straight site ban. But support as certainly better than nothing. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;small&gt;This is phrased a little confusingly... until the end of that paragraph, I thought that you had declared ''yourself'' the current managing editor of Irreantum.--&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier&quot;&gt;[[User:Elmidae|Elmidae]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Elmidae|talk]] · [[Special:contributions/Elmidae|contribs]])&lt;/small&gt; 19:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *::&lt;small&gt;That would have been a real plot twist! 😂 Thanks for pointing it out, I added a couple words to clarify. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 21:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *:What exactly do you mean by {{tqq|by extension, Mormonism itself}}? [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 02:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per sound analysis above. &lt;s&gt;I looked at his last article [[Draft:Mike Pekovich]], originally created in the mainspace: it is blatantly promotional (&quot;His work on woodcraft [...] has influenced thousands of woodworkers over decades&quot;) as much as badly sourced (two non-independent primary sources)&lt;/s&gt;. [[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;ins&gt;ADDENDUM&lt;/ins&gt;: I also support a wider '''topic ban from Mormonism''', broadly construed, per Levivich, starship.paint and Steve Quinn. Also based on my striked content I suspect there could be other COIs in the mix (in addition to some obvious [[WP:CIR]] issues). --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 12:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> **The draft you link to is problematic, but I don't see how it relates to the AML. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *** You're right, I had taken for granted that the subject was an LSD member. I've strikken the side comment, which is btw telling of this user's way of editing. --[[User:Cavarrone|'''C'''avarrone]] 17:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ****If anything that speaks to a broader issue, perhaps include a ban on article creation? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' maybe they will miraculously recover from the [[WP:ANI flu|unfortunate illness which prevents their typing]], but hopefully they take their &quot;breathing&quot; time to learn [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thmazing&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212609155 how to not] {{Personal attack removed}}. In this particular case, however, Thmazing's obstructionist behaviour annoyed me enough to begin investigating in the first place, so perhaps we should thank him. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:AirshipJungleman29|AirshipJungleman29]]: I've removed the personal attack. Please remain civil when describing behaviour from other editors. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{reply|Femke}} That's bollocks, &lt;s&gt;mate&lt;/s&gt; colleague. We had our [[WP:DICK|own page called that very thing]] which ''still'' directs to a page on meta. So AsJm29 should have called Thamazing a jerk, I guess. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::And there is a reason the meta page is no longer has that title. More people considered this a personal attack. Neither words are conducive to resolving issues of COI editing and civility on Thmazing's part. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 20:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' per the above comments. [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', but per Levivich, would easily support more, as this is ridiculously lenient. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 22:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I agree that the past president of [[Association of Mormon Letters]] shouldn't be editing articles about that group, but I'd like to have all such conflicted editors able to make suggestions and {{tl|edit COI}} requests on the talk page. With niche subjects in particular, we need to balance our need for an accurate article against our desire to have the independent editors making the decisions about what to include. It's not ultimately helpful to the main goal if we TBAN anyone who actually knows anything about the subject. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:If they are the only people who know the things about a subject, that subject may not be worthy of encyclopedic coverage. It may have not gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and may not be suitable encyclopedic matter. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 23:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Strong support''' lack of candor and accountability, repeatedly citing their own off-wiki blog posts, even this topic ban is too lenient, it should be a topic ban from Mormonism at least. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' the topic ban described above per all the comments about COI and lack of candor. I also support a broader ban to include all LDS/Mormon topics per [[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]]. --&lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Futura&quot;&gt;[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]] • [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' the subject obviously has skin in the game regarding AML and they fail to adhere to COI policy. I agree that the ban should include all LDS/Mormon topics. They do not understand how to edit according to policies and guidelines. Also, I am looking for evidence that they actually cited content in articles with their own blogposts. If this is true then that is totally unacceptable as one of the primary no-no's on Wikipedia. Anyone have any diffs about them citing article content with their blog posts? I read about it in the linked conversation but was unable to discern on which article(s) this happened. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **{{re|Steve Quinn}} - perhaps you can look at the articles [[Elias: An Epic of the Ages]] (most obvious, look here first), [[Adam and Eve in Mormonism]], and [[Brad Teare]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 03:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Starship.paint}} - So yes, it is true. Thmazing has been citing content with their blogposts. This is disconcerting. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 16:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> *'''Support'''; Thmazing appears to be both more culpable and less able to recognize and fix problems with their editing. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 04:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed'''. As {{slink|User talk:Thmazing#Conflict of interest}} {{small|([[Special:Permalink/1213676930#Conflict_of_interest|permalink]])}} shows, the editor repeatedly cited their self-published blog posts (from [[Substack]], [[Blogspot]], and at least one personal website) in Mormonism-related articles, including articles not directly related to the [[Association for Mormon Letters]]. These are clear violations of the [[WP:PROMOTION|policy against promotion]] and the [[WP:REFSPAM|guideline against citation spam]]. New editors who do this are indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia as a routine matter; see the reports on the [[WP:UAA|username noticeboard]] for examples. The editor's use of deflection when asked about their promotional edits and conflict of interest (e.g. {{!xt|&quot;[[Special:Diff/1212451954|I know you just got out of arbitration yourself and so I can understand why you'd want to share the love, but I feel like the conversation we've had has already solved this problem.]]&quot;}}) is highly concerning and shows that they are not an appropriate fit for this topic area. —&amp;nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#536267;&quot;&gt;Newslinger&lt;/span&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:Newslinger#top|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;'' 04:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', per extensive discussion above and elsewhere. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 05:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''', per evidence presented by others. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 12:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support site ban for high conflict-of-interest, topic-ban as second choice''' - Refer to my comments in re the Rachel Helps topic-ban above; they apply equally here, with the caveat that we have community banned editors for editing blatantly to further their organisation's goals on the grounds of irreconciliable conflict-of-interest. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * &lt;s&gt;'''Oppose'''. Generally concur with the comments by Awilley, Ocaasi, Pigsonthewing, Vanamonde93, and FyzixFighter. I do not see anything presented that rises to the level of requiring a topic ban, and I see plenty of evidence of the positive contributions this editor has made to Wikipedia. [[User:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;Gamaliel&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/small&gt; 22:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/s&gt;<br /> ::&lt;small&gt;{{ping|Gamaliel}} {{ping|Oliveleaf4}} I think you may have voted in the wrong section? This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, {{ping|Viriditas}} might want to re-evaluate the &quot;per Gamaliel&quot; vote. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 06:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :::&lt;small&gt;{{ping|Gamaliel}} {{ping|Oliveleaf4}} I also think you may have voted in the wrong section! This section is for a topic ban on different user named Thmazing. If that's the case, {{ping|Viriditas}} might want to re-evaluate the &quot;per Gamaliel&quot; vote. ---06:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :::{{ping|Awilley}} {{ping|Steve Quinn}} Thank you! You are correct, and I've moved my !vote accordingly. [[User:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;Gamaliel&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Gamaliel|&lt;span style=&quot;color:DarkGreen;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]])&lt;/small&gt; 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' per Gamaliel. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 00:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *&lt;s&gt;'''Oppose''' as per Gamaliel also. Telling the BYU Wikimedian in Residence not to edit on Mormonism? We don't want to go there, folks. If we need to work with them on some aspects of wiki policy, let's not harangue them online, let's arrange for an experienced person to meet up with them. I might have a chance to go out to Utah next year, and I'd be happy to sit down with them and edit.&lt;/s&gt; [[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 04:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Why don't we want to &quot;go there&quot;? What are you implying? The community has been trying to &quot;work with them&quot; on aspects of policy for years. It hasn't worked. Why are you so confident your in-person visit is going to be successful? Do you have a track record of success with such things? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 11:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It is creepy to offer to meet in real life with editors you don't know to help them avoid a potential topic ban. [[User:Big Money Threepwood|Big Money Threepwood]] ([[User talk:Big Money Threepwood|talk]]) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{+1|color=green}} [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Fwiw this is a WiR at a university whom anyone can walk up to and not some editor editing off their couch at home so if anything the suggestion raises the opposite sort of sussiness. Anyway… [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 05:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::One word: safeguarding. One wants to interact with another Wikipedian one does so on Wikipedia or at an event where Wikipedians have *themselves* *chosen* to attend. We should not be treating casual contact amongst editors in RL with anything other than the most serious concern for unintended consequences. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 05:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Am attempting to support efforts by a WiR, not give them a bad time! (Have attempted to comment in the other section.)[[User:Oliveleaf4|Oliveleaf4]] ([[User talk:Oliveleaf4|talk]]) 18:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' The evidence is clear here as well. Currently this editor is a net-negative to Wikipedia and cost us time and energy. I cannot understand this continual impulse to let folk get away with bad behaviour and breaking policy that are clearly understood and followed by the majority of editors. That was a long conversation that was held in 2020 by administration, it was very clearly stated. Combined with the analysis done recently, makes it clear as day. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 13:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:This is quite rude and suggests an egregious misreading of my editing history. Some cherrypicked flaws in my editing past do not a &quot;net-negative to Wikipedia&quot; make. Has anyone actually looked at my entire editing history or are you just believing what you're told?<br /> *:I appreciate the fellow above who admitted he had made erroneous assumptions about an article I had started but his errors were more numerous than the one he apologized for.<br /> *:I know this isn't the place for it, but I feel obliged to point out that what's happening here is largely an on-Wikipedia doxxing of people who, in good faith, made it possible to do so.<br /> *:(Also, I might add that the idea that I've only heard about Fram in one Discord server and that you can guess which one it is is charming. She has quite the reputation as I'm sure many of you know.)<br /> *:Anyway, carry on. If you could do it without the ad hominem attacks, however, I would appreciate it. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 22:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Thmazing}} No it isn't. I did look at your entire editing history and checked a whole bunch of it as I work on article reviewing, before I commented here. I read the discussion prior to this as well. The comment is probably is a bit harsh but you made the concious choice to ignore policy and your response hasn't been particularly positive. I work up at conflict of interest board also and I see the same kind of response by coi editors every time. I am sick to death of it dude. I want you to experience a moment of catharsis and undergo an epiphany, improve and stop breaking [[WP:COI]] and particularly [[WP:NPOV]]. I only state this because of your previous work. '''&lt;span style=&quot;text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;[[User:scope_creep|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3399ff&quot;&gt;scope_creep&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:scope_creep#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 08:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' - Same general rationale as my !vote regarding Rachel Helps, but with Thmazing there appears to be even less mitigating circumstances as they have not engaged with this discussion in a remotely satisfactory fashion, whereas RH has at least attempted to make amends. &lt;sub&gt;signed, &lt;/sub&gt;[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban from Mormonism, per above. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' I'm here particularly because of the refusal to acknowledge the problem. Regards, --[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 04:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :'''Support''' I haven’t yet decided what I think about the proposal for Rachel Helps, but given the level of incivility and defensiveness Thmazing shows on their user talk, combined with their substantive behavior with content and CoI, I think a topic ban might be warranted. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 07:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed. Even on top of the obvious COI issue for the reasons explained in my reply regarding Helps above, their replies on their talk page about it are not acceptable and show both an unwillingness to assume good faith and a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] view of Wikipedia, which is particularly incompatible with COI editing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1190835734&amp;oldid=1190608956&amp;title=User_talk:Thmazing This] they thought better of and replaced, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1190838884&amp;oldid=1190835734&amp;title=User_talk:Thmazing the replacement] is no better. {{tq|I understand your feelings may be hurt and I don't want to pile on}} and {{tq| Wikipedia is not a sport where people should strive to win or lose and I apologize if I made you feel you needed to win}} are not acceptable ways to respond to a serious concern. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1212451954&amp;oldid=1212410244&amp;title=User_talk:Thmazing This] is in some ways even worse - I'm particularly concerned by {{tq|I think you might feel better about things if you report me. I mean—you're Fram! You have a reputation to maintain! (I was lurking on a Discord channel earlier today and you came up. &quot;What a coincidence!&quot; I said to myself)}} coupled with {{tq|I'm not sure how you all ended up here (perhaps you're on another Discord channel complaining about me?)}} - I'm not sure how to interpret those two sentences other than, well, 1. Thmazing believes that people coordinate Wikipedia edits on Discord, and that this is common and normal enough to immediately leap to that assumption when COI concerns come up, and 2. Thmazing themselves is in a Discord channel which was discussing Fram around that time. The logical conclusion, to me, seems to be that Thmazing leaped to that conclusion because that is, in fact, the nature of the discord channel referenced in the first sentence, and they assume that everyone else is doing the same thing because they're approaching Wikipedia as a battleground. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 16:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:In fairness, [[WP:FRAM|we did have a massive controversy which involved harassment and Fram]], and all that seemed to come from that is that Fram has a reputation.... for being a punching bag whenever he inserts himself in anything involving any sort of controversy and getting fucked over whenever his name comes up in conjunction with anything remotely near [[WP:HARASS]]-related content (though in this case I will defend his block as justified, just not as performed by [[WP:INVOLVED|Primefac]]). This is not to justify Fram's actions or exonerate Thmazing, whose actions smack of [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list|EEML]] or [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones|WTC]] just from a brief glance, and get just as ugly as them if scrutinised. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :'''Comment''' Thmazing has been creating a lot of redirects such as &quot;John grisham&quot; (note the capitalization) and seems to be unaware that these are superfluous (unless I’m very much mistaken) due to case insensitivity. Is there a way to bulk RfD like multiple AfDs? [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 10:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|RadioactiveBoulevardier}} - actually Thmazing is correct in this regard, so no deletions should occur. For example, our current TFA [[George Griffith]] versus [[George griffith]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 12:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::How so? If I put “George griffith” into the search bar and press the button (ignoring suggestions ofc), I get sent to the article. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 13:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I see, we did different ways, {{re|RadioactiveBoulevardier}}. I typed the URL with &quot;George_griffith&quot;. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_griffith] '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 13:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In any case, there’s a reason these redirects are not created systematically. Still, I suppose they’re cheap. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 13:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I'm not particularly interested in defending myself here even though a lot of what has been said is more game-of-telephone than evidence and would never hold up in a court of law. It also makes me sad how corrosive discussions can become. That said, I thought I might add a couple bits of information for consideration.<br /> <br /> 1) I was editing AML-related articles long before I was involved in the AML. I agree that's no excuse for failing to disclose COI when it became a thing, but honestly, it never really occurred to me. I was just doing what I'd been doing before.<br /> <br /> 2) Based on the specific edits that have been used as evidence against me, it seems like we're talking about maybe a dozen of my roughly 8000 total edits---or '''0.15%'''. Even if we quadruple my infractions, which seems a number higher than likely, it's less than half of one percent of my total edits. So some of the hyperbole about me being a threat to the very existence of Wikipedia is wild.<br /> <br /> 3) Something I've noticed in these discussions before is that a few facts can become monstrous through snowballing assumptions. I would encourage anyone who thinks #2 is a lie to please check my contribs for yourself. I genuinely consider myself a gnome and a fairy and you'll see that I turn Wikipedia green. In a wide variety of subjects.<br /> <br /> 4) This conversation makes me think Wikipedia needs to have a new conversation about what COI even means. We have some cowboys that go around enforcing, imo, absurdly broad standards. I'm not sure, by their logic, that I should be allowed to edit places or people within the United States, or with the arts of any sort, or possibly things that metabolize. I know you all think I'm exaggerating here. Good! I agree!<br /> <br /> I don't anticipating posting here again. I've found that a few people (not you, of course, ''other'' people) just want a fight, while I believe in a troll-free Wikipedia. I suppose if I hadn't identified myself, none of this would have been possible. But I'm not afraid to be identified. And I'm up for being called out on my errors. What I'm not cool with is people saying things like I'm a net-negative on Wikipedia. That's not the Wikipedia culture I know. And it's not representative of the work I've done here over the last 20 years (17 with this account). Thank you for reading. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 23:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::I know I said I didn't plan to butt in again, but about an hour after I posted, a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity and describing me and my evil ways and nefarious means. (I will not be providing a link.) But the thing that made me laugh was his primary argument that I have a financial motivation in all this and it made me wonder if that's what everyone here has been thinking? Finances have always been the way ''I'' think of COI and you won't find edits where I cross that line. See if you can see what these have in common:<br /> :::Money made editing Irreantum: $0<br /> :::Money made as president of AML: $0<br /> :::Money made editing Peculiar Pages: $0<br /> :::Money made editing Wikipedia: $0<br /> ::I suppose in my mind these are all part of my efforts to make the world better using the tools I have. Anyway, if that was the (unspoken) subcutaneous concern, I thought I should address it. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 00:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::When you say &quot;a Google Alert sent me to an off-Wikipedia blogpost outing my offline identity&quot; you do realize all that information can be found on your userpage? [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 17:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The post at…that place makes some easily verifiable claims. Other sources indicate you wholly own Peculiar Pages and have a senior position at Irreantum, so the claim that no money explicitly changed hands is not only irrelevant, but indicative of the reasons why editors (including myself) think a topic ban might be helpful to the project.<br /> :::Like, unilaterally removing a notability tag with the diff summary you did? Going about it that way is horribly disruptive to processes and doing so with a CoI is unconscionable to anyone engaged in the NPP or deletion processes (as I am).<br /> :::And by the way, unlike Nihonjoe you by definition can’t be outed, at least not while you have links to your public-facing socials and your personal website on your website. That’s not outing, it’s [[muckraking]]. If you want to claim any sort of protection for your identity, blank your user page.<br /> :::Frankly, if I had a mop I’d have given you a 24-hour block for the particular flavor of calculated incivility you’ve shown multiple editors on your user talk.<br /> :::Through your repeatedly telling people things to the general effect of &quot;[[I am not a crook]]! Was it because of [insert personal attack] that you thought so?&quot; when you know as well as they and now we do what the diffs say, you’ve turned a not that big complaint into something that a pseudonymous WikiHater thought was worth posting about.<br /> :::In fact, it should have been dealt with sooner. An admin should come along and close this because the more people vote !support, the more I get unpleasant feelings related to having just reread ''[[To Kill a Mockingbird]]''<br /> :::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *{{re|Thmazing}} - first, money doesn’t have to be made ''while editing''. The very existence of the Wikipedia pages, in a promotional way, may generate money for the entities. That isn’t my biggest concern, though. That would be that within the last year '''you literally cited your own blog''', multiple times [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elias:_An_Epic_of_the_Ages&amp;oldid=1151435889] within the [[Elias: An Epic of the Ages]]. One month after that you declared that it was your blog [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thmazing&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1153382284]. Citing yourself is blindingly inappropriate. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I've copped to that and apologized and not touched the article since. I hope that these (rare) instances will lead to other editors improving the articles with sources they see as appropriate. But of course I'm not going back to them myself. I can't imagine a better way to get more people mad at me.<br /> *:Also, I hope if I'm not responding quickly there aren't more accusations of me avoiding the conversation. This is a dreadfully busy moment for me in almost every way. Plus, most of the commentary hasn't really been to me, more at me. Thank you, @[[User:Starship.paint|Starship.paint]] for being so civil. (And I know you understand busy!) [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 05:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Oh, hey---serious question:<br /> *:Considering how often I could have cited myself, I rarely have. Usually I use some other source because it seems like the right thing to do. Those few exceptions are for information I didn't think was available elsewhere. I appreciate people don't appreciate the exception and I'm suitably cowed, but that gets to my question.<br /> *:There's been effort to have scientists and historians and others bring their expertise to Wikipedia. And I have to imagine, especially with a scientist bringing new information into the world, if they do so they have little choice but to cite themselves. Although I've generally avoided citing myself (as the rarity of instances proves) I've always thought that this drive to get wild-haired scientists to bring their work to the public via Wikipedia suggested a backside-covering precedent. I wonder how this understanding of the intersection between expertise and COI may have changed? [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 05:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Scientists do not need to cite themselves to contribute their expertise. Science topics generally disallow primary sources (research articles), so adding info sourced to one's own research publications isn't compliant with PAGs anyway. Issues would really only arise when editing a ''very'' narrow subject, when the editor is so prolific writing review papers that all the most up-to-date consensus info is cited to them, or when the editor has a huge number of collaborators and can't avoid citing one of them. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 06:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{re|Thmazing}} - I am afraid your response and past actions show what seems to me a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's key policies and guidelines. By citing your own self-published blog {{tq|for information I didn't think was available elsewhere}}, you are violating [[WP:COI]], [[WP:SPS]] (part of [[WP:V]]) and also [[WP:DUE]] (part of [[WP:NPOV]]). It is my opinion that any topic that desperately needs your blog as a source probably does not meet [[WP:GNG]] for an article on Wikipedia, and any article that meets WP:GNG does not need your blog. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 00:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::That's not quite what I said. All the articles are worthy of existing sans me. I only cited myself for ''specific details'' I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page. I now understand I should not have done that. Lesson learned. If my goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia, such edits would be greater than one one-thousandth of my total edits. I mean---I've written a lot of stuff. I've written about thousands of books and hundreds of movies and plenty of other stuff. If I were the sly ne'er-do-well described in this discussion, you could find hundreds more examples of self-citation to harp on. Since that's not that case, I would greatly appreciate a bit of [[WP:AGF]]. I'm trying to be a good citizen. I believe deeply in the value and importance of Wikipedia and my edit history proves I have added to that value. I'm not touching the articles I've been accused of COI on, even when it's absurd and I have stuff to add. For instance, I had collected a bunch of more recent sources on [[Brad Teare]] but I've only posted them to the talk page, even though I can't imagine a reason why I shouldn't be able to edit that page. [[User:Thmazing|Thmazing]] ([[User talk:Thmazing|talk]]) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{tqq|I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page.}} That's what [[WP:NPOV]] says ''not'' to do: include details that aren't in secondary sources that you personally think are valuable to someone visiting the page. If the only person who wrote about a specific detail is you, then you're not the person who should be adding that detail to the Wikipedia article. What you did there was use Wikipedia to promote your own viewpoint--to promote details nobody else thought were important enough to publish. That ''is'' &quot;sly ne're-do-well.&quot; That's not being a good citizen, that's putting your head in the sand and pretending that bias and COI don't apply to you. That you don't understand or accept this, is why we have COI rules: people with COI have biases that prevent them from viewing something objectively; in particular, COI comes with a bias that makes everyone think their COI doesn't come with a bias, or the bias doesn't matter. It's inherent, it's why COI rules exist in the first place. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{re|Thmazing}} - you've asked for {{tq|a bit of WP:AGF}}, I assure you that's exactly what I have given to you. I've never called you a {{tq|sly ne'er-do-well}}, neither have I said that you have a {{tq|goal were to get my name all over Wikipedia}}. I simply think that you do not know (yet) if you should, or should not, add certain information to an article, per [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:SPS]], which you should thoroughly review. That is evident from your response: {{tq|I only cited myself for specific details I didn't have other secondary sources for but which I thought would be valuable to someone visiting the page.}} '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 07:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support''' for disruption and ignoring NPOV. &lt;small&gt;If Thmazing thinks Fram's comment is unclear[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thmazing&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212609155] or that the draft linked above is NPOV, Fram's command of English, or at least the formal English in encyclopedias, may be better.&lt;/small&gt; It seems like a sarcastic comment to me, but either way there's been enough egregious behaviour that the camel was crushed long before the Belgian comment. [[User:Novo Tape|Sincerely, Novo Tape]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Novo Tape|My Talk Page]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Also, tagging is still editing. 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [[User:Novo Tape|Sincerely, Novo Tape]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Novo Tape|My Talk Page]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed''': Thmazing says that their COI editing is a very low percentage of their Wikipedia edits — 0.15%, according to their completely made-up estimate. If that's the case, and it's not a big deal to avoid all the pages where COI is likely, then a topic ban should be easy to comply with. In general, I'm unimpressed with Thmazing's statements — if they're still calling the COI concerns &quot;absurd&quot; after all this conversation, then they're not getting the point. If they really want to avoid a topic ban, being less defensive and dismissive would help. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 23:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:The conversation with Fram (linked above by Novo Tape) shows that Thmazing prefers deflecting away from the issue of declaring COI by essentially verbally assaulting Fram. {{redact}} Being snarky doesn't work. {{redact}} One more thing, this is not social website where we host links from personal blogs or links from other trivial venues. Thmazing, try doing some reading to learn about editing on Wikipedia. I suggest you start with reading [[WP:N]] and then follow the links from there. But, candidly, I don't see that as happening. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban from Mormonism, broadly construed''': Note that this is an ongoing issue, Thmazing continues to join in discussions without disclosing relevant conflicts of interest [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Motley_Vision&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214597917] [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{redact}} ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 18:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' broadly construed. Not merely the absolutely ''blatant'' COI, but their refusal to acknowledge it, let alone address it, means that the community must do it for them. They chose... poorly. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 18:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Canvassing concerns===<br /> :{{userlinks|BoyNamedTzu}}<br /> :{{userlinks|Awilley}}<br /> I am concerned that there has been canvassing involved in discussions related to Rachel Helps (BYU). In January 2024 there was a case here at AN/I involving myself and Rachel Helps (BYU). Both BoyNamedTzu and Awilley broke long no-edit stretches (21 November 2023-8 January 2024 and 9 December 2023-7 January 2024 respectively) to take positions strongly in support of Rachel Helps (BYU). Neither disclosed a conflict of interest. The same thing happened again with this VP/M-AN/I thread, both broke long no-edit stretches (8 January 2024-12 March 2024 and 17 February 2024-13 March 2024) to take positions strongly in support of Rachel Helps (BYU). BoyNamedTzu did not disclosed a COI, Awilley only disclosed after being asked. In between 8 January 2024 and 13 March 2024 BoyNamedTzu made no edits and Awilley made only four. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :As I mentioned above, I was alerted to the existence of these threads by pings or mentions because I had participated in a previous discussion about you and Rachel Helps. <br /> :*January 9th AN/I thread: That thread was actually about topic banning or admonishing ''you'' for hounding Helps. You say I took a strong position, but I didn't even !vote. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194089340#Admonishment_proposal Here's] the only comment I made in that thread (replying inline to another user to gently correct what I saw as a misrepresentation). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1193974962 Here's] the comment that mentioned me in that discussion. <br /> :*February-March VP/M thread: I got what looks like a more deliberate ping to that thread in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1213362422 this] comment. You will undoubtedly find that suspicious because it was the same user who pinged me to the earlier thread. In any case, there seemed to be a lot of misunderstandings and accusations flying around, so I made a similarly meandering comment trying to clear up a few issues and replied to one user. Unfortunately I can't provide diffs to my two posts because they were caught up in an oversight, but if you scroll up from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;oldid=1213635752#A_personal_analysis_and_proposal] you'll find it. <br /> :*March 13 AN/I: I got pinged to the above thread by its creator in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1213529641 this diff.] You can see my response above where I wrote, &quot;in case it wasn't clear, I'm commenting here as an involved editor.&quot; I try to say something like that whenever I !vote on AN/I threads related to religion because I've recused myself from taking admin actions in that topic area. <br /> :I didn't get any emails or off-wiki communication about these threads, and I'm not on any email lists or text threads or discord servers related to Wikipedia. From a search of my inbox, the last Wikipedia related email I received was in September 2023 from a user asking for details on how I created a certain .gif animation. As for why I chose to comment in the above threads: I have a soft spot when it comes to seeing gnomes getting attacked and sucked into wiki-drama. <br /> :Speaking of pings and notifications, it looks like the &quot;userlinks&quot; templates you used above do not automatically generate pings, so I got no notification that you had opened this thread. You might want to consider officially notifying {{ping|BoyNamedTzu}}. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The community appears to have now endorsed my concerns around Help. I am disturbed that you are only now disclosing your BYU COI despite participating in a number of discussions about the BYU wikipedia editing program. Also, given what we now know clearly not a gnome and never was. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I would also note that since pinging you to that first discussion [Hydrangeans] has disclosed a series of COIs. In hindsight that appears to be on-wiki canvassing. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Then the canvassing issue you have is with [Hydrangeans], for the first two discussions, not Awilley. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I don't agree with that. I was just writing that I'm disappointed in Awilley. In the Jan 9th thread, that's one BYU alum pinging another BYU alum for backup in a thread involving BYU's WiR, and ''none of the three of them'' disclosed it. In the VPM, ''again'' a BYU alum pings another BYU alum, again accusing HEB of &quot;hounding&quot; the BYU WiR, and again, neither of the BYU alums disclose their connection. This is all in an effort to shut down HEB when ''HEB was right all along about the COI'', in fact it's a much bigger and broader COI issue, we now know, than just involving the BYU WiR. This was super deceitful. I understod when I read &quot;I'm commenting here as an involved editor,&quot; and I thought, ''ah ha, that's why''. This is very not kosher, you should ''all'' know better than to participate in ''discussions about COI by your alma mater'' without disclosing that it's your alma mater. In hindsight, we now know, that almost all of the people defending the BYU WiR from COI allegations were also BYU people (or AML people, or both). This was all highly deceptive, which is extra disappoint when it all comes from a Christian church (yeah I said it). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 02:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I would say that this is an issue of lack of disclosure of Awilley's part, which is, the more I think about it, pretty disturbing, for the reasons you mentioned. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 02:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You're right, with that fact pattern laid out Awilley's conduct looks like harassment. They selectively participated in discussions about topics they had a COI with at a time in which they were not generally active on wikipedia in order to confront or inhibit the work of another editor (me). That would be unbecoming of any editor, from an admin it really begs the question of whether they should remain an admin. It is par for the course for disruptive editors to cry &quot;Harassment!&quot; while engaging in harassment, but I rarely see an admin do it and never without consequences. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 02:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> :::::{{tq|you should all know better than to participate in discussions about COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it's your alma mater.}} We talked thoroughly on my userpage why the [[WP:COI|conflict of interest policy]] left me with the impression that it asked about current relationships and not terminated ones, and I apologized for that, both to you personally and in the Village Pump thread. This thread is the first that I learned Awilley had any connection to BYU. I pinged Awilley, along with Drmies and Mackensen, because they had participated in a past ANI thread about HEB and I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again. There are ways of communicating about COI other than by violating the [[WP:HA|harassment and privacy policies]]. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 02:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::If you pinged people because of their past interactions with me and not their past interactions with Rachel on a discussion purely about Rachel's conduct that is not appropriate. Especially if you did it because &quot;I was of the impression HEB's behavior was veering into incivility again&quot; that would be canvassing with a specific goal in mind, all three are admins, were you trying to get me blocked? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 02:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I get that at the time, you didn't know Awilley was a BYU alum. But Awilley knew. I now count at least half a dozen editors who have some affiliation with BYU/AML -- almost all of them current or former employees -- who engaged in discussions about undisclosed BYU/AML COI editing without disclosing their affiliation. If all of them were part of one single conspiracy, that would be bad. But if they all each independently decided to surreptitiously influence the COI investigation without disclosing their own COI, that's even worse. That's like: what the heck are they teaching at BYU, that there are so many BYU folks who don't seem to grasp basic ethics -- and not a matter of the wording of Wikipedia policies, or even ethics tied to any religion or culture, but cross-cultural basic ethics, like that if you are going to act as a &quot;judge,&quot; &quot;juror,&quot; or &quot;witness,&quot; you'd better disclose your connection to the &quot;defendant.&quot; That's so basic. Everyone involved in these discussions about BYU/AML COI who has any connection past or present with BYU or AML should disclose that, or else stay out of these discussions. And it seems like every day I'm learning of someone else who has been involved, has the connection, but didn't disclose. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 02:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::@Levivich, up until today I didn't know that [Hydrangeans] was a BYU alumnus. And frankly knowing it now doesn't really change anything for me. She's just an editor with whom I cross paths with occasionally. There's only one Wikipedia editor I've ever knowingly met in real life. We went to lunch together and had a nice talk. Maybe he was a BYU alumnus too; I don't actually know. And it doesn't matter. Editors on Wikipedia should be judged by their words and actions, not the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 05:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Yeah, judged for actions like choosing to participate in multiple discussions about undisclosed COI by your alma mater without disclosing that it was your alma mater (though I appreciate that you finally did). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Nobody is being judged by the religion they were born into, the culture they were brought up in, or even the schools they attended... They are being judged by their words and actions *alone*. Throwing out these red herrings and insinuations of bigotry against good faith editors is not constructive. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Indeed, and my concern at the time was that HEB pushed too hard, evening when not gaining support from other editors for their views (still feel that way, but it's not relevant here). This situation is different, and I feel seriously misled by Nihonjoe's failure to disclose their COI. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 00:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I will happily acknowledge that Rachel is my friend and the person who recruited me to Wikipedia and taught me how to edit. When I have seen her being relentlessly bullied by other editors, I have defended her. She has never asked me to do this. She has never reuqested that i participate, in any way, in any discussion about her work. She has never canvassed me or anybody else that I know about in order to solicit responses or participation. But the grenades that you and others have thrown her way have a real life impact on an actual human being that I care about, and that often propels me to action. I am conversant enough with Wikipedia conventions to find my way here without being canvassed.<br /> :I will soon be deactivating my account and leaving Wikipedia for good. I have no desire to continue to edit, and I will pledge to make no more edits to any pages. [[User:BoyNamedTzu|BoyNamedTzu]] ([[User talk:BoyNamedTzu|talk]]) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::And did you see it on the discord? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No. I did not see it on the Discord, which I have not participated in for months. I saw it in my real-life interactions with my friend. [[User:BoyNamedTzu|BoyNamedTzu]] ([[User talk:BoyNamedTzu|talk]]) 20:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::For what its worth I hope you stick around, in the future please either avoid such crossovers between your personal life and wikipedia or disclose them. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Further canvassing and meatpuppetry concerns====<br /> {{hat|This was apparently instigated by a joe job}}<br /> {{userlinks|Luke Olson (BYU)}} created an account for the purpose of !voting against a topic ban. In a discussion on their talk page, they revealed there is a discord channel where BYU editors are discussing and are opposed to this topic ban - I am concerned that other !votes may have been canvassed by that channel.<br /> <br /> In particular, I'm concerned about {{userlinks|Oliveleaf4}}, who returned after a two month hiatus and after a few hours of editing elsewhere arrived to vote against this proposal - their first ever participation at ANI.<br /> <br /> I note Awilley has already been raised above, but I'm also concerned about them; they deny being a member of this discord channel, but there is clearly some connection as Luke Olson pinged them when restoring their !vote, saying {{tq|I'm going to ping [[User:Awilley]] so he sees if someone deletes my message again.}}<br /> <br /> In general, I think this is evidence that stronger and broader action is required, perhaps similar to what was used against the Church of Scientology. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I wasn't around for any Scientology saga, but I think if broader action is required, it would likely be geared towards reducing time wasted by college students with the most poriferous opsec I've ever seen, rather than what I presume was a real operation by serious people. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 04:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :what ''did'' end up happening with scientology anyways? [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 04:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Well, there was [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology|this]], @[[User:Vghfr|Vghfr]]. [[Special:Contributions/57.140.16.57|57.140.16.57]] ([[User talk:57.140.16.57|talk]]) 13:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214295281 Diff]''' of the quote BilledMammal is referring to, for convenience. [[User:Left guide|Left guide]] ([[User talk:Left guide|talk]]) 04:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I don't know why Luke Olson singled me out. I've asked [[User_talk:Luke_Olson_(BYU)#Curious_why_you_pinged_me|here]] on their talk page. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Most likely because you're a member of WikiProject LDS. I guess he thought that you'd back him up because you had involvement in LDS related topics [[User:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:teal;&quot;&gt;vghfr&lt;/span&gt;]] (✉ [[User_talk:Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:pink;&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) (✏ [[Special:Contributions/Vghfr|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sky_blue;&quot;&gt;Contribs&lt;/span&gt;]]) 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *If any more single purpose/meatpuppet accounts show up, just tag with {{green|&lt;nowiki&gt;{{spa}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;}} directly after their sig. The closer should be an admin, and they should be able to properly weight any SPA comments. [[User:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;Dennis Brown&lt;/b&gt;]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;2&amp;cent;&lt;/b&gt;]] 04:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I added the &quot;not a ballot&quot; notice to the top. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 12:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:ජපස|ජපස]], @[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]], @[[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]], @[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] and others, fwiw CU data indicates that account is a Joe job. Seems like it was created to derail the discussion and cause drama for entertainment. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Glad y'all put a stop to it. This really makes [[WP:AGF]] hard, doesn't it? Now I have to reset my priors because it did not occur to me that this could have been a joe job. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{hab}}<br /> <br /> Assuming I'm no longer under under investigation for [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Awilley&amp;page=Brigham_Young_University&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max= being an agent of BYU], may I suggest that if there is truly an appetite for having an open and honest discussion about off-wiki canvassing, it might be healthy to acknowledge the real elephant in the room. The thing that I think [[User:Horse Eye's Back]] referred to as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213530736 the &quot;invisible baseball&quot;]. Above [[User:Aquillion]] above criticized Thmazing for questioning how Fram, &lt;del&gt;HEB, and company&lt;/del&gt;&lt;u&gt;and a couple other editors&lt;/u&gt; spontaneously ended up on his talk page. It seems that was a valid question after all. In that light it's a bit ironic that we have editors tracking down Oppose voters to interrogate them on how ''they'' heard about this discussion, what their alma mater is, and whether they're members of a Discord group. {{pb}}I also can't help but wonder if some part of the frustration on display above may be displaced anger for a different user who is currently out of reach of AN/I. I'd hate to see Rachel Helps and Thamazing become convenient scapegoats for Nihonjoe. I'm not asking anybody to change their votes, but I do think it would be healthy to reconsider the [[McCarthyism|BYU editor under every rock]] approach. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 03:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I don't think it was a valid question at all. I asserted, and continue to assert, that the way in which Thamazing reacted there shows a starkly [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] approach to Wikipedia. And it seems a bit silly to bring up the fact that Nihonjoe is before ArbCom as if that is something people concerned about COIs might ''object'' to. It seems clear to me that this will (and should) end up before ArbCom as well - the problem is systematic and comparable to eg. [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology]]; it is unlikely to be settled here. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 04:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :FWIW, I started watching Thmazing's talk page back in January after I submitted evidence on AML COIs to ArbCom. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 06:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It's rather hard to look at Nihonjoe's COI contributions and ''not'' notice the constant intersection with both Thmazing and the BYU editors. For example [[Annie Poon]] was created by Thmazing, with later important edits by Nihonjoe and Rachel Helps (BYU). Oh, Rachel Helps even sourced the article to two different non-[[WP:RS]] sources written by Thmazing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annie_Poon&amp;diff=733735545&amp;oldid=715763069]. Stellar work promoting AML editors in an article about an AML Award winning artist, not problematic COI editing at all. Same at [[Steven L. Peck]], created by Thmazing, expanded by Rachel Helps (BYU) with addition of a source written by Thmazing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_L._Peck&amp;diff=760551193&amp;oldid=696493939] (and e.g. a source written by Michael Austin, which whom she has a COI as well) , of course again a winner of an AML Award (as are Thmazing, Rachel Helps, Michael Austin). On other pages edited by Nihonjoe, I encountered Thmazing adding his own publications[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Wells_%28author%29&amp;diff=449048632&amp;oldid=445839510]. I have to say, Rachel Helps is rather fond of quoting Thmazing, she used him as a reference twice in [[List of Mormon cartoonists]] as well, next to of course the AML Awards. But Thmazing doesn't really need her help, he is perfectly capable of ading his own self-published work[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nephi_Anderson&amp;diff=713827919&amp;oldid=712611908], again on a page edited by Rachel Helps and Nihonjoe as well. But it is a good reference, because that work won, you guessed it, an AML Award. <br /> :Oh look, [[Dendō]]! Created by Rachel Helps, about an AML Award winning book where the Library that pays Rachel Helps owns the original artwork, and where Helps again uses Thmazing as a reference (among other not quite independent references as well). It's a walled garden which becomes very obvious once one looks at more and more articles edited by the same people referencing each other by name, each others publications, the organisations they're in, and so on... [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''It seems that was a valid question after all.''' Please explain what you mean by this. I would also note that if you want &quot;to acknowledge the real elephant in the room&quot; it would be helpful to actually name the elephant... In plain English what is the concern? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Re: &quot;It seems that was a valid question after all.&quot; I was referring to the off-wiki blog post/doxing that Thamazing mentioned above and questioning whether that might have been part of the reason a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep. The earlier blog post and related on-wiki fallout was what I was referring to as the elephant in the room. I think that's about as plain as I can be without having this post redacted. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Is &quot;a bunch of editors spontaneously showed up on Thamazing's doorstep&quot; an accurate summary of the facts? I showed up on Thmazings talk page in December 2023‎. The off-wiki blog post was made on January 18th 2024. Fram didn't show up until 6 March 2024‎, JoelleJay on the 7th, and AirshipJungleman29 on the 8th. To me that looks like JoelleJay and AirshipJungleman29 followed Fram to the page but it doesn't look like Fram was following the &quot;bad site&quot; closely. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 21:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yeah, I saw Fram's edits to the page come up on my watchlist and was curious. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how AJ29 arrived too. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 23:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::No actually, I was following you; I believe you had said something on Jimmy Wales' talk page (EDIT: yes, it was [[User talk:Jimbo Wales#French Wikipedia's new trans MOS|this thread]] which I participated in) and I absent-mindedly had a look at your recent contributions. Couple of days later I was having a look at WPO (I believe for the Nihonjoe saga), saw that thread, and thought &quot;huh&quot;. Used what I could of that thread when opening the VPM subsection after being irritated by Thmazing. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Based on these facts I would ask that you strike &quot;HEB&quot; from &quot;questioning how Fram, HEB, and company spontaneously ended up on his talk page.&quot; if you don't choose to strike the whole thing. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 22:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Although you joined the others in posting on March 7, I'll strike &quot;HEB&quot; as you requested because, as you pointed out, you had posted on Thmazing's talk page in December 2023. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::And what about those who posted on the 9th? Are they part of this clique you're alleging the existence of or is the 8th some sort of magic cutoff? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't mean to defend the blog in any way, but doesn't that editor make their real life identity abundantly clear, hence the conflict of interest? [[User:XeCyranium|XeCyranium]] ([[User talk:XeCyranium|talk]]) 23:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Correct. Thmazing made like zero effort to hide his identity, which made the COI obvious. And to be fair, I have seen some evidence that Thmazing was trying to declare COI even before he was confronted. See for instance [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irreantum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1178161024 this October 2023 edit] with the edit summary, ''&quot;conflict alert: just cited myself&quot;.'' (Still not great to cite yourself though, even if the information was mundane.) &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::So, Awilley, you claim that insinuations that I appeared at Thmazing's talk page due to some off-wiki canvassing is &quot;It seems that was a valid question after all.&quot; I guess you have some evidence for this? As far as I can reconstruct, I noticed Thmazing because of the AML and the AML Awards, which I was looking at because of the many links between them and Nihonjoe's COI articles; and because he also turned up at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 26]], which I looked at when I delved a bit deeper in Rachel Helps' edits (again after I noticed the BYU, AML, ... edits and the collaborations with Nihonjoe on GA review, edit-a-thon, ... ). I then noticed the older discussion about his COI issues, so I started looking at his edits more closely then. But feel free to post any evidence you have of any off-wiki places I was contacted or where I contacted others or ... If you don't have any, perhaps strike the accusation and don't repeat such bogus claims in the future. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 11:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Fram: I'm not trying to claim or insinuate anything. I became interested in the possibility of off-wiki collaboration when I was singled out by the &quot;joe job&quot; sock, so I did some digging and then posted the above. I don't find fault in any of your actions that you described above, and I really wouldn't care even if you ''had'' learned about Nihonjoe and the other editors on the other site. How you find the information matters much less than what you do with it. You'll have to forgive me for not being immediately familiar with all the facts. When I first commented on the Village Pump thread this month I didn't realize there was an Arbcom case afoot and Nihonjoe wasn't even on my radar, so I've been kind of piecing things together since then. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Once you look at the timeline of things, you can see that this didn't start with WPO, WPO only confirmed what people had already been saying on-wiki for ''years''. To recap:<br /> :* the now-familiar [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166#Brigham Young University|2020 COIN]]<br /> :* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1115#Another user is persistently complaining about me|2022 ANI]] started by Rachel Helps against HEB, where she writes &quot;I have invited Horse Eye's Back to bring their concerns to COIN. I would prefer that to the constant accusations that I should not be editing certain pages.&quot; This is ironic in hindsight, as these concerns had already been brought to COIN two years earlier. AFAICS, nobody in the 2022 ANI thread mentioned the 2020 COIN. The only person in the 2022 ANI discussion who was also in the 2020 COIN is... Rachel Helps. I find it not very honest of her to say &quot;take it to COIN&quot; without disclosing that this had already been done. BTW, who jumps in to defend Rachel in the 2022 ANI? Awilley.<br /> :* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Horse Eye's Back's battleground behavior|January 2024 ANI]] against HEB (for things including but not limited to the BYU/AML COI), in which Rachel Helps writes &quot;HEB has been harassing me since last year (see my talk page archive) and the students who work for me(see 1 and 2). He threatened to nominate us for a topic ban on editing pages about the Book of Mormon...&quot; (this is the one mentioned above where [Hydrangeans] pinged Awilley to the discussion) Dozens of editors participated here.<br /> :*:BTW just to toot my own horn here, I said there and then, on Jan 8, that &quot;It seems ''wildly'' obvious that 'something is afoot,' and I don't think it's limited to this thread...&quot; That there was widespread undisclosed COI editing was obvious by Jan 8. Subsequent disclosers have since validated my suspicions.<br /> :* The &quot;Let's talk about LDS editors&quot; WPO forum thread was started Jan 18. After all of the above.<br /> :* The WPO blogs were posted in Feb and March (neither one about Rachel Helps, but related)<br /> :The timeline refutes any suggestion that WPO is what brought attention to this matter. Rather, WPO laid bare the evidence that supported what was already being discussed on-wiki. We know from people's statements that editors submitted evidence to Arbcom privately in December and January. Wikipedia didn't follow WPO, WPO followed Wikipedia. People weren't canvassed from WPO to Wikipedia, it was the other way around. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm pretty damn sure that the reason WPO wrote about it was ''because'' nothing was done on-wiki. Which happens pretty regularly: if Wikipedia doesn't take care of its own problems on-wiki, the rest of the world will notice and call Wikipedia out for it whenever the problems are serious enough for the rest of the world to care. Spreading misinformation in Mormonism, the Holocaust, Israel/Palestine, Iran, etc. are examples of things the real world will care about. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Given the extensive ongoing issues and the lack of recalcitrance maybe we need to start talking about sanctions for Awilley. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you for the timeline, Levivich. That is very helpful. I remember that 2022 ANI...I think that's why I kept getting pinged back to subsequent threads on the same issue. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Right, so when you're in a hole, stop digging. This isn't McCarthyism, which you literally linked to. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 08:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Jesus this is a mess,<br /> ::::does anyone want me to contact an admin [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 02:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{ping|Maestrofin}} The admins are most likely fully aware. This forum is entitled &quot;Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.&quot; ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 03:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Do you think we should have an Request For Comment [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 06:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Several admins have participated in this thread, including Awilley above. An RfC might be needed subsequently, but not right now; you are welcome to comment on this discussion {{u|Maestrofin}}. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I suspect that {{Ping|Ocaasi}} was canvassed to this discussion per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ocaasi]. Despite being an admin Ocassi had not commented on this noticeboard since September 2015 and was not in general active on wikipedia when they came here to make a very strong comment. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Based on their user page, there are several other highly plausible explanations than outright canvassing…honestly this is getting a little too Inquisition-y for my liking and while it may well result in discoveries that a do-no-harm editor like me would never have chanced upon, ArbCom has a nasty reputation for being a little indiscriminate with its remedies. Just so you’re clear on the risks/rewards. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 01:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: There's a line between a witch hunt and hunting witches... But yes, I take your point. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Well, you ''were'' pretty much accusing the founder of [[WP:LIBRARY]] of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy not limited to LDS editors…lol<br /> :::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 17:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I think it's legitimate to point out that some GLAM higher-ups are circling WiR wagons in this dispute. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{cn}}{{clarify}} [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I join you in soliciting additional evidence of same. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Horse Eye, respectfully, how are you defining &quot;active&quot;? The link you provided shows activity every month from October 23, 2023 to March 2024. And if we go back to the next oldest 100 edits there is activity every month from May 12, 2023. And this is starting to feel a little creepy, imho. It may be best not to go down this road unless there is some sort of definitive evidence, imho. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 02:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : I'm defining active as &quot;could reasonable be expected to have found this discussion through their normal editing.&quot; If you can come up with a way they got here let me know, IMHO their appearing here is a little creepy and I'd like some context. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::This discussion is already so complex that it's going to be hard for anyone to close it. Quibbling over a single participant's possible canvassing is adding more complexity. Even if this is true, it's not important. [[User:Toughpigs|Toughpigs]] ([[User talk:Toughpigs|talk]]) 16:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'd disagree. If an admin were canvassed and still !voted (I have no opinions on whether or not they were), it would be a serious [[WP:ADMINCOND]] issue, potentially warranting a formal warning. It's certainly important if true. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 18:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Agreed but…''prima facie'' evidence much? Canvassing has a specific definition. Being hypothetically informed of a WiR getting in trouble, coming over to see what’s up, and then deciding on one’s own initiative to respond in a knee-jerk way is, unless I’m very much mistaken, not canvassing.<br /> ::::Anyway, if the movement were as politics-ridden as was implied, then he in turn would, purely theoretically, probably be able to canvass a goodly number of experienced uninvolved editors who are overwhelmingly grateful to him for their free access to more things than even those enrolled at most top universities get.<br /> ::::Separately, I sense that Awilley’s vehemence is probably related to the tone taken by jps and others. Even if mainstream consensus and anti-religion PoV intersect on points of fact (like that the society depicted in the BoM is, ya know, completely fictitious and Joseph Smith was quite literally pulling it out of his hat) that doesn’t give editors a blank check to exceed or breach guidelines (any of them). [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Meh, even if it was canvassing, this is just one vote amongst many. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 13:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Closing time?===<br /> There have been no new comments in the main threads for a couple of days, so is it time for an uninvolved admin to close before the archiving bot gets trigger happy? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 13:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :This should absolutely get the attention of a closer. I look forward to reading it. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::My reading of the main thread is that it's a tricky close because of so many overlapping issues. On the one hand, there's a clear consensus that the user messed up in editing topics with a COI without adequately disclosing the COI. But there's no evidence that her editing was disruptive (quite the opposite). There's evidence that her student editors weren't doing a great job with NPOV and were too &quot;in-world&quot; on Mormonism-related topics. But she seems to be taking steps to address that as well, starting by having them only edit in sandbox for now. There are some users who seem to suggest that all paid editing should be banned, but AFAIK that argument doesn't have the force of policy behind it. There seems to be a numerical majority favoring a topic ban, but the editor is a clear net-positive on Wikipedia and shows a genuine interest in following the rules. In this thread she openly admitted fault, and then she went way beyond what is expected by listing all possible conflicts she could think of on her userpage. (See also the conversation with above with Valeree about which talk pages require a COI template.) The WiR thing is another complication that I think most people (including me) don't fully understand. And it seems the biggest COI violations (like the creation of [[The ARCH-HIVE]]) were unpaid—done on her on time from her personal account. This all makes for a thread that different admins could reasonably close in different ways. {{pb}}My suggestion would be to wait a day or two (I don't know if Rachel edits on Sundays) and see if people might be interested in finding a middle path...something between &quot;topic ban from Mormonism broadly construed&quot; and &quot;no action&quot;. There might be some solution that would satisfy more people and solve the problem too, perhaps something along the lines of &quot;Rachel Helps agrees to use the {{tl|Connected contributor}} template on all articles in the LDS Wikiproject to which she makes substantive edits, and will not directly edit articles about BYU, its current staff, or its library. She agrees to follow the advice at [[WP:COIEDIT]] for subjects she has a close connection with, including using the {{tl|edit COI}} template on the talk page. All article creations, even those from her personal account, must go through the [[WP:Articles for Creation]] process.&quot; Some guidance for what to do with her students would also be helpful. {{pb}}Is there any interest in this? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 17:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;small&gt;(involved here, in case anybody hasn't read the above thread)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :A 2007 close that led to an arbcom case above [[Special:Diff/140818119]] suggests that this discussion is gonna be difficult to close definitively…[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 18:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}I don't understand why people are opposed to a topic ban from Mormonism broadly construed even as they admit there were problems. What is the added ''benefit'' of these accounts being able to move around the pages about Mormonism? I think there is rather ''broad consensus'' that encouraging them to move towards new topics would be ideal. Wouldn't a topic ban do that? What I don't understand is why the &quot;middle ground&quot; is sought at all. If you think she and her students should be editing Mormonism pages, then she should be allowed to do so. If you do not, then why the worry about the topic ban? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 18:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:ජපස|jps]] My experience in many contentious (especially religious) topics around Wikipedia has been that there are often two major groups of editors in opposition with one another. One group usually has some affiliation with the topic that gives them three things: 1, motivation to edit, 2, above average knowledge about the subject matter, and 3, a non-neutral point of view. (1 &amp; 2 are good things, 3 is a bad thing.) These users are usually opposed by another group of users who are 1, motivated by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to counter the POV of the first group, and that, 2, have relatively little knowledge of the subject matter. It is &lt;u&gt;good&lt;/u&gt; to have some friction between these groups of editors, since Wikipedia needs motivated editors, people with deep knowledge about the subjects, and a commitment to follow its PAGs. Sometimes you will find a smaller third group of editors between these two opposing groups. These editors may some affiliation with the subject matter with the corresponding POV problem, but they have decided that when they log into Wikipedia, they are going to put Wikipedia first. They have a deep knowledge of the subject, but they recognize their bias and they take steps to mitigate that. If improving Wikipedia is the goal, these editors are a precious resource. The main reason I'm defending Rachel Helps is because I see her as being part of this third group. Does that answer your question? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You think being Mormon gives a person an above-average knowledge of Mormonism? I think it's the opposite. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Strike your comments. That is very disrespectful. [[User:Scorpions1325|Scorpions1325]] ([[User talk:Scorpions1325|talk]]) 01:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Agreed: this is a completely unacceptable PA by Levivich, and not even attached to an actual point they're trying to make. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 04:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::How is Rachel ''not'' a member of group 1? She has motivation to edit, above average knowledge of the subject (such that one might have as a member of the church), and a non-neutral point of view. You are also a member of group 1, no? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I suppose if you're technical about it, a Venn diagram would show that group 3 is largely a subset of group 1. My own relationship with Mormonism is complicated and something I prefer not to discuss on-wiki, but I have tried my best try my best to be a good member of group 3. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af&quot;&gt;~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I think the controversy here is one over whether it is possible to be more or less in the service of NPOV. I would prefer that we simply admit that people with a ''close'' relationship with a subject will necessarily be biased. It is our job as editors to try as best as we can to put that bias aside and attempt to follow Wikipedia's consensus [[WP:PAG]]s to achieve [[WP:NPOV]]. To the extent that I think the BYU contingent has been unable to do that and to the extent it has been in the service of the particular bias which is more-or-less apparent at first glance from the consideration of their approaches in articles on the Book of Mormon is the extent to which I have concerns over [[WP:PAID]], [[WP:COI]], etc. in these areas. So while your complicated relationship with Mormonism is a concern, you (as far as I know) are not being paid to edit Wikipedia by an organization with an iron in that fire. Here is the bone of contention. This is why I am having a hard time seeing how this is amenable to compromise between &quot;just stay away&quot; and &quot;there's nothing wrong with it&quot;. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 21:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Isn't it the case that at this point, only the community can determine if a compromise is possible? I mean, the community has already reached a consensus on its preferred outcome. And admins are not likely to thwart the community's decision, imho. Also, since we are already here, wherever &quot;here&quot; is, we might as well move forward ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In other words, Rachel can appeal in six months or whatever the time frame is. Time in between now and an appeal can be a benefit because it is a chance to show a proven track record. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 22:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{tq|which is more-or-less apparent at first glance}} Except it isn't more or less apparent. The worst of those Book of Mormon topic articles were created decades ago, in the early 2000s, by completely different accounts with nothing to do with Rachel Helps (BYU) and were in far sorrier states before the BYU-paid editors actually added citations to sources other than the Book of Mormon. (To quote Ghosts of Europa, {{tq|Second Nephi and Ammonihah are in much better shape than, say, Jason, a vital article mostly sourced to Euripides and Ovid.}} [for clarity, Ammonihah was not expanded by a BYU-paid editor; that's an article I expanded]) {{pb}}I'm aware of JPS having complaints. Yet some of these complaints have ranged from the genuinely inaccurate (I urge JPS to at some point accept the academic assessment of Joseph Smith as having been racist in a slightly different manner than has been insisted with repeated linking to a 30-year-old ''JWHA Journal'' article—and saying that isn't apologetics unless Max Perry Mueller's ''Race and the Making of the Mormon People'' (University of North Carolina Press, 2017) is Mormon apologetics, which would be a strange characterization for an academic book written by a non-Mormon about Mormon racism and white saviorism)—to the demandingly excessive, like at [[Talk:Ammonihah]] where JPS calls a non-Mormon literature professor a {{tq|lunatic charlatan}} and repeatedly insists the article is incomprehensible because it doesn't provide an apologetics-style anthropology of background elements in the story like supposed Nephite ecclesioilogy.{{pb}}My bone of contention is that JPS's catastrophic description of the Mormon studies topic area that Rachel Helps (BYU) and the student employees have contributed to doesn't hold up in all cases and only holds up in a couple. My bone of contention is that speaking as a trans girl who was formerly a BYU student with a BYU student job (unrelated to the Wikimedian-in-residence business; I never met Rachel Helps (BYU) at BYU and instead met her and primarily got to know her via Wikipedia), this {{tq|BYU contingent}} as JPS calls them never made me feel ashamed or like I was less than them, whereas the users most strongly insisting that Rachel Helps (BYU)'s contributions are catastrophically damaging have proceeded with a tear-down tone that's left me feeling paralyzed about editing completely unrelated things on Wikipedia. I cannot stress this enough when it's so bizarre. I ''came out as trans at BYU'', and the behavior that has been on display here at Wikipedia in the midst of this whole &quot;thing&quot; has hurt ''more'' and inflicted ''more'' shame than I experienced back then. There's been [[WP:OUTING|attempts at outing and stalking]], there's been bizarre additions to articles like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=1213942114&amp;oldid=1212611600 throwing {{tq|judge of ???}} (actually with the question marks) in body text] because apparently that was the best way to insist that article text I wrote wasn't clear enough about the intricate geopolitics of a Nephite society that NPOV means we're not supposed to be treating as nearly so real (JPS's train of thought on Book of Mormon topics more than once has resembled FARMS-style apologists much more than the 21st-century academic-critical field), I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213912940 been told my best effort to summarize available scholarship has constituted {{tq|stupid games}}]. At BYU, I didn't develop a fear I was being stalked. I didn't get talked about over the pulpit or in publicly-viewable forums. No BYU personnel ever [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick&amp;diff=1214009259&amp;oldid=1213938770 followed me to an unrelated article to loom over my shoulder].{{pb}}I don't know what's up about Nihonjoe and ArbCom, and I don't know why the heck Thmazing has been so devil may care in tone and has been making articles cited so predominantly to blog posts. Let the sanctions on ''them'' fall as they must. But to apply the same broad brush more widely and without nuance or differentiation strikes me as reminiscent of the kind of thinking at which the [[Wikipedia:List_of_cabals#Mormon_Smokescreen_Cabal|Mormon Smokescreen Cabal]] joke was supposed to poke fun. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 23:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{Ping|ජපස}}, you've certainly been around long enough to know that {{tq|???}} is poor wikivoice. A couple questions: Can you point to consensus regarding the WSJ not covering climate change accurately? [[WP:WSJ]] makes no mention of it. Are you following [Hydrangeans] around and/or intentionally scanning their contributions for errors? I'm struggling to find an explanation for these edits besides you intentionally being harsh on [Hydrangeans]'s edits, although please provide one if there is. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 00:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Oh, it's well known that the WSJ is a problem when it comes to climate change denial: [https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/Online/22952/Wall-Street-Journal-opinion-editors-are-attacked].<br /> :::::::I am not &quot;following&quot; [Hydrangeans] around. I did look at some of the articles she had last contributed to and did see this terrible &quot;hockey stick controversy&quot; WSJ article added in [[Ross McKitrick]]. This was not, to my knowledge, anything she added to the article. I do not find anything problematic about her work on that article.<br /> :::::::I think the lack of [[WP:AGF]] extended towards me from [Hydrangeans] is sad, but as you can see from our interactions on her talkpage, not surprising. I ''am'' leveling harsh critique on certain Wikipedia contributions she has made, but they aren't unforgivable sins by any means. Yes, I found the article on Ammonihah and most of the rest of the Book of Mormon pages to be pretty bad and needing a lot of cleanup. I will not apologize for being a disruptive force in those places. I think there is a lot more work to be done up to and including three question marks!<br /> :::::::[[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 01:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Who are we discussing about again is it Rachel helps or her students Or all, <br /> ::::::::Because this is a big mess [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 03:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::I don't take issue with deleting that ''Wall Street Journal'' reference on the Ross McKitrick article. I'm sorry that I wasn't paying enough attention to delete it myself; my attention was taken up by belatedly implementing the results of a talk page discussion. What I take issue with are the looming and a tone that others [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=1214739500&amp;oldid=1214681976 others have] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214576198 talked] to JPS about (the two linked diffs are written by someone who agrees with JPS on content, about a different article JPS was participating in). I take issue with someone who says he {{tq|will not apologize for being a disruptive force}} instead of wanting to be a constructive force. I can accept we disagree about the utility of literary criticism as a secondary source about texts (although I find [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmmonihah&amp;diff=1213917154&amp;oldid=1213917026 the {{tq|lunatic charlatan}} invocation a perplexing characterization, especially as apparently applied to even completely secular scholarship]), and I can accept we disagree about what makes good content in an Ammonihah article or what have you. I can accept being wrong about that, and I can accept those articles significantly changing. What I don't think I'm obliged to accept is an apparent priding of oneself on contributing [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptively]] rather than constructively, or behavior like going {{tq|LOL}} (actual quotation, multiple times) at other editors' [[WP:AGF|good faith]] interactions ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmmonihah&amp;diff=1213909195&amp;oldid=1213909094 at Talk:Ammonihah], at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215406823 Talk:Massacre of the Innocents]). The presumption of good faith is a core value on Wikipedia of course—and so is the recognition that [[WP:BRIE|being right isn't enough]]. A templated dove doesn't oblige me to roll over and just take the {{tq|LOL}}s and {{tq|Whachagonnado}}s and pretend like that's restrained, polite talking. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 05:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please feel free to disagree strenuously with me, as you have been. You can even request that I reword things, if you like. I'm not saying I necessarily will agree to reword things, but I'm happy to discuss these matters on my talkpage. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 16:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::I didn't realize the WSJ's issue with climate change (though I am aware of [[WP:RSOPINION]]). Either way, thanks for answering my question about climate change. <br /> ::::::::On second thought, I think the {{tq|???}}, while not perfect, isn't worth relitigating this whole debate. I welcome a close and don't need any further answers to my questions. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thats an opinion piece... And the [[Editorial board at The Wall Street Journal]] is definitely known for bad takes on climate change. Note that [Hydrangeans] has a history of following around other editors (including to completely unrelated topics) and &quot;looming&quot; over their shoulder so their complaints are a bit much all things considered. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::My own feeling, like I said above, is that this sort of paid editing (paid editing that doesn't follow [[WP:PAID]] and [[WP:COI]], and a WIR program that doesn't follow the guidelines for those organization) is a hard red line. I'm not remotely convinced that the people in question knew more about the topic area or were in whatever respect more policy-compliant compared to the average editor, but either way it ''doesn't matter'', for the reasons I outlined above - this is an actually serious problem which, as a precedent, would have implications far beyond this specific dispute. I'm also deeply unimpressed by an argument that we should make a special exception for someone just because some people feel [[WP:YANI|they are irreplaceable]] - that is not how Wikipedia works or has ever worked. Based on that I'm unwilling to accept anything but broad topic-bans, and I expect this to go to ArbCom if necessary in order to get them - this has been discussed repeatedly, devouring massive amounts of editor time and energy, for ''four years''. If it isn't ended in an extremely conclusive manner here, then the community has failed to resolve it and a broader ArbCom case is the only way to go. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 03:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I think your third group is just the first group from its own POV. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 04:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It would probably help if a request for closing was not immediately followed by relitigation of the above debate and related events from the parties who are most unlikely to change their minds. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 12:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Hi, I'm not sure where to respond or if it's appropriate to respond. I'm open to helping to &quot;fix&quot; edits that me and my students have made if we can agree on what is appropriate for Wikipedia (including removing research). I'm open to a topic-ban. I'm open to a topic ban on just Book of Mormon pages (and BYU stuff?), since that seems to be the place where most of our edits have been criticized. I think our edits have been constructive in Mormon studies and Mormon history topics. I'm trying to be flexible here. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 18:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :That's great to hear, and will probably inform any closer's decision. But listen: since you're the one who's getting paid to edit Wikipedia, you should be the one proposing specific fixes and to-do items for yourself based on the extensive feedback you've already received over the past several years (from many unpaid, volunteer editors who could have been doing other things instead, I should add). In specific content terms, what are some of the specific edits you're planning to &quot;fix&quot;? What articles, what sections, what changes to your prior edits, specifically? Even just a few will help convey a sense of what you think is wrong with your prior edits, and how you will correct them. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::There are a lot of complaints about me personally, my job, and my edits here. One of the ones that I think is the most legitimate is the argument that we are using too much &quot;in-universe&quot; explanation for the books of the Book of Mormon. I think we could add more context to clarify on individual pages what a book of the Book of Mormon is. I'm watching the edits on BoM pages. It's difficult for me to look past [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=1214181462&amp;oldid=1213564636 jps's inflammatory language] asking for clarification on issues where I or other people used ambiguous language to summarize theology that was ambiguous in the text that we summarized (but at least he is articulating his complaints to the extent of making edits). My plan is to watch how other editors resolve these edits to try to figure out what is the most objectionable part about our edits. Was it how we wrote the narrative sections? Is there a better way to introduce analysis of the Book of Mormon by members who are also Biblical or literary scholars, if that is appropriate to include on Wikipedia? Those are the kinds of questions I am looking for answers to. My current plan is to give myself and my students a break from editing Book of Mormon pages for the rest of the semester (here that's until the end of April), which I hope will give time for some consensus to develop and for one or two pages to get to a standard that is acceptable to the community, which I could then imitate. If my team returned to editing Book of Mormon pages, it would be either me, or me and one other student, to make the pace of editing slower to wait for review from other editors. And it would be great if I could find an on-wiki mentor who is not associated with BYU or the LDS Church to go to with my editing questions. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 21:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I suspect this is one of those ANI discussions where each participant leaves with a lower opinion of every other participant, but for different reasons. That said, probably the best content-related argument against the topic ban (e.g. from Vanamonde) is that you are the editor who is most capable of fixing some of the content problems that have been identified in the topic affected by the ban. If that were true, then topic banning you would impede the process of fixing the content, making things worse overall. But from what you've said here for the first time (I think), it seems like your actual plan is to wait for other editors to (figure out how to) fix content in that topic area anyway. Not you, not now. Given this new information you've provided, that &quot;best content-related argument against&quot;, aka &quot;per Vanamonde&quot;, becomes much less persuasive, I think. [[User:Indignant Flamingo|Indignant Flamingo]] ([[User talk:Indignant Flamingo|talk]]) 04:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Rachel Helps (BYU)}} I have to agree with {{U|Indignant Flamingo}} above. I opposed a TBAN because I believe you're among the few editors with the time ''and'' the inclination ''and'' the ability to help clean up some of the problems with articles related to Mormonism that you and your students have worked on, which in my view largely have to do with using sources too close to their subject and language that doesn't distinguish articles of faith from accepted fact. I opposed a TBAN despite the serious concerns many colleagues raised above, because I felt you would be willing to help rectify these issues. If you would rather take a break from the topic, though, I struggle to see why I, and others, should advocate for your continued ability to edit about it. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 20:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::: {{ping|Vanamonde93}} and {{ping|Indignant Flamingo}}: Thank you for these question. I have been thinking a lot about what I have done wrong. It has been difficult for me to sift through feedback on my editing (and I have felt paralyzed by my own anxiety), but this conversation has helped me to narrow down what is important, and empowered me to have an opinion on how I think we could repair some of our work. With the Book of Mormon pages specifically, I think I got into too much of a binary mode about whether or not a source was &quot;reliable.&quot; But for scholarship in Book of Mormon studies, especially from the 1990s or 2000s, sometimes it is more complicated than &quot;this is a reliable source.&quot; Something I understood implicitly was that I shouldn't use Wikipedia's voice to summarize opinions about the Book of Mormon as a historical or archeological source--at the very least these should be consolidated into a section on apologetics, or, like you and others have suggested, excluded entirely. However, my students did not understand this implicitly like I did. They were doing what I told them--to summarize what a given source said about a topic and cite it in-line--when I should have instructed them to look more carefully at the implicit bias in scholarship, especially sources like Brant Gardner, which have some valuable analysis, but also work off of the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text. If we were to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, cleanup of archeological/historical arguments on pages we have edited would be my first priority. However, my students have experienced emotional damage from my incompetence. I would let them choose whether or not to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, with an option to continue their projects that are less connected with Mormons and the LDS Church. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Indignant Flamingo asked for an example. [[Laban (Book of Mormon)]] contains a paragraph about the brass plates under &quot;Interpretations&quot;. It is tricky because it mixes apologetic arguments with literary ones. I would remove this analysis, or introduce it differently: &quot;Brant Gardner, writing under the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a historical text, has argued that the brass plates were a symbol of political authority and recordkeeping in the society of Book of Mormon people (Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites).&quot; I would remove the Stephen Ricks info. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Rachel, I'm so sorry this is making you feel so much anxiety. FWIW, I do not believe you have edited in bad faith, and I doubt I'm alone. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I’m not very happy about this either and in my opinion this should be spun off from the AML issues with Nihonjoe and Thmazing unless and until the inquisitorially minded editors find clearer linkages.<br /> ::::::I’m not sure how this would best be handled, but I would be very wary of any permanent remedies being applied at this point and will slightly adjust my vote accordingly.<br /> ::::::[[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::A clearer link than the three of them all being current/former board members of AML? What clearer link can there be than all three of their names appearing on the AML about us page? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Well, why don’t you just ask her? She’s been very cooperative so far. And anyway, while the same person wearing two hats is obviously going to rub off both ways, sanctioning Rachel Helps (BYU) would include the whole BYU outfit, and I don’t believe the standard of evidence has yet been met to say that the BYU outfit has demonstrably colluded with Nihonjoe or Thmazing. If such a thing happened, it’ll probably come out over at ArbCom.<br /> ::::::::The reason I’m now flip-flopping uncertainly is that I perceive jps as dragging their apparently long history of content disputes into this venue, and, along with others, making statements that could be reasonably interpreted as implying support of non-neutral handling of religion more generally, while HEB is making unsubstantiated allegations that faintly ooze a touch of Chekism.<br /> ::::::::Meanwhile, Fram and some others have notably tapered off, most likely because they intuit that some more wheels are turning at ArbCom and/or elsewhere and further participation in the mud bath party here is worse than useless for anyone who wants to doggedly pursue the actual application of remedies.<br /> ::::::::ANI is probably no longer an appropriate venue and pretty soon I think I’m gonna go make a formal closure request. [[User:RadioactiveBoulevardier|RadioactiveBoulevardier]] ([[User talk:RadioactiveBoulevardier|talk]]) 19:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::There are already requests at [[WP:ANRFC]] and [[WP:AN]]. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 19:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Why don't I just ask her what? I don't have any questions. There is, in fact, evidence that Rachel Helps (BYU) &quot;demonstrably colluded&quot; with Nihonjoe and Thmazing, and others. Some of the evidence has been redacted so I can't discuss it, but there's plenty of public evidence still on this page, VPM and the arbcom evidence page -- the evidence my support votes are based on. Look, bottom line: COI concerns have been raised for years about Rachel Helps (BYU). The people who pushed back the hardest against those COI concerns fall into three groups: BYU people, AML people, WiR people. I don't know if you're aware but arbcom already considered expanding the scope of its Nihonjoe case to include Rachel Helps/BYU/AML and voted against doing so. I think ANI is still the appropriate venue for this. This will be closed eventually, it might take some time as it's a long thread, and probably the best thing we can all do, including myself, is to stop making it longer, unless we're bringing evidence of something new. Otherwise, all the evidence and the votes seem to be in. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::@[[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]]; thank you, that is somewhat reassuring. I think you should seriously consider, though, keeping your students off of topics closely intertwined with Mormonism for the foreseeable future, assuming the lot of them do not emerge from this situation with TBANs. It's quite evident from this discussion that there have been problems with the mormonism-related content they have produced. I could speculate as to why, but I won't; I'll just say that dispassionately describing faith and belief in any system is difficult, and is not the sort of task an undergraduate may be up to. I say this to save you and your students further distress, as well as to protect our content. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 21:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have not looked at your Mormon studies/history related edits in any more detail than what was required for the post at VPM and at the start of this section. I have no doubt that many, perhaps even the majority, of you and your students edits on those topics were constructive. But that is to not see the wood for the trees.<br /> :For me, COI editing is comparable to (in some ways) to [[WP:SPI|sockpuppet editing]]—let me explain. It is a question of trust. Yes, a sockpuppet can contribute productively, in improving articles, taking part in processes, getting Wikipedia to function. But it is Wikipedia policy to block all sockpuppets on sight and to put all their edits up for [[WP:BANREVERT|immediate reversion]]. Why? Because once you mislead others to that extent, the trust is gone. And that the trust, or lack of, is fundamental, because good conduct is of equal importance to good content (and I say this as someone who focuses on the latter and occasionally fails at the former).<br /> :It is the same for COI editing. After I have seen your lack of disclosures with, e.g. the account named BoyNamedTzu &lt;small&gt;(I do not know what is public and what is not, but I know that you and I and Primefac and BoyNamedTzu and most of the people in this thread and everyone on The Site That Must Not Be Named know)&lt;/small&gt; how can there be trust? Especially for a person who has held a position which by rights should indicate you are above suspicion. To find that you were actively pushing back against the basic COI suggestions as far back as 2018, and you might as well throw that trust into a shoddily-built submersible and send it down to the wreck of the Titanic.<br /> :The closer may decide that there are significant issues with your Book of Mormon editing, and that's more important. If that's the close, fair enough, I don't really mind—I know you have asked above and on WPO how to improve that aspect. But I want to be clear: I opened this section because I did not think [[WP:CIVILITY|you treated your fellow editors with adequate respect and consideration]], not because I felt you were harming articles. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 02:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{Reply|AirshipJungleman29}} earlier than that, 2016 at least [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amgisseman(BYU)/Archive_1&amp;oldid=854327236#COI]. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Inappropriate removal of NPOV tag by JayBeeEll ==<br /> <br /> {{ping|S Marshall}} closed a controversial RFC today at [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], see [[Talk:Tim Hunt#RfC: 2015 remarks]]. Whilst acknowledging there appeared to be a consensus, he reminded editors that consensus can't over-rule [[:meta:Founding principles|founding principles]], the [[WP:5P2|second pillar]], and [[WP:NPOV|core content policy]] and quoting the amplification on his talk page these ''cannot be overruled by any talk page consensus however strong''. He later emphasised this on his own talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213538308&amp;oldid=1213534477] in response to a query [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213522530&amp;oldid=1213355874].<br /> <br /> Judging by that query, it appears that the key point in the closure was being ignored; namely [[WP:PROPORTION]]. Shortly thereafter, and before any reply, an edit was made to [[Tim Hunt]] which appeared to ignore the closure[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213521275&amp;oldid=1208829572]. Noting the history of edit warring at the article, I chose to add a &lt;nowiki&gt;{{npov}}&lt;/nowiki&gt; tag and start a talk page discussion. I felt that any revert of a bold edit would result in an edit war and had no intention to revert war.<br /> <br /> My tag was removed by JayBeeEll [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213538744&amp;oldid=1213533989] with the edit summary &quot;Don't be silly&quot;, I restored the tag and it was once again removed by JayBeeEll [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213539288] with the edit summary &quot;Yes sure let's see how this turns out&quot;, which appears to be an intention to revert war. The comment in the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213539531&amp;oldid=1213535026] in response to my concerns and the unnecessary 3RR warning on my talk page appears to confirm [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWee_Curry_Monster&amp;diff=1213539690&amp;oldid=1212590941] that.<br /> <br /> On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies. As such I would suggest that the tag should remain until the closure is fully addressed. On a side note, I remain concerned about the toxic nature of any discussion in that talk page presently. Reluctantly bringing it here for further review. Please note I will not be available for a couple of days due to personal commitments. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 17:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The behavior displayed by WCM is very similar to the behavior that led to [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1149#Tendentious_editing_by_Thomas_Basboll|this]] only one month ago; it is disappointing that he has not been able to accommodate himself to the fact that his view is a minority, both relative to WP editors and to the views represented in reliable sources. At least he stopped after a single round of edit-warring about the ridiculous tagging. As with Thomas B, my hope is that this can be settled by a change of behavior, without the need for any sanctions. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::I've no wish to comment on this ridiculous tag edit war, and I'd prefer to limit my involvement with the page to closing that one RfC, but I do want to say tempers are extremely frayed in this topic area and there's definitely scope for an uninvolved sysop to step in and restore order. Please.—[[User:S Marshall|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;&quot;&gt;S&amp;nbsp;Marshall&lt;/b&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]&lt;/small&gt; 18:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::It would be a ridiculous edit war, were it not for the fact I refused to edit war over this. The fact remains that removing the tags in the way JayBeeEll did is counter to accepted policy. I would acknowledge {{ping|S Marshall}}'s comment that this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. I have been asking for that for weeks, the reference to the removal of Thomas Basboll, is exactly the point I wish to make. If editors are convinced they're right and there are enough of them make a fuss, they can remove what they see as an obstruction by lobbying loudly here. The edit war that editor attempted to start, and its clear that was his intention, was a repeat of the same tactics used previously. I have made no attempt to filibuster I simply tried to bring external opinion but that's pretty unlikely given the toxic nature of editing at present. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 18:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::The editing situation got much less toxic when you stopped participating for a few days; maybe you should try that again? Certainly it would be good for an uninvolved admin to tell you the same thing everyone else on this thread has said. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Point to anything I've said that contributes to a toxic atmosphere. As for comments contributing to a toxic atmosphere[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1213538744&amp;oldid=1213533989] {{tq|&quot;Don't be silly}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213539288] {{tq|&quot;Yes sure let's see how this turns out&quot;}} whilst edit warring to remove tags that encourage outside input. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{tq|On the face of it, it appears that the closure is being ignored to impose a local consensus that conflicts with core policies.}}<br /> :That's an extremely uncharitable reading of the closure, apparently because you just don't like the results. The close was finding that the RfC consensus narrowly found for inclusion, with a warning to follow guiding principles of the Wiki while doing so. ''That's it''. The rest of it is you projecting onto the closure and making vague, hand-wavy assertions that the close is against policy.<br /> :Since you won't be available for a couple days anyway, I suggest you wait and see what proposed edits come from the RfC before making any further comments. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I at no point said the close was against policy, I actually think given the toxic atmosphere he was entering {{ping|S Marshall}} made a very good closure of that malformed RFC. The reminder that local consensus can't trump core policy seems to have fallen on deaf ears it seems. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[[WP:CON]] has by definition got to be aligned with the [[WP:PAG]]s since it embodies &quot;a process of compromise &lt;u&gt;while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines&lt;/u&gt;&quot;. So if @[[User:S Marshall|S Marshall]]'s close is &quot;very good&quot;, it follows it must have correctly divined consensus, which you now need to accept. If however, you think the close has arrived at a problematic [[WP:LOCALCON]] you need to initiate a close review. Shit or get off the pot. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 11:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Precisely this. WCM, you can't have it both ways: you can't claim the close &quot;trumps core policy&quot;, while acknowledging it was a good close. The close in fact emphasizes that any proposed changes have to adhere to core policy. It seems you're claiming that the finding of inclusion ''inherently'' violates policy, so which is it? — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::At no point did I say the close trumps policy, that's your strawman. The closer clearly refers to core policies and makes it plain that they can't be overridden by a local consensus. He also singled out that I and others couldn't be ignored because we were making {{tq|well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy}} further adding {{tq|While editors are implementing option 1 and option 2A, they should have regard to core content policy, and specifically [[WP:PROPORTION]]}}. It's clear from this comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213522530&amp;oldid=1213355874] there is no intention to implement the full intention of the close {{tq|The view of myself, and I assume a lot of participants, is that [[WP:PROPORTION]] isn't terribly relevant}}. There is [[WP:TAG]] team of editors are acting in concert and per {{ping|S Marshall}}'s comment this situation desperately needs input from an uninvolved Sysop to restore order. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 17:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::''sigh'' I tried, but if you're intent on digging a [[First law of holes|hole]], I can't stop you. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :If you aren't available for the next couple of days, why the hell are you opening an ANI thread? &quot;Reluctantly bringing it here&quot; yeah right. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * WCM's editing regarding the Tim Hunt article has been as tendentious as Basboll's in staunchly refusing to [[Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_&quot;get_the_point&quot;|get the point]] regarding the fact that their viewpoint is a minority and continuing to [[WP:DEADHORSE|beat a dead horse]] and engage in [[WP:WIKILAWYERING]] in an attempt to fillibuster discussions regarding the issue, rather than just moving on. I would '''support a topic or page ban''' from Tim Hunt if WCM does not desist with his aggressive rejection of the talkpage consensus. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Given that WCM has continued his disruption regarding the article, I firmly support a topic ban now. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I haven't done any editing that would remotely be described as disruptive. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=1215468029&amp;oldid=1215465703] Any editing I do is immediately reverted, this was clearly constructive. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 12:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Absolutely astonishing. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''support topic ban''' due the editor's apparent unwillingness to drop the stick and refusal to get the point of the RfC. I commented at the ANI thread where Thomas B was topic banned. Given the RfC I moved on and have not touched the article or the RfC. The level of name-calling on display at that article over an ancient ten-day kerfuffle in the bro-sphere easily matched the most acrimonious mutual accusations of genocide I have witnessed on Wikipedia. EE squared. I had never heard of Tim Hunt. He seems nice? But if the episode in question is included in the article -- and there seems no question that RS has covered it in immense detail - then the article should dispassionately state that Tim Hunt said what he said. This editor's contention that it should not (because the poor man nearly committed suicide over this) utterly lacks a grounding in policy, and no evidence was ever presented of this assertion either. It betrays an emotional investment in this incident that baffles me, frankly. I would hesitate to participate on the talk page due to this editor's past level of vitriol, and the time sink it again likely would become. I am not following this thread. If anyone has questions about what I just said, please ping me. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 12:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204016425] {{tq|I haven't gone down a rabbit hole over this because to me, he's just another misogynist who claims to be misunderstood. Most do.}} in your on words your motives are to expose another misogynist. I am quite astounded that you'd openly mock someone driven near to suicide. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 18:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I check back at this article after taking a break from it and find the RfC has been closed, consensus established and the article fixed accordingly. Great: the journey is over, the plane has landed, and the engines are turned off .... But oddly the whining sound continues as there's one editor who [[WP:IDHT|seemingly can't move on]]. If this continues sanctions may be appropriate. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 08:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Note that the other problem editor in this mix, who was page banned from [[Tim Hunt]], has now started beating the dead horse at BLPN.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214799114] [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 07:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215140427 reported] this straight to the ban-implementing administrator this time, as this is an obvious attempt at [[WP:GAMING]], [[WP:STICK]], [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. I will remember to prefer broader topic bans next time. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Given lack of response I guess this was the wrong venue. I won't be trying to get Thomas B sanctioned for this in particular any further, but should we post some sort of final warning to [[User talk:Thomas B]]? [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:... and today [[User:Thomas B]] still continues to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215520494 post] about Tim Hunt on BLPN. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomas_B&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214802498 This] earlier comment &quot;{{tq|I won't be participating '''too actively'''}}&quot; (bolding mine) indicates that the user is going to continue to disrupt. So we have to upgrade Thomas B's page ban to a topic ban ''at a minimum''. But given this user's stubborn, prolonged refusal to cease disruption, an additional block from the whole Wikipedia for a few months is needed as a deterrent, in my view. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 18:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::And now the BLPN discussion forum-shopped by Thomas B resulted in yet another editor getting [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NewImpartial - BLP discussion touching GENSEX|dragged to ANI]]. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 13:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I've started a new ANI thread to expand Thomas B's sanctions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Thomas_B_forum-shopping,_circumventing_page_ban,_refusing_to_drop_the_stick]. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban, [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] and other issues. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 11:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' - Does this topic fall under GenSex? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:The overall Tim Hunt article wouldn't but the section on the controversy would fall under a GENSEX topic ban, as they are &quot;broadly construed&quot;. (So would this thread, I believe.) [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban''' for Wee Curry Monster. WCM had numerous opportunities to change course. All this has been sinking our time for over a month already. Since the editor is not willing to drop the stick, a sufficiently broad sanction is the only remaining solution. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 10:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban'''. Please somebody make it stop. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban''' per the really excruciating refusal to drop the stick or adjust behavior in any way. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' Pretty shameful episode for WP and ANI. [[WP:CIR]], and the lack of such competence is what created this mess. It's very clear that some editors pushed content, got an editor banned from the article, and opined in the RfC without first bothering to read the sources. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 18:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{ping|fiveby}} Your latest contribution on the talk-page is a bit cryptic, and invoking CIR here is bizarre, but I'm quite sure that if you were to participate in the constructive content discussions (i.e., the ones that don't involve WCM or Thomas B) the result would be positive. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I try and limit my participation to finding and providing sources for other editors, how is it constructive and why would i participate when the remaining editors, those who survived ANI, are those which have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to read those sources? I'll try and explain my 'cryptic' comment on the talk page. It was just a suggestion to WCM that what he is doing might be futile. You cannot force editors to read sources. An editor familiar with the reading may have reverted that content, but would never have called it &quot;disingenuous&quot; in the edit summary. As far as [https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-kokomo-tribune-but-i-cant-fix-stup/34981880/ &quot;can't fix stupid&quot;] goes, tho it is couched in terms of the content generated by conflict rather than collaboration, did not my choice to use that particular phrase make my opinion clear enough? [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::There is a reason that WCM's edits to the article get reverted but your edits a couple weeks ago did not, and it's not about the unwillingness of people to read sources. I mean obviously if you change your mind but decide that what you have to add is a bunch of comments about other editors not reading the sources then I don't think that will go great. But ''almost'' everyone who has contributed in the discussions on the talk-page has shown a willingness to listen to others as part of developing a consensus. Anyhow, don't mind me, do what you want! --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban'''. This is just blatant [[WP:STICK]] and [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. The consensus in the RFC was clear. The consensus on talk about how to implement the RFC is reasonably clear. Their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1213533575&amp;oldid=1213481488&amp;title=Talk:Tim_Hunt comments] after the RFC were full of aspersions and battlefield behavior, ending with {{tq|Feel free to disabuse me of the presumption that having &quot;won&quot; and righted a great wrong to expose the terribly sexist misognynist that you don't intend to do that.}} --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support topic ban'''. WCM has been popping up at literally anywhere on Wikipedia this is being discussed to re-litigate a view of the RFC that literally nobody else holds. The RFC close even mentions him showing up at the close request I made to pressure whoever was going to close it. Even after the close he's totally failed to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], and thus unfortunately we've got to force the issue with a topic ban. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 04:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Comment ===<br /> <br /> [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Wee+Curry+Monster&amp;page=Tim_Hunt&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max=] My contribution history on [[Tim Hunt]]. 100% of it reverted. 0.7% of all contributions on the article.<br /> <br /> Note 2 tags added 13 March 2024. 25 March 2024 - series of edits adding context and information in [[WP:RS]] per [[WP:NPOV]].<br /> <br /> That is all of my contributions.<br /> <br /> [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Wee+Curry+Monster&amp;page=Talk%3ATim_Hunt&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max=] My contribution history on [[Talk:Tim Hunt]].<br /> <br /> Note:<br /> 13 March 2024 - comment on NPOV tags, 17 March 2024 - Further comment, 25 March 2024 - Comment on revert of my contribution.<br /> <br /> In the last month, I've made 3 comments in talk, 2 contributions to the article in total. Hardly the actions of someone who can't drop the stick.<br /> <br /> I note editors have simply alleged misconduct, largely unsupported by diffs. Addressing the talk quote taken out of context by Aquillion. This is a response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&amp;diff=1213522530&amp;oldid=1213355874], where the editors responsible for the RFC indicate they do not feel the need to respond to the closer's comments. Reference to misoginy is not mine but for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204016425] {{tq|he's just another misogynist}}.<br /> <br /> I am mentioned in the close simply because as noted {{tq|Wee Curry Monster at WP:CR, and others here, have put forth some well-reasoned objections to this outcome, and I have to have regard to their objections because they're based in policy.}} I have not as claimed disputed the RFC, feel free to add a diff showing where I did but my exact comment was {{tq|a very good closure of that malformed RFC}}. I have commented, because as noted by the closer, I have raised relevant objections to what is proposed. Reference to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] isn't relevant here but [[WP:IDONTHEARTHAT]] certainly is.<br /> <br /> [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]? I haven't raised the topic in any forums. Check my contribution history. This is the one and only time I've gone to a board, in response to an attempt to bait me into an edit war so the connection to the article is tangential. My comments at [[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37#Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks]] were simply to alert any closer to what they were walking into. <br /> <br /> A number of editors have commented that the text isn't neutral and doesn't reflect what neutral sources say on the topic. This is a violation of our [[WP:BLP]] policy. I did in fact seek advice on this from {{U|Drmies}} at [[User talk:Drmies/Archive 147#Question on BLP]]. Which appears to confirm my concerns were well founded.<br /> <br /> Fiveby appears to have given up on commenting because he recognises its futile and I agree its futile. So having raised the issue, I think its time for me to simply walk away. I'm taking this off my watch list, mainly for the good of my own mental health and taking a wikibreak. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 08:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:AndyFielding]] - failure to address community concerns ==<br /> <br /> Longterm disruptive removals of birth place/date from Early life sections (examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._J._Novak&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1152634988 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna_Paquin&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1160004138 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_Poulter&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1164808003 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rainn_Wilson&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1199183562 4]). User never responds to talk page warnings (or any talk page comments at all) --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 15:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :This editor began editing in 2007, has made ~17k edits, the vast majority of which are almost certainly good, and has never been blocked. Since the start of his editing he has been using talk pages and has around 1300 edits in talk spaces. On [[Special:Diff/833988692|3 April 2018]] he wrote on his user page: {{tqq|If you disagree with any of my changes, or have questions about them, please don't hesitate to contact me}}.{{pb}}Very disappointingly, on [[Special:Diff/967772956|15 July 2020]], he changed this to {{tqq|I'm afraid I don't have time to engage in debates about my changes. If you disagree with some, undo them if you must— ...}} Since then, he has not stopped being communicative, and has, for example, made more edits to talk pages in 2022 then in all of the previous years combined.{{pb}}So this editor definitely talks in general, but consciously refuses to engage when editors inform him that some of his edits are wrong. Which is not collaborative. AndyFielding should commit to engage in consensus building, and that he understands that receiving feedback from other editors and participating in ocassional disputes does not have to be a &quot;debate&quot; every time. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :See also this announcement on the editor's talk page: {{Talk quote block|text={{fake heading|sub=3|Attention to reversals, feedback, etc.}}I'm sorry I don't have more time to attend to this page. If you feel compelled to undo any of my edits, it's your prerogative—although for the most part, only factual oversights should need correction, as my primary focus is on simpler language. (In reference works, “less is more”.){{br}}As a career writer and copy editor, I'm reasonably confident my contributions benefit WP's readers. Thus I'll continue to follow founder Jimmy Wales's injunction to [[Wikipedia:Be_bold|be bold]]. As he said: “If you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough.”{{br}}Cheers, A.|by=AndyFielding|ts=01:50, 9 January 2019|oldid=877500650}}—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 16:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> The core issue here seems to be a content issue. Have they been reverting at all to enforce their preferred version? A quick look at the diffs above shows several constructive changes mixed in with the clearly controversial birth date removals, which they're saying is based on redundancy grounds. Is he just doing step one of [[WP:BRD]], and then simply conceding any subsequent discussion? They do have several edits to article talk pages recently, but at first glance nearly all of those appear to be [[WP:FORUM]] discussions rather than anything editing related. So clearly they have time to be engaging in consensus building and simply choose not to, which ain't great even if it's unclear whether that's actually disrupting anything. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 18:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :On 29 November &lt;big&gt;''2022''&lt;/big&gt;, [[User:FMSky|FMSky]] writes the following to [[User:AndyFielding|AndyFielding]] ([[special:diff/1124561606|diff]], emphasis added):<br /> <br /> ::{{Talk quote block|text=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reese_Witherspoon&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1109721746&lt;br&gt;stop making these kinds of '''idiotic''' edits. the point of having the full name/birth date there is that you can put a source behind it --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 09:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)}} <br /> <br /> :Prior to that, FMSky's added an inappropriate {{tl|uw-vandalism2}} warning issued on 3 October 2022, with an added {{tq|''STOP REMOVING BIRTH NAMES/BIRTH DATES okay??''}} ([[special:diff/1113796103|diff]]), but I now see that it all started on Sept 24, with an identical message as the Nov one, except supplant ''idiotic'' with &quot;nonsensical&quot; and a different url cited ([[special:diff/1112035011|diff]]). And now, here we are: March 2024.<br /> <br /> :What I don't understand, so maybe FMSky can explain this, is the problem with removing the full birth date and names from the body when that info is already mentioned in the lead (AndyFielding's 'redundancy,' 'simplicity,' etc.)? What makes these {{tq|''disruptive removals''}}? Because a reference could be added to a lead, especially as a single footnote as opposed to a normal ref (i.e. so as to prevent the littering the lead with refs). But as much as I disapprove of how FMSky conducted themselves here, AndyFielding stonewalling the issue and continuing to do so for additional pages, even if not reverting anything, might not be ideal. But how intensive and extensive is it? Who knows. And it's not like there's a rule, for or against, such removals. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 08:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Maybe read what other users have posted on his talk page instead of analysing a post by me made 2 years ago. The better question is why do you think its fine to have a sentence that reads &quot;{{tq|Poulter was born{{Dummy reference}}{{Dummy reference|2}}{{Dummy reference|3}}{{Dummy reference|4}}}}&quot;. Also tagging {{ping|Soetermans}} who also left a number of talk page messages on the user's page [[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 11:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[[User:FMSky|FMSky]], I will analyze and review what I see fit and in the manner and pace I see fit. And I find your own misconduct is pertinent. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Ok, thanks for feedback on my behaviour 2 years. Now, whats actually relevant: Why do you think its fine to have a sentence that reads &quot;{{tq|Poulter was born{{Dummy reference}}{{Dummy reference|2}}{{Dummy reference|3}}{{Dummy reference|4}}}}&quot; and what do you think about the comments by other users on his page? --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 11:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::[[User:FMSky|FMSky]], I have no opinion on that, but you need to take it down a notch, or I will block you from this noticeboard. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Yes my bad, I wont post in this thread any further. I feel uncomfortable being on this page anyway (that was originally the reason why I didnt made a report earlier) --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 12:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::That might be best for now. Your reports generally tend to be subpar (lacking context and depth), I'm sorry to say. And same for the history of your interactions with the user whom you've reported. Certainly room for improvement. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Hi {{u|El_C}}, perhaps other people disagree about repeating a date of birth and that's fine. This is a collaborative effort and we try to find a consensus. But as I read [[WP:LEAD]], it is the summation of the article. Any information there should be in the article as well. We try to keep references out of the lead too ([[WP:REFLEAD]]). So it makes perfect sense to mention a date of birth in the lead ''and'' mention it in an early life section, if there is one. AndyFielding has been asked repeatedly to stop and hasn't communicated a bit about the issue. But after so many talk page messages and formal warnings, you can't feign ignorance and leave edit summaries like:<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniella_Pineda&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212952166 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity, WP style (surname except to avoid ambiguity), omitting redundant detail (birth date in lede)&quot;]<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Tucci&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212892529 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity (birth date in lede)]<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lily_Collins&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213830000 &quot;I don't know what it is about celebrity articles that induces so many WP writers to redundantly repeat these details from the lede. Fan overenthusiasm, I'm guessing. (Also, &quot;redundantly repeat&quot; is probably itself redundant—so let's face it, you can't win.) Anyone with reference experience would agree, though: It's sloppy. I just wish we didn't have to fix it one article at a time. 🤷‍♂️&quot;] from three days ago. Fan enthusiasm, really?<br /> *[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Gosling&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213827719 &quot;I don't know why people do this so often in celebrity bios, but it's redundant and, frankly, seems like fawning. 🤷‍♂️&quot;], from two days ago. First fan enthusiasm, now it's 'fawning' to mention a date of birth?<br /> :So in my eyes, AndyFielding isn't just not aware of consensus, but willfully ignores it, with subtle jabs in their edit summaries. No replies on talk pages, but still going on little rants? That, combined with not communicating, sounds like disruptive behaviour to me. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I don't consider all aspects of the MOS to be mandatory, including this, but from your evidence, it does increasingly appear as a [[WP:POINT]] exercize. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Bit off topic, I was checking their edits if they've done the same. They recently made some smart-assed comments on talk pages. To an honest question, asked nearly seven years ago, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lock_%27n%27_Chase&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214144966 they responded] with &quot;Yes, tricky isn't it? Personally, I won't post videogame records unless they've been verified by space aliens.&quot; Kinda uncivil, unnecessary regardless. In a 10 year old discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Germanic_Reich&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214145396 they replied] &quot;Gee! I'll have some of whatever you were having&quot;, an inappropriate response.<br /> :::The last reply ''on their own talk page'' was in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyFielding&amp;diff=927091593&amp;oldid=927091413 November 2019]. They won't to communicate there or here - but years old discussions not a problem? [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 21:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Hi {{u|El_C}}, did you see my previous message? To be clear, those were after FMSky's note on their talk page. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Understood, {{u|Soetermans}}. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 07:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Another inappropriate edit summary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek:_Enterprise&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214614065 &quot; reckon this is what the writer meant, as &quot;conservatively modest&quot; would mean he was bashful about wearing more individualistic clothing. (By sheer coincidence, many conservatives are morons too, but that's beyond the scope of this comment.)&quot;] [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 20:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benedict_Wong&amp;diff=1214808189&amp;oldid=1214808155 More of the same]. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Take some sort of action'''. Maybe FMSky could have been more polite, but they're 100% correct on the merits. The lede is meant to be a summary of the body, so repetition between the lede and the body is ''expected'' and ''valid''. A check of some random diffs leaves me unimpressed with AndyFielding's copyediting - they appear to be, at best, enforcing a style preference on text that should honor the main contributor's style preference, and at worst making actively bad changes and being a net negative. There have been studies on this: readers do not read articles like they're novels and carefully remember every bit of information from before, but rather bounce around from section to section. So for an example other than removing birth dates from the body, despite his edit summary saying that &quot;most [readers] aren't amnesiacs—pronouns are fine&quot;, no, actually, using a last name again for clarity often makes a sentence read much simpler and work better as an excerpt, without requiring consulting earlier as to who exactly is being referred to. This could be resolved very simply by AndyFielding simply resolving and agreeing to not do things like this, but if he's going to refuse to engage or to communicate despite being reported at ANI five days ago, then a sanction is all we have. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Again: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zawe_Ashton&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214958054 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity, style, omitting redundant detail (in lede)]. I'd also like to point out that I've reverted those edits. {{u|AndyFielding}} can't feign missing notifications like this. It is disruptive. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 10:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Upgrade to ban'''. This is the dumbest and most avoidable reason for a ban, but AndyFielding seems to be of the opinion that talking with other editors is a trap or is too stressful or beneath his notice. Who knows. But simply 100% refusing to engage with legitimate concerns of other editors is not how this works. I placed a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndyFielding&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215004537 direct request] on his talk page to say something, anything, to acknowledge he is actually reading what other editors say. He's ignored it and continued to edit instead. To be sure, some of AndyFielding's copyediting seems fine, and it would be a shame to ban an editor over something so minor, but... come on. No complaint about instantly accepting any unblock request that simply promises to communicate, but communication is not optional on a collaborative project. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 16:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Block instead'''. A long-term, constant stream of bad edits mixed with a larger volume of good edits coming from an otherwise respected and trusted editor is more damaging than your daily vandal. AndyFielding's mission statement when he turned back on the idea of consensus (copied above) is against the philosophy of Wikipedia, and he has stayed on this non-collaborative track ever since. He must have understood what this would lead to and that this moment would come. It doesn't matter that most of his edits are fine when the bad edits will be repeated and there is nothing anyone can do about it but follow him around and detect and revert each one of them. And no one wants to do that and no one should be expected to do that. Alternatively, he could actually even keep not discussing as long as he remembers not to repeat the types of edits that are disputed, and for that he would at least need to read requests on his talk page not to repeat certain things and not repeat them—regardless if he thinks that the request is wrong. If he wants to prove that those particular edits are right, he would have to engage. It should be extremely easy for AndyFielding to be unblocked based on this. He can commit to respond to feedback on his talk page at least a little bit and commit not to do things that others ask him not to do without participating in dispute resolution. Therefore, an indefinite block is entirely preventative and is the only thing that can make this editor realign.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 20:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:no admin hasn’t taken any action yet [[User:Maestrofin|Maestrofin]] ([[User talk:Maestrofin|talk]]) 06:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Another odd edit summary: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=District_Municipality_of_Muskoka&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215321136 &quot;Suggestions for simplicity (e.g., contrary to the apparent notion that WP readers are amnesiacs and must be continually reminded what the topic is—LOL)&quot;]. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::That's a fantastic edit with a fine edit summary. Fixing repetitive references to the subject, fixing &quot;located in&quot;, removing unprofessional wording like &quot;from generation to generation&quot;, and other needed copyediting is obviously something that this editor excels at. The problem are the bad edits, not the good edits like this one. The summary is humorous and sufficiently accurately describes the edit. —[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I find it odd and unnecessary to suggest &quot;contrary to the apparent notion that WP readers are amnesiacs&quot;, but maybe that's just me. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I wouldn't say it's just you. I'd say that's [[WP:UNCIVIL|uncivil]] language on AndyFielding's part. There's no need to {{tq|LOL}} at other editors' best efforts. Pointy word choice about language and style is especially troubling, since some editors are contributing with English proficiencies that are sufficient for encyclopedic language but may fall short of the high-level prose AndyFielding believes they're implementing. Improving on language isn't wrong, but [[WP:BRIE|being right isn't enough]] to justify talking down to other editors through snippy summaries and flatly ignoring collaborative feedback. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 08:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Harvey&amp;diff=1215459940&amp;oldid=1215099122 Behaviour continues]. Now the reference isn't used to source ''when'' Harvey was born, but ''that he was born''. [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Someone who removes text so that the only thing left is &quot;XY was born&quot;, and does so in hundrets of articles, should be blocked per [[WP:CIR]] --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 08:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' something, whether a block or ban, or at least a formal sanction of some sort. SnowFire and Soetermans sum up well what's in the linked diffs, and the behavior continuing even with the ANI notice demonstrates how a block or ban would be preventative, as behavior will continue otherwise. Copyediting and editing for concision isn't irreplaceable. Articles will be legible in AndyFieldings's absence—and may well be more legible. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndyFielding&amp;diff=1215004537&amp;oldid=1214027386 SnowFire's description of AndyFieldings's approach as constituting {{tq|code golf}} is apt]. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans (she/her)]] ([[User talk:Hydrangeans|talk]]) 08:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::And the beat [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mira_Murati&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215811451 goes on]. When is it enough to perform some kind of action? [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Could anyone do anything by any chance? 😃 --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 02:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have drafted a polite &quot;Final warning&quot; message for {{u|AndyFielding}} but I am wondering if tolerating an idiosyncratic editor might be worthwhile. The problem for me is that AndyFielding is producing good edits and it's possible that cleaning up after him might be the way to go. For example, [[Special:Diff/1215998066|this diff]] has a glitch presumably from the visual editor (search for &quot;&lt;code&gt;&amp;lt;nowiki/&amp;gt;&lt;/code&gt;&quot;). That glitch needs to be fixed. Would similarly cleaning up the pointy edits that remove the birth date from the article body be best for the encyclopedia? Any thoughts? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If an editor needs a minder stalking their contribution history forever, there's a problem. As I wrote above, this is the dumbest and most avoidable reason for a block ever - all AndyFielding has to do is literally just acknowledge the feedback and tone down the concision-above-all-else edits to a point that's a mere disagreement on style rather than clearly over the line. It could be done in seconds and by simply doing ''less'' work in his edits. But he isn't doing that no matter how much people have asked him to. There is a solution that doesn't involve a block and doesn't involve expecting other volunteers to clean up after him - it's just him communicating and discussing his edits, or at least just stopping the problematic behavior if he truly can't handle discussions. But if he isn't going to do that... [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 05:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Likewise, I am not proposing an indef block or a ban, but I would like to see this behaviour to stop. This discussion was started nearly two weeks ago. There have been talk page messages, direct mentions (for good measure, {{u|AndyFielding}}, please stop this and maybe reply?) and their removal of date births in early life sections have been reverted. AndyFielding has been notified repeatedly. [[WP:COMMUNICATION|Communication is required]]. Instead, they have a habit of commenting through edit summaries, like I've shown before and which continues still (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holiday_Hell&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215642671 &quot;Let's just assume from now on that, unless there's some obvious ambiguity, &quot;it&quot;, &quot;he&quot;, &quot;she&quot; or &quot;they&quot; refers by default to the article's subject. This will save us all a lot of trouble and save WP untold storage and bandwidth fees. Don't thank me.&quot;] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montegrossi&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215817242 &quot;Imagine, we could use this concise format on all WP town articles. Imagine. I imagine many things like this&quot;]). Maybe it's a [[WP:CIR|competence]] issue or just a plain [[WP:IDHT|refusal to want to listen]]. Isn't a temporary edit block an option? They edit frequently, on a near daily basis. A block, say 48 hours or even a week, to prevent this disruptive editing and force them to change their attitude? If the block's over and they changed their ways there is still a competent editor, if they can continue a more drastic step can be taken. Thoughts? [[User:Soetermans|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;soetermans&lt;/span&gt;]]. [[User talk: Soetermans|&lt;sup&gt;↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A &lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps&quot;&gt;'''TALK'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;]] 08:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I admit I'm not very optimistic about how effective a 48-hour block will be—ignoring so much feedback over such a long period of time suggests entrenchment—but it does make sense to start with a temporary sanction and only escalate if really necessary. No need for the project to act on my lack of optimism when we could lead out with a generous attitude toward AndyFielding. All that to say, I '''support''' a temporary edit block as the step to take at this time. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 08:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Could try an escalating scheme. 31h, 72h, week, month, three months, six months, indef. with each block at least a week to a month apart (in spite of the undesirable edits reoccurring) to be able to see if the editing has changed. The [[WP:PREVENTATIVE]] grounds is that the shortest block should be tried first, then the second-shortest etc. instead of immediately indef, or 48h -&gt; indef. Instead of stalking his contributions and cleaning up after him, any editor could identify one (one is enough) undesirable edit of the type identified in this discussion, and ask any admin to implement the next block in the scheme, which that admin should do.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 09:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Please ban Fabrickator from interacting with me. ==<br /> <br /> [Edit: I have copyedited this post in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.] <br /> <br /> I'm not the only user that thinks Fabricator should be banned from interacting with me. In fact, I got the idea from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204671092 this] comment by Asparagusus on my talk page. <br /> <br /> Also, Graham Beards implied [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graham_Beards&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197633758 here] that Fabrickator and I should stop interacting with each other, which I agreed with, and Fabrickator did not agree with.<br /> <br /> I believe Fabrickator has been guilty of hounding me on Wikipedia, and has been incivil about it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196740157 Here] he sarcastically referred to an edit of mine that he disapproved of as &quot;brilliant&quot;. Something went wrong with the formatting (I think Fabrickator caused this somehow, but I'm not sure), but who said what and when is still fairly clear, I think. <br /> <br /> Fabrickator has persisted in communicating with me despite my requests that he leave me alone, and has also repeatedly ignored my questions about why he so interested in me, and in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1204670096 one case], cryptically said, &quot;I'm not going to directly respond to your question.&quot; when I politely asked, yet again, why he was so interested in me.<br /> <br /> Fabrickator has reverted several good edits of mine, seemingly after following me to an article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathology&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1182405204 Here] is just one such reversion. It is notable, because firstly, it was re-reverted by Graham Beards, and secondly, Fabrickator did his reversion quietly. He did not tell me what he had done, which is remarkable, given how much irrelevant material he has posted on my talk page . I only found out he had done it much later, after Graham Beards had unreverted it. Thirdly, it is *clearly* a remarkably incompetent and fairly harmful reversion.<br /> <br /> So Fabrickator has not just been wasting *my* time, and a few other editors who have kindly taken some interest in this matter, such as Graham Beards and Asparagusus, but, more importantly, has directly harmed Wikipedia and Wikipedia's readers.<br /> <br /> I think Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, while I am not banned from interacting with him. Having said that, I would be content (delighted, in fact) with a two-way ban, if it is permanent. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 20:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :A few points here. If you want someone to stop posting on your talk page, you should make a clear request. This also means do not ask the editor any questions or otherwise talk about them on your talk page. Such a request should be respected with the exception of essential notices etc per [[WP:USERTALKSTOP]]. If [[User:Fabrickator]] had continued to continued to post on your talk page despite you asked them to stop, I think we would now be at the stage where they received a final warning before an indefinite block. I think your requests were a lot less clear than they should have been. Still I'll warn them. As for your iban proposal, that is a lot more involved and we'd need to see evidence of something more than simply posting on your talk page when you asked them to stop. If they're indefinitely blocked there's no need for an iban. A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 22:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::In [[User_talk:Polar_Apposite#sigmoid_colon_redux]], I offered to abide by an informal 60-day interaction ban. That was on February 8. I asked him to clarify whether he accepted that, he did not &quot;formally&quot; respond to that, but he did acknowledge it, and stated that he was interested in either a temporary or permanent ban. I did not ask for further clarification (the intent being to ''avoid'' interaction). So for about the last 35 days, I have refrained from any interaction with Polar (obviously, aside from this interaction, which I presume that I am obliged to respond to).<br /> ::I viewed this informal approach as having certain advantages:<br /> ::* Save administrators from having to become involved in adjudicating the dispute.<br /> ::* Also save them the trouble of officially tracking the ban, assuming it were to have been granted.<br /> ::If I were to have violated that ban, the voluntary ban would likely be viewed as a &quot;confession of fault&quot;.<br /> ::* There is neither an official determination of fault, nor an admission of fault'<br /> ::* Upon successful completion of this voluntary ban, future requests for a ban should not be based on events that happened prior to the voluntary ban.<br /> ::For the last 35 days, I have avoided any interaction with Polar. OTOH, in spite of Polar's seemingly implied commitment to avoid any interaction with me and 35 days without any interaction, he now submits this IBAN request. I request that it be denied, on the basis of this informal interaction ban. <br /> ::We should be very careful about the restriction of mere communication between users, recognizing in particular that the imposition of a ban places the banned party at a greatly heightened risk as well as creating what can be a problematic situation if (by some coincidence) they both happen to be &quot;participating&quot; in editing or commenting on the same article.<br /> ::Respectfully, [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 22:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 22:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::In point of fact, I had avoided communicating with you for 35 days. FWIW, though, you cannot reasonably avoid criticism by insisting that criticism of you (by myself and/or by somebody else) is not permitted. In any case, the appropriate place for such a discussion would be on one of the participant's own talk pages. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 23:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::If you avoided communicating with me for 35 days, and didn't revert any good edits of mine during that time, I thank you for that. But I want to *never* hear from you again, and *know* that I will never hear from you again, The only way that is possible is with a permanent interaction ban. In my opinion you should be blocked indefinitely (from Wikipedia), but I won't ask for that. You should be very grateful to if you only get a permanent one-way interaction ban. As I see it, you have nearly always wasted my time with your comments, and your reverts of my good edits is even worse, especially since you quietly followed me around Wikipedia reverting good edits of mine without even telling me. And in my humble opinion you have been uncivil while at it. It discouraged me from editing Wikipedia.<br /> :::::And you have, yet again, avoided answering my very reasonable and polite question. So I will repeat it. Why do you want to communicate with me when I have made it clear that I do not want to communicate with you? [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 02:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]], this is very stale. The most recent diff you provide is over a month old. <br /> :An admin should close this. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm glad you've brought this up. I've been busy with some things in real life for the last month or so, that's all. As you can see, I have almost no edits to Wikipedia during the last month. I have in a sense, been away from Wikipedia, to some extent, for the last month. <br /> ::I don't think there's any reason to believe that the situation has changed during the last month. Whether it's &quot;stale&quot; is not a real issue. In fact, the fact that I have been away actually reduces the significance of the fact that Fabricator has not posted on my user page during the last month or so. I don't know whether he has quietly reverted some more good edits of mine. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 02:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] we're supposed to [[WP:AGF]], not [[WP:ABF]]. If you had evidence of them reverted good edits of yours recently then you ought to provide evidence not state that you don't evidence that they haven't done it. The fact that you haven't provided any recent evidence of anything speaks very heavily to this being stale. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I think this is stale as well, but if the consensus is that this is not he the case, I think any interaction ban, if necessary, ought to be two-way. Fabrickator has done a poor job reading the tea leaves and should have backed off even if the request to stay off the talk was not explicit, but Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally. They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly ''announcing'' that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like &quot;harmful&quot; and &quot;incompetent&quot; needlessly in conversations.<br /> :In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 04:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Agreed. I really can't see this going anywhere. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Well I would ask that the implicit agreement of the &quot;voluntary iban&quot; (which was effectively &quot;completed&quot; by virtue of this incident being opened) should be abided by, i.e. that there shouldn't be an iban. It's not that I anticipate a desire to interact with Polar, but it will be counter-productive to have to think about this every time I edit an article or participate in some discussion. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Simply put, it's clear that Polar Apposite does not want you to post on their Talk page. You should abide by that. However, that does not mean you must avoid them on article Talk pages, and conversely Polar Apposite can't just ignore you on article Talk pages when you bring up an issue.<br /> ::::''If'' things escalate, we can start considering a two-way iban, but for now this should suffice. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :[Edit: I have copyedited this post (like I did with the OP a few hours ago) in the following ways. First so that links are hidden in linked words for readability, like they are in articles, and secondly, punctuation and similar small changes to text that don't change the meaning especially those made necessary by the link moves. The reason I did it only now is that I wasn't sure how to hide the links, having had problems doing that on talk pages in the past. Sorry for any inconvenience.] <br /> :I'll reply to myself to avoid &quot;bludgeoning&quot; anyone :)<br /> :331dot [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214161032 told me] on my talk page that, &quot;It's not bludgeoning to civilly respond to arguments/posts made in and of itself; it might be if, say, if you had a snarky response to every comment about you. I would make a single, calm comment responding to claims made about you. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)&quot;.<br /> :Accordingly, I will respond to everyone's posts in a single (hopefully calm, ha ha) comment.<br /> :I don't know whether Fabrickator should be blocked from Wikipedia, because I don't know how valuable his other contributions have been. Looking at his contributions for the first time (I was not interested until now) just now, in search of reversions of my edits, I see that he has made a lot of edits purportedly fixing broken links, which sounds good. Why stop him from doing that, if it is good work? Banning him from interacting with me would not affect, I would have thought, his ability to fix broken links. His work in general may be valuable. All I am sure of is that his interactions with me have been a huge waste of time, and quite harmful at times.<br /> :I'd like to clarify that I don't think it was ever my intention to tell Fabrickator not to post on my talk page, as that would give him an excuse to continue reverting good edits of mine without proper discussion or even notification. Also, doing so could be seen as uncivil according to the summary of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Keep_off_my_talk_page this] Wikipedia page which says, <br /> :&quot;This page in a nutshell: Editors can request that other editors keep off their user talk page. However, such demands may be considered uncivil. Disobeying such a request may or may not result in sanctions, depending on the circumstances.&quot; <br /> :I didn't want him to never post on my page, just to stop wasting my time with useless posts that seemed aimed at socializing with me, possibly trying to befriend me (we have never been friends, BTW), or to harass me, or possibly some &quot;frenemy&quot;-style mixture of the two. When I asked him why he wanted to communicate with me, and what he found so interesting about me, I really was sincerely interested in learning why. He has always chosen not to answer my question.<br /> :@[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] I thought you might want more examples of bad reversions of my work by Fabricator (I found three more) when you wrote, <br /> :&quot;A single reversion of one of your edits is IMO not enough.&quot; <br /> :Here goes. The egregious pathology article reversion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathology&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1182405204], was not the only bad reversion of one of my edits. Another example would be @[[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] 's reversion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo_Koy&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194372531 here] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo_Koy&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194340489 this other good edit of mine] to the Jo Koy article. Notice how there's no &quot;reverted&quot; tag on my edit, making it harder for me or anyone else to notice that my edit had been reverted. His edit summary says, &quot;revert of 14:10 and 14:41 edits of 8 January 2024: both &quot;Filipino&quot; and &quot;Filipina&quot; are acceptable forms when used with &quot;mother&quot;; remove extraneous space at end of line&quot;. Wikipedia rules say that only positively harmful edits should be reverted, and so this justification makes no sense, because it acknowledges that my edit was harmless at worst. Secondly, even if both forms are acceptable (debatable, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jo_Koy#%22Filipina_mother%22_vs_%22Filipino_mother%22. my comments] on the article talk page, that doesn't mean that they are equally suited to an encyclopedia article, so, again, the edit summary is nonsensical. I argued on the talk page that &quot;Filipina&quot; is foreign or slang, or at least has that vibe about it, and therefore &quot;Filipino&quot; is more encyclopedic. I also argued that &quot;Filipina&quot; is confusing, because then what does &quot;Filipino&quot; mean? Does it refer only to males? English doesn't have this final a vs final o male/female system. But Fabrickator has not addressed any of these objections to his reversion. I have no objection to his deletion of the whitespace character I added to allow a dummy edit (an accepted technique on Wikipedia which Fabrickator seems not to have heard of, leading to his taking me to task for this elsewhere, wasting everyone's time yet again). OTOH, there was no need for him to do that, as it was harmless. If he wanted to do it, I think he should have quietly deleted the white-space in a separate edit, and marked his edit as minor, instead of making a fuss about it.<br /> :To sum up, Fabrickator has done four reversions of my edits that I know about, having looked through all his contributions in the last seven months: 1. the egregious, bizarre, and outrageous, pathology article reversion, 2. the absurd and absurdly defended Jo Koy article reversion, 3. the useless (albeit harmless) and timewasting fuss-laden reversion of a whitespace character, also in the Jo Koy article, and 4. the absurd reversion of my edit adding a citation needed tag and substituting a failed verification tag [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interdental_consonant&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1193331577 here]. Fabrickator's reversion was later unreverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interdental_consonant&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1193331860 here] by Nardog, with an edit summary saying, &quot;Reverted 1 edit by Fabrickator (talk): CN is correct, it's not cited to any source&quot;. To sum up, Fabrickator's four reversions of edits of mine comprise one outrageous one, one absurd one, one bad one, and one theoretically harmless one but accompanied by a lot of time-wasting fuss based on his not knowing what a dummy edit is and his not simply asking my why I added the white-space before berating me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196740157 here] (in quite an uncivil way, I might add. He calls the whitespace character an &quot;extraneous space&quot;.<br /> :Out of four reversions, zero were useful, two were unreverted by other editors, three were harmful, and one was quite harmful indeed. And he followed me to all those articles, it seems, in order to do what he did. And his subsequent discussion has been either zero, ignoring me, or useless and uncivil. He seems to think he is competent to overrule me without discussion, but I think he is wrong about this. I saw that some of his copyedits to the work of some other editors were good, so he should probably continue copyediting, but overzealously trying to correct *me* has led to his getting out of his depth, perhaps. That seems a charitable way of looking at this, and assumes good faith. Let him try his luck with someone else, as long as it doesn't become hounding and incivility, as I would suggest has been my experience with Fabrickator.<br /> :@[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] You wrote,&quot;Polar Apposite's behavior has hardly been stellar, either. The latter has a history of bludgeoning conversations (see flooding the Teahouse and the discussion in Barack Obama) and taking reverts and edits extremely personally&quot; First, whether I have a history of &quot;bludgeoning conversations&quot; at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it? Second, could be specific about what I actually did wrong at those pages? &quot;Flooding&quot; is a bit vague. What I did in the latter case *could* be seen as simply making my case in a very thorough way, with appropriate attention to detail. As for the former, I thought I was allowed to ask as many questions as I wanted. It seems I was wrong about that, but since no one had told me about that rule, &quot;flooding&quot; seems a bit over the top, no pun intended. A giant puddle of tea come to mind :)<br /> :You wrote, &quot;They also take every opportunity to take little passive-aggressive digs at Fabrickator, such as pointedly announcing that they are thankful they're not friends on multiple occasions and throwing in words like &quot;harmful&quot; and &quot;incompetent&quot; needlessly in conversations.&quot; Again, how about being specific? I think I am allowed to use &quot;harmful&quot; and &quot;incompetent&quot; needlessly on Wikipedia, am I not? And you have made no mention of any of the rude things Fabrickator has said to me. That's interesting, isn't it? You don't look very impartial right now.<br /> :You wrote, &quot;In any case, I think this ought to be closed, with a light slap of the trout to Fabrickator to remind them that Polar Apposite's request to stay off their use page should now to be taken as explicit and to Polar Apposite to remind them that every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud.&quot; Again, are you able to be specific? What specifically did I say (you have no excuse for not being specific, as everything is there in black and white) that warrants a reprimand (light or not) to remind me that &quot;every reversion or criticism doesn't amount to a blood feud&quot;? When did I ever say anything that indicates that I think that? Genuinely curious now.<br /> :@&lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; I'm actually primarily concerned about his reversions of my good edits. Out of a total of four that I could find, zero were useful, three were harmful, two were undone by other editors, and one was egregious. All of them were bizarre, and the result of following me around Wikipedia. And there was no proper discussion or notification to me. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::When people are griping about you bludgeoning discussion, posting massive, badly-formatted walls of text only vindicates those concerns. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|&lt;i style=&quot;color: #1E90FF;&quot;&gt;Jéské Couriano&lt;/i&gt;]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #228B22&quot;&gt;v^&amp;lowbar;^v&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|Source assessment notes]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I did what I was told to do. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'd be glad to try improve the format. What specifically did you not like about it? [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 20:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thanks for the constructive feedback. The links should have been inside words, and I put them all inside words just now. Was that what you had in mind? What else, if anything made call it &quot;badly-formatted&quot;? Cheers. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 01:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm certainly not going to read all of that. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I wasn't going to speak up in favor of any administrator(s) taking action regarding either you or Fabrickator, but as you continue to [[WP:BLUDGEON]] while ignoring [[WP:AGF]], I'm starting to wonder if you're willing to collaborate with people who disagree with you. It's really unhelpful when you post a giant wall of text, especially when a huge chunk of it is an off-topic wall of text in which you explain that you have your own guidelines that somehow override Wikipedia's at [[MOS:PHIL]]. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 04:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|First, whether I have a history of &quot;bludgeoning conversations&quot; at the Teahouse and the discussion at the talk page of the the Barack Obama article has no bearing on whether Fabrickator should be banned from interacting with me, does it?}}<br /> ::I'm going to single this out, because the rest of that wall of text is just rambling. Yes, it does have bearing because it can indicate that the problem isn't Fabrickator, it's the fact you keep throwing these lengthy diatriabes up instead of concisely making your points. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 20:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I am just appending this comment at the bottom, I'll remind people that (if you're not subscribed to this specific discussion), it's hard to see the edits that have been made at various places in the text. You might want to look at the &quot;diffs&quot; if it matters to you<br /> :::Second, I will note that Polar has stated that he never asked me not to post to his &quot;talk&quot; page, so the fact that I made posts to his &quot;talk&quot; page is not ''per se'' an issue.<br /> :::Third, as Polar has pointed out, the Wiki software doesn't allow you to add an edit summary without making some kind of change. If you try to do this, it just silently discards the edit summary provided, so inserting a space character is just a way to get around this behavior. This was something I had been unaware of, so my criticism that he added an extraneous space was unwarranted, and I apologize for that. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 15:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Apology accepted, but I still want a permanent interaction ban, ideally one way. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 12:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I don't think it's you that should be accepting apologies or demanding things, especially not a one-way interaction ban. You really need to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] on this before it turns into a boomerang in the form of a motion from an uninvolved editor. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Okay, another minor point. The interaction ban had been proposed by [[User:Graham Beards]] in January (though it's in Graham's talk page archives for 2023 ... see [[User talk:Graham_Beards/Archives/2023#Please advise me regarding dealing with Fabrickator.]]). As is clear from this discussion, I do not go along with this proposal. I interpreted this as Graham's attempt to gracefully bow out of the dispute, but I mention it here just because I want to set the record straight. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks for being so reasonable. I think you might want to consider at least acknowledging that you were wrong in thinking that he was bowing out, and maybe apologize to him (optionally). [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You need to stop this, right now. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]], no one, I mean NO ONE, is going to read that wall of text you posted. And they are unlikely to participate in this discussion. And the one thing I remember when I was a regular here at ANI years ago is that you will never get an IBan or TopicBan without considerable community support which you don't have here and are unlikely to receive given these diatribes. You can't just request an IBan and magically have an admin impose it. It has to have support from your fellow editors which isn't going to happen. So, I suggest like most of us, you avoid editors you don't get along with or use Dispute Resolution if that is an appropriate forum for your disagreement. It also seems like this is not a current, intractible dispute but something that has bothered you in the past which makes it even more unlikely that any admin wandering through here will take action. Just my 2 cents. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;&quot;&gt;[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;&quot;&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm appending this to the end, like Fabrickator did with his comment. I'm also omitting all pings. Hoping not to be accused of &quot;bludgeoning&quot;.<br /> *:Although it is true that &quot;I've been busy with some things in real life&quot;, as I said above, it's also true that I was quite discouraged by the hostility that I've experienced on Wikpedia, and that my fellow editors seemed not to care about what Fabrickator (and some other editors, but that's another matter) had done to me. That's maybe *why* I busied myself with real life matters for a month or so. So calling the matter &quot;stale&quot; because I took a month break is not appropriate, I think.<br /> *:Did I do something wrong that can't be said out loud? Why are so many people being so hostile to me? I feel like people don't care or even would be glad to see stop copyediting Wikipedia.<br /> *:Why should Fabrickator continue to get away with wasting my time and worse, reverting my good edits, just because I got in trouble long ago as a newbie, in an unrelated matter? How long am I supposed to be punished for that? Didn't I pay my debt to Wikipedia by being blocked, so to speak?<br /> *:And anyway, shouldn't we be prioritizing the project? Good edits are good edits, regardless of who does them, or even why, right? And there's also the time wasted by third parties who undo Fabrickator's reversions of my good edits, which has happened in two out of the four cases. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 12:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::You've not provided any additional evidence or reasoning with this comment. What is the point of this? You've just repeated yourself. Stop now before this becomes a motion about you. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I was told [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Polar_Apposite&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214804087&lt;nowiki&gt; here]: &quot;Shorter is always better. If you feel that you have something new which will positively contribute to a discussion, you should do so. If you have been warned against excessively posting, though, consider whether you &lt;/nowiki&gt;''need'' to post it.&quot;<br /> *:::What I posted was shorter. I felt that I had something new that would be a positive contribution. I considered whether I needed to post it (and concluded that I did). I did exactly what I was I told to do. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 13:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::No, you really didn't. You posted another evidence-free diatribe. This is becoming disruptive. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 16:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Here is a [[Special:diff/1197560620/1197786525|pertinent portion]] of the discussion with Graham Beards, in which I described Graham's proposal as a way of &quot;graciously bowing out&quot; of the dispute. Fairly shortly after posting this message, I received a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&amp;user=User%3AGraham+Beards&amp;page=User%3AFabrickator&amp;wpdate=&amp;tagfilter=&amp;wpfilters%5B%5D=thanks&amp;wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist thanks from Graham]. It would be pretty juvenile to go around parading the fact of having received a &quot;thanks&quot; from somebody, but it is significant here because it seriously contrasts with Polar's interpretation of the situation. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 20:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::[[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]]... Before this thread gets closed down, I feel &quot;inspired&quot; to come back to the discussion you and I were having several weeks ago regarding the [[Special:Permalink/1203193236#Length of sigmoid colon in the diagram is not 35-40 cm. |length of the sigmoid colon]].<br /> ::I realize this is very much a sore spot for you, but I felt it showed that you had a blind spot with regard to editing Wikipedia. In this discussion, you expressed doubt about information in the article indicating the length of the sigmoid colon was 35-40 cm., based on your belief that this length was not plausible. The question I asked you was how you would advise an editor asking you this same question, but that had seemed to get you all riled up.<br /> ::I'm here now, and I'm again asking this question. Seriously, if it's not apparent which Wikipedia principle(s) should inform you on how to resolve this concern, then that casts doubt as to whether your continued editing of WP is appropriate. [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 06:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'd drop this attempt at discussion. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You wrote, &quot;I don't think it's you that should be accepting apologies [...]&quot;. Did I actually get blamed for accepting an apology? That would be Kafkaesque&quot;. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 15:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::It often takes two to tango. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 23:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::A lot of editors here like to speak in riddles, I see. [[User:Polar Apposite|Polar Apposite]] ([[User talk:Polar Apposite|talk]]) 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::That's not a riddle. It's a [https://www.google.com/search?q=it+takes+two+to+tango+meaning&amp;rlz=1C1SQJL_enAU1053AU1053&amp;oq=it+takes+two+to+tango&amp;gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgBEAAYgAQyCQgAEEUYORiABDIHCAEQABiABDIHCAIQLhiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABNIBCjEyMTgxajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8 common saying where I'm from]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff0000;&quot;&gt;Tar&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ff7070;&quot;&gt;nis&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#ffa0a0;&quot;&gt;hed&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color:#420000;&quot;&gt;Path&lt;/b&gt;]]''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:TarnishedPath|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#bd4004;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Nevertheless, it does kind of ''sound like'' a riddle. I like riddles! [[User:Fabrickator|Fabrickator]] ([[User talk:Fabrickator|talk]]) 19:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Monarchy of Canada ==<br /> <br /> I propose that [[User:Miesianiacal]] be topic banned from [[monarchy of Canada]], either broadly or more narrowly from the base article. It shouldn't require a minimum of two RfCs ([[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Meaning of reside]] and [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?]]) to insert the simple, obvious and uncontentious fact that the Canadian monarch lives in the UK. Yet, we are forced to endure [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] of debates[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213869997], [[WP:DISRUPTSIGNS|disruptive cite tagging]],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213576471][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213574889][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211996854] and [[WP:POINT]]y [[tendentious editing]] from this single editor every time any other editor tries to edit an article [[WP:OWN|owned]] by Miesianiacal, who is responsible for more than 75% of edits to the page.[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Monarchy_of_Canada] The article is a farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research perpetuating a ridiculous myth that the King of Canada is Canadian. It will only improve when the influence of this editor is removed. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 21:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> - I would just like to add that, as we can see [[Monarchy of Canada#Consensus|here]], there seems to have been a productive consensus arrived at, and this without any negative behaviour that I can see. I will not pretend to be aware or delved into the material prior to my own involvement, so will not judge specific behaviour of individual editors for which I'm not aware, I only note that from my point of view, it seems that the Talk process worked and is working, and all in a respectful and positive way at Monarchy of Canada Talk and Main Space. Again, maybe there had been a bit of a breakdown warranting something, not sure, I'm only speaking to what I've seen since myself becoming a member of the discussion at that Talk page. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 16:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::If there is a consensus in that article it has been arrived at during Miesianiacal's current absence (and during his temporary ban from editing the article). [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Okay thankyou. What was his main point that was not valid? Which I mean, what part of what he was advocating for is not reflected in the current consensus? I'm having a hard time figuring out what exact statement was meriting a block. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :There seems to be two allegations here. There's bludgeoning etc at [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?]]. This has diffs and looking at the thread seems to have a basis. But the second half of the post broadens out to a [[WP:OWN]] accusation and being responsible for &quot;a farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research&quot;, but there are no diffs for that. The former (for a longstanding editor) deserves a warning. The latter needs more evidence to be actioned to a full TBAN or even a PBAN. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Not long ago, this editor searched out articles with royal-sounding names, and then added that these article were ''named after royalty''. I reverted most of the edits, as they were unsourced and probably not true, but not without pushback. You can see one of the discussions at [[Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty?]]. --[[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{ping|DeCausa}} It took me ages to track down, but I recently removed 3 bits of original research not found in the citations from the article, and they were all added by Miesianiacal or his previous account: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213654233 Removed citation] added by Miesianiacal's old account: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=220192125]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213654233 Removed citation] added by Miesianiacal's old account: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=232790056]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213654776 Removed unverified claim] added by Miesianiacal: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=317637578]. I've only really looked at the first two paragraphs of the Residences section, so there could be more elsewhere. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Those edits are from 14/15 years ago. I don't think they would or could be used to support action now. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::The 'age' of an edit does not necessarily matter, given that there's always the possibility of erroneous information remaining in an article for years to come. &lt;span style=&quot;font:'Pristina'&quot;&gt;[[user:Keivan.f|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #1E7HDC&quot;&gt;Keivan.f&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font:'Pristina'&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:Keivan.f|&lt;span style=&quot;color: purple&quot;&gt;Talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 23:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Is this editor not already block from [[Monarchy of Canada]] articles? &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight:bold;color:darkblue&quot;&gt;[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]&lt;/span&gt;🍁 04:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::He was banned on March 13 for two weeks. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 16:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{reply to|DeCausa}} The named after royalty edits were just a few months ago. There's a long-standing issue of problematic editing wrt the monarchy. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 18:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I don't really understand what's meant by &quot;The named after royalty edits were just a few months ago&quot;. All I was saying is that edits from 14/15 years won't be taken into account. I dont think that's much in doubt. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 20:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Magnolia677's post preceding post included &quot;Not long ago, this editor searched out articles with royal-sounding names, and then added that these article were ''named after royalty'' &quot;. That's why I wrote {{tq|There's a long-standing issue of problematic editing wrt the monarchy.}} [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 19:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::I did not add &quot;[this was] named after royalty&quot; to any articles, unless with a reliable source. What Magnolia677 is referring to is my adding to articles on places listed at [[Royal eponyms in Canada]] a link to that article in the &quot;See also&quot; section, a number of which were removed and I didn't dispute the deletion. I think [[Victoria Park Collegiate Institute]] is the only article on which I argued for reinsertion and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Park_Collegiate_Institute&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1172829023 found cited info] to support the connection to [[Royal eponyms in Canada]]. It was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Park_Collegiate_Institute&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1172849549 deleted] two and a half hours later and that's the way it's remained ever since. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 02:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Support sanctions''', if not an article or topic ban then a revert restriction or talk page interaction ban. I don't think a warning will be adequate. This is essentially the same issue that I raised at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive467#User:Miesianiacal reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: No violation)]] and that was raised at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III]]. Miesianiacal gets away with his behaviour because he acts within the letter of the rules while ignoring their spirit; he knows how to [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|game the system]]. When challenged, he goes on the attack instead of addressing his own behaviour: for example accusing me of harassment even though I was required to notify him[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1152176368] or refusing to listen when challenged on civility: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1151467664][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1151694138]. Before [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III|IncidentArchive1127]] there were multiple requests for comment at Charles III, which closed against him; he then went to third opinion, which was rejected, and then to the dispute resolution noticeboard, which was rejected (diffs are all at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Multiple issues at Charles III/Talk:Charles III|IncidentArchive1127]]). So, he went forum-shopping to the administrators' noticeboard with a cherry-picked selection of edits that were better than his own behaviour. That is his typical operating style: delay, dismiss, attack, and never surrender. The tactic is to pursue endless circular debate, blame everyone else, and refuse to listen to or accept any counter-argument or advice. The same thing that happened at Charles III is happening at Monarchy of Canada: we are forced to go through multiple requests for comment to make the simplest change (with the result that editors wonder what we're doing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214219395]). Once the discussion starts, we then suffer through his sabotage of the debate, such as refusing to accept sources that disprove his argument, for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214382428] backtracking from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213733542]. [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> I believe there are also [[WP:OWN]] issues at [[Monarchism in Canada]] and [[Republicanism in Canada]], particularly the former. Miesianiacal has strenuously objected to updating the articles to include references to opinion polls taken in the past two years that show there is greater support for removing the monarchy than there is for retaining it. (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchism_in_Canada&amp;diff=1214387299&amp;oldid=1214075662]) and [[Republicanism in Canada]] (see [[Talk:Republicanism in Canada]]). At present the polls cited in Monarchism in Canada are at least 15 years old.<br /> <br /> In Republicanism in Canada he claimed this wording was not neutral: &quot;&quot;Polls conducted on the subject of abolition of the Canadian Crown in 2022 and 2023, following the accession of Charles III, suggested that a majority of Canadians think there should be a referendum on the future of the monarchy and that more Canadians favour becoming a republic than do retaining the monarchy&quot; (he reverted similar wording in the monarchism article.) Instead, he wrote this wording which mentions only that polling occurred without any reference to the polling result. His &quot;neutral&quot; wording was:&quot;[[Debate on the monarchy in Canada#Polls|Polls have been conducted]] on the subject of abolition of the Canadian Crown.&quot;[[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 17:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :What, if any, administrative or community action would you support? [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 10:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' - the ban could be reconsidered at a later point but at present the editor shows no capacity to negotiate or seek or accept compromise, or collaborate, let alone accept a consensus view he disagrees with. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]){{pb<br /> }}'''Supplemental''' - there are still plenty of pages regarding the monarchy in the UK and other [[Commonwealth realm]]s that Miesianiacal would be able to edit. If he can demonstrate a collaborative approach on those pages, then the Canadian monarchy topic ban can be revisited. Alternatively, if his approach does not change, the topic ban could spread to cover all articles regarding the British and Commonwealth monarchy (for lack of a better term). In any case, this topic ban wouldn't be the end of the road and he would have avenues where he could prove himself. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 16:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> * I read [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#RFC: Should it be mentioned in this article, that the Canadian monarch resides in the United Kingdom?]] and my brain attempted to leave my skull. I have ''never'' seen such a nonsensical collection of distorted logic, and yes, a narrow article ban should be considered for at least one editor (the one mentioned in the lead here). [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 20:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban for Miesianiacal from the Canadian monarchy, broadly construed. If this type of behavior migrates to other topic areas, broader restrictions may be required. This is classic POV pushing. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Do not support''' There are a multitude of pieces including several articles and different conversations in this accusation, however, I did read one (the question of residency), and I am not comfortable with the idea of sanctioning a long-time editor with considerable expertise in the area simply for being firm on a specific point on a Talk page which would seem to me to undermine the point of the Talk page in the first place, and in the spirit of lively debate with a minimum standard of decorum, as that's how we elucidate (ideally) the best way forward in good-faith, as opposed to single-editor dictatorship or mob-rule, both of which are to be strenuously avoided. {{pb<br /> }}Second, the article states that Charles III lives in the UK last I checked, so I'm not quite sure what the core issue is. Clearly no one is currently standing in the way of portraying that fact.{{pb<br /> }}In this case's Talk Page, there is a valid logical argument to made on the important distinction on the separation of office from an individual person. A slightly humorous example would be that, just because the current Prime Minister is Justin Trudeau, the official residence of the Prime Minister is 24 Sussex, and Justin Trudeau is also the coach of the little league team the Ottawa Cubs, that does ''not'' mean that the official residence of the Coach of the Ottawa Cubs is 24 Sussex, nor even that Justin Trudeau even lives at 24 Sussex. So, in this case, the monarch of the UK is, from Canada's point of view, a foreign head of state. The King of Canada does not have any official residences in the UK, but the King of Canada does have official residences in Canada. Where Charles III sleeps at night, or where the King of the UK as a foreign head of state lives has no bearing on the status or the location of a Canadian official residence. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that was the sticking point or the point that was trying to me made, and as I said, I think such a point is valid as is the logic behind it. And so the consensus I believe that is reflected in the article, or should be, is that the King of Canada has official residences in Canada, and that Charles III himself predominantly lives in the UK. No one should be censured for contributing to that consensus. {{pb<br /> }}Is it a little bit arcane and pedantic? Yes. But that is often the nature of deep-dive discussions of certain topics, particularly ones swirling around constitutional politics. {{pb<br /> }}As there was a bit of a swirl of allegations, please feel free to be more specific if you feel I've missed the most salient or fundamental issue under discussion here. [[User:Trackratte|trackratte]] ([[User talk:Trackratte|talk]]) 18:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I take it all are aware these are called &quot;Canada’s Official Residences&quot; would be best if terms are not madeup. Would help things alot I think. &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight:bold;color:darkblue&quot;&gt;[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]&lt;/span&gt;🍁 18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' topic ban per Cullen328. The bludgeoning has to stop. Look, I understand the kind of pedantry that surrounds the issue. My first few years on this project were almost solely devoted to peerage matters. But this is too much. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 19:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support some sort of action if''' Miesianical doesn't strongly commit to accepting feedback and accepting consensus does not always line up with his personal slant. On one hand, Miesianiacal has contributed a lot of content on royalty in Canada, which is mostly good, and deserves some shout-outs for that. And... I get it. There are some articles on Wiki where having a &quot;guard dog&quot; editor hazing new edits closely can actually be a good thing (medical articles most famously, perhaps). If Miesianiacal was providing &quot;stewardship&quot; that occasionally was a tad tendentious, I get it. However... I'm not sure that's really the case here, and rather Miesianiacal himself is the issue, inserting POV slants in articles that do not accord with the sources, which makes any OWNership concerns much more pressing. So yes, this is ANI not a content board, but it's relevant, so let's look at Miesianiacal's grasp of content. Take a look at this old revision of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchies_in_the_Americas&amp;oldid=258665472 Monarchies in the Americas] for example: it distinguishes &quot;American monarchies&quot; from &quot;Foreign monarchies&quot; as if there was some sort of substantive difference between the King of Denmark ruling Greenland from afar and Charles III ruling Jamaica from afar. Which, strictly speaking, there is a difference of course, but a wildly overblown one that is hardly section-heading level worthy. Or take the line &quot;Most pre-Columbian cultures of the Americas developed and flourished for centuries under monarchical systems of government.&quot; Totally bonkers and unsourced, and tying the &quot;flourishing&quot; to the monarchial system of government. More generally, we simply ''do not know'' the details of the government system of &quot;most pre-Columbian cultures.&quot; It's just wild speculation. That's just the start of the problems with the old article. (I'm picking on it specifically because it was at GAR a bit ago and I took a look into it, where it was wildly overplaying certain &quot;monarchies&quot; and their level of support, like treating Arucania &amp; Patagonia as if it were a real state and not a fantasy.) I'd argue that all of the provincial level &quot;Monarchies of XYZ&quot; are problematic for example, with the possible exception of [[Monarchy in Quebec]] (although... I'd really want to triple-check all the sources talking about just how much the Quebecois loved their monarch back in the day as being valid and not Anglophone Canada wishful thinking.) Take a look at [[Monarchy in Alberta]], for example, which should probably be reformulated into something else as it's a lot of talking about nothing in particular. A very small number of people turned out for some event honoring the Queen? Stop the presses. Okay, back to conduct: Miesianical being a Canadian monarchist isn't a ''problem'', exactly. But going against their wishes is really not worth it due to the risk of bludgeoning talk page conversations or edit wars (the one time I did, on something I considered a slam dunk on sourcing grounds, felt like pulling teeth, but also happened ages ago at this point, so not worth rehashing). If Miesianiacal can just seriously commit to toning it down a bit and being willing to take the L when others disagree, then no need to do anything other than verify he's keeping the commitment. But otherwise, yeah, maybe time for a topic ban. (And per above, if a topic ban happened, I'd strongly encourage Miesianiacal not to continue the exact same behavior at other Commonwealth monarchies- going around to give the same treatment to Monarchy of The Bahamas subarticles would not really solve the problems here.) [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Upgrade to support topic ban, broadly construed'''. Miesianical's response below is that actually, there is no problem and everyone is getting upset over nothing, because there's no proof of anything. I guess all the editors here taking exception to his collaboration style don't count as proof either? If he doesn't think there's a problem, then he can't fix it, so we are left with this. It's really not that hard to commit to accepting feedback, but he isn't even bothering to try. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:I ''literally'' said that I'm open to accepting I've done wrong. But, since my analysis of the evidence (spelled out below) doesn't show me how I bludgeoned or abused tags, I'm ''asking'' (like, three times now) for clarification, so I can see what I might currently be missing or reevaluate what I see. Telling me &quot;you did bad&quot; tells me nothing about what exactly I did that was bad and, therefore, gives me no idea of how I'm supposed to modify my behaviour. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 20:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:* {{ping|Miesianiacal}} I believe you that was your intent. But intentions don't matter. Just as I'm sure you thought you were making a peace offering good faith, you have to believe everyone else that what ''actually comes across'' in your posts below is a desire to continue axe-grinding and bludgeoning with DrKay. As if that was the only problem, which it isn't, nor is it even the most important problem - it's your interaction with other editors in general.<br /> **:* You mentioned below that you need to work on brevity. I can't speak for others, but for me, I'd have been willing to change my vote to avoid a formal sanction with just three sentences or so. Something like &quot;While I stand by my edits, I understand that consensus will sometimes be against me. I'll discuss these matters on the talk page rather than revert war, keep it to just a few paragraphs or so on the talk page, and let the matter drop if it seems like a one-against-many situation.&quot; And then actually do that. Something to keep in mind for your future editing. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 20:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Perhaps I'm misunderstanding AN/I, then. It appears to me it sometimes, as in this instance, acts as a quasi-court. Someone's laid a charge against me. Unrelated, some misrepresented, incidents from months or years ago have been dragged in. To my mind, ''that'', collectively, is ''all'' I'll be judged on, if I don't mount some kind of defence. Yet, at the same time, I don't want to be adamantly defens''ive''--I want to say I don't see the charges as valid, here's why, but, I still accept they could be valid and I'm open to hearing--no, literally asking to hear--how so. Up to now, I would've thought something like your suggested statement would've been taken as a kind of flippant disregard of everyone's criticisms and ''that'' would be used against me. But, what you've said has made me question my interpretation of this as a trial.<br /> :::::Alright. Well, I have no idea how long something like this goes on for. But, I hope there's time for me to reconsider my main response; I mean, what I've already written is there and, well, the consequences will be the consequences. But, my feelings and opinions aren't immutable. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 21:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Also support some sort of action''' if Miesianical doesn't make efforts to be more collaborative. I haven't had any run-ins with them in quite some time because, frankly, I have very limited interest in monarchy. However my past interactions with them are very much in line with what others have said here - a tendency toward [[WP:OWN]], bludgeoning on talk page and walking right to the edge of [[WP:3RR]]. If they're still up to these antics nearly a decade on then I'd say they should be invited to consider making some changes to their editing behaviour. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' from anything to do with the Canadian monarchy &amp; perhaps the monarchies of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms (past &amp; current) broadly construed. Indeed, ''two'' RFCs shouldn't have been required at [[Monarchy of Canada]], but I didn't know what else to do to stop the disruption. Also see [[Talk:British royal family#RfC on lede|this RfC at British royal family]], from about a year ago. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' topic ban per [[user:Cullen]]. Off the top of my head I don't remember noticing this editor's work in other areas, but certainly the Canadian area is an issue. I don't believe this editor's bludgeoning is made in good faith. [[User:Meters|Meters]] ([[User talk:Meters|talk]]) 18:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' - As mentioned, my experience at [[Talk:Victoria Park Collegiate Institute#Royalty?]] and similar articles was not positive. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 20:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' - The response by Miesianical below speaks for itself. In the RFC I asked for Miesianical to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK|drop the stick]] and the response was baffling. Hopefully the editor learns something from this discussion so the behavior doesn't spread elsewhere. - [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 20:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' on Canadian monarchy and perhaps on the Commonwealth monarchy per above. Clearly a widespread and longstanding complex of issues. Especially the apparent suppression of information regarding support for republicanism in Canada, that's the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Enough of the bias, I'll support the topic ban. [[User:JM2023|JM]] ([[User talk:JM2023|talk]]) 03:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic ban''' on all Commonwealth monarchies. I feel like a more &quot;broadly construed&quot; topic ban would be best suited here, because of how inter-connected everything is. Charles, the King of Canada, is ''legally'' distinct from Charles, the King of the UK, but I fear a &quot;Canada only&quot; topic ban would lead Miesianiacal to bring their issues to other pages like [[Monarchy of the United Kingdom]], [[Monarchy of Australia]], etc... under the guise of the fact that they are ''technically'' not discussing the &quot;Canadian royal family&quot; anymore. &lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;Canuck&lt;/span&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;89&lt;/span&gt; [[User talk:Canuckian89|(Converse with me)]] or visit [[User:Canuckian89|my user page]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; &lt;small&gt;09:04, March 26, 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;<br /> <br /> As the person who started this is pointing specifically to [[Monarchy of Canada]] and disputing something is not a crime (if it were, all those here referencing the disputes they were engaged in with me on other articles over many months through the past would be guilty of it, as well), I'm only going to address matters at [[Monarchy of Canada]]; for now, anyway. Alone, I can only deal with one thing at a time.<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213869997 This] is not ''proof'' of bludgeoning. It's one person's opinion and one can see, preceding the person's remark, they asserted, &quot;you've said your piece,&quot; when I hadn't actually said any piece, I'd [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213733542 asked a question]: &quot;So, what now?&quot; That's an invitation to move forward toward a resolution. Indeed, in the preamble to that question, I ''acknowledged'' [https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2022/10/falqs-canada-and-the-monarchy/ the source] DrKay provided and the fact it supported the statement, &quot;the Canadian monarch lives in the United Kingdom&quot;. I even made the point of the question clear: &quot;there are now two takes on this: 'the monarch is represented by viceroys in Canada because he lives in the UK' and 'the monarch is represented by viceroys in Canada because he is monarch of 14 other countries and his principal residence is in the UK', each supported by one RS.&quot; That very evidenlty ''accepts'' DrKay's source, as it sought to find a way to deal with two sources--DrKay's one and [https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/pch/documents/services/royal-symbols-titles/crnMpls-eng.pdf this one]--saying two not necessarily mutually exclusive, but, different things. DrKay chose never to answer the question, thereby exacerbating dispute, rather than working toward a resolution.<br /> <br /> That continues in the same vein:<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213624979 This] is a question<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214382428 This] is agreeing with someone<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214398286 This] isn't pushing anything; it's a comment on DrKay's misunderstanding of the dispute ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214166029 he thinks] I (and at least one other) want to have the article say the monarch lives in Canada, when I never, ever (and I mean ever) did)<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214382671 This] is again agreeing with someone<br /> * [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Discussion|This]] is a civil attempt to get a reverting editor to explain his edits and/or desired edits<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214384628 This] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214396977 this] were part of an agreeable discussion<br /> <br /> And that's the sum total of my contributions to the RfC, aside from my own answer to it. If anyone can explain how that meets the definition of &quot;bludeoning&quot;, I'm truly fascinated to read it.<br /> <br /> I haven't been blocked from [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada]]. So, my absence from the discussion is only because I haven't been on Wikipedia over the past few days and correlation does not imply causation.<br /> <br /> There was more than a week between the placement of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211996854 This] tag (which was quickly thereafter [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Park_Collegiate_Institute&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1172849549 moved by me] to make clear I was ''not'' challenging the claim that the monarch resides in the UK) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213574889 these] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213576471 tags]. The latter two are two completely different tags addressing two different variations of an edited sentence. Tagging disputed material is not a crime and I clearly brought up at talk the issues the tags were flagging, exactly as one is supposed to do. Again, how that's &quot;disruptive cite tagging&quot; (even the spirit thereof) requires further explanation, including how DrKay placing numerous tags on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211858095 4 March] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211912250 5 March], employing his usual tactic of &quot;discussion by edit summary&quot;, is not.<br /> <br /> There's no proof given of &quot;WP:POINTy tendentious editing&quot;. There's no proof given of my making such edits &quot;every time any other editor tries to edit [the] article&quot;. There's no proof given of the article being a &quot;farcical assembly of twisted sources and absurd original research perpetuating a ridiculous myth.&quot;<br /> <br /> And &quot;[this proves] how nasty and desperate you are&quot; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214420204], from DrKay on [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada]], is an overt personal attack, which a continuation of the earlier attacks from him that both crossed and didn't quite cross [[WP:NPA]]: &quot;Don't play stupid, you know damn well what's meant&quot; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1143261256]; “you are ruining more than one article on my watchlist” [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKay&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1143265674]; &quot;you don't assume good faith [...] Treat them like shit you've scraped off the bottom of your shoe and they will likely respond by blanking your messages to them and asking you not to message anymore. Please do not message me anymore&quot; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1143291211]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DrKay&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1152036372 this] accusation of bad faith; [[User talk:Miesianiacal/August 2022-March 2024#Accuracy of edit summaries|this]] unconstructive attempt at besmirchment; etc. There are certainly zero examples of my expressing anything to DrKay that violates WP:NPA.<br /> <br /> Again, eludication on the matters of bludgeoning and abusive cite tagging would be helpful so I can have clear understanding of the rules so I can follow them properly, if, indeed, I haven't been, so far. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 02:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :To sum up, &quot;I did nothing wrong. It's all DrKay's fault.&quot; This is a version of what I said above: blaming others and refusing to accept you've done anything wrong. You claim here that there is no evidence of bludgeoning, but then in your final link here (&quot;[[User talk:Miesianiacal/August 2022-March 2024#Accuracy of edit summaries|this]] unconstructive attempt at besmirchment&quot;) you link to a discussion where there are 13 diffs showing you making the same comment 13 times, which you claim is not bludgeoning. DrKay's behaviour is far from laudable but then you shouldn't have goaded them should you? [[User:Celia Homeford|Celia Homeford]] ([[User talk:Celia Homeford|talk]]) 08:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I asked above for clarification on how my interactions at [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada]] constituted bludgeoning and my use of tags on [[Monarchy in Canada]] was abusive cite tagging. That is altogether different from &quot;it's all DrKay's fault&quot;. (DrKay's personal insults being my fault is an opinion I'll ignore.) DrKay making two accusations of bludgeoning against me doesn't prove I ever engaged in bludgeoning; and I need to point out here, because mention of it is absent from your remark: in response to his first accusation back in May 2023, I presented DrKay with the proof that I didn't actually &quot;[make] the same argument over and over, to different people&quot; (it was just a weeks-long and wide-ranging dispute involving many different people and some requests outside it for new people to join and possibly help break impasses). After that, he dropped the argument.<br /> ::DrKay might be at fault here; given he's violated WP:NPA numerous times to make his hatred of me clear and half of his OP at the top is unsubstantiated, negative opinion, he may possibly have revealed that his motivation is personal. He might ''not'' be at fault. It might be that he I and are ''both'' at fault, in our own ways. Even if, hypothetically, for now, DrKay did start this for the wrong reasons, that wouldn't mean I didn't actually do some of what he's accused me of. Hence, I'm requesting edification, preferrably from neutral, dispassionate parties who'll consider ''all'' the evidence in its proper contexts. Because, as I explained above, I personally, right now, don't see how the evidence backs up the charges (particularly the bludgeoning one). --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 16:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::One thing I would dispassionately recommend is to work on being more concise. These text walls contribute in part, though not in whole, to the sense of bludgeoning. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Well, I feel hung between a need to be thorough and to be concise. But, brevity is a challenge for me here and off Wikipedia; I'm working on it for reasons that exist outside of this realm. However, the walls of text contributing to a sense of bludgeoning on talk pages is a new perspective to me and interesting; I can get it. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 17:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> My edit on 4 March: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211858095], tags a self-published vanity project, an anthology of fictional works, and an official Canadian government source that says explicitly, not that the Queen resided in Canada, but that she belongs in the same category as &quot;foreign heads of state&quot; and that she &quot;visits&quot; Ottawa along with &quot;other royal visitors&quot;. The edit on 5 March: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211912250] removes an invention of Miesianiacal's that George VI's 1939 state visit to the United States was on behalf of Canada uniquely. He knows this invention is untrue because we had a long discussion about it at [[Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother/Archive 2#Royal tours]]. The same edit tags a source that does not support the material it is next to. The edits therefore demonstrate that sources are twisted and that the article includes original research. He also lists a series of uncivil edits but fails to mention that they are all in response to his baiting, which can be seen by looking at the comment(s) to which they respond or the preceding edits. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214420204] is in response to the unsubstantiated claim that I think the article used to say the Canadian monarch lives in Canada. That is untrue. I should not have taken the bait but it is difficult to avoid doing so when it is so frequently flung in my face. If Miesianiacal doesn't want to awaken bears, he shouldn't poke them with a stick. Once again in his response to this discussion, we are faced with his absolute refusal to acknowledge any bludgeoning. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 17:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' - I was not involved in this original dispute, but became involved in discussions after commenting in the second RfC. As I wasn't involved at that time, I don't think I have anything useful to add about users' conduct while the first RfC was taking place. I will say though that some of DrKay's comments since have not been particularly productive. Calling other editors comments (mine included) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215025473&amp;oldid=1215012120 &quot;Farcical garbage&quot;], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215042417&amp;oldid=1215039825 wrongly accusing them of strawman arguments], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215044541&amp;oldid=1215043365 ad hominem attacks], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1215047616&amp;oldid=1215046927 deflection] aren't really helping anyone reach consensus there. It seems the temperature needs to be lowered across the board.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 19:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I withdraw &quot;farcical garbage&quot; pursuant to [[Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility]] #1d.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMonarchy_of_Canada&amp;diff=1216052301&amp;oldid=1216048196]. [[User:DrKay|DrKay]] ([[User talk:DrKay|talk]]) 19:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> With all due respect. [[Talk:The Worldwide Privacy Tour#Royal family description|This discussion, concerning a cartoon episode]], was memorable. I'm not certain how to describe the content dispute that took place there, a year ago. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Okay. My apologies for the length of the following. But, there's a lot to address.<br /> <br /> I've taken some feedback and looked at the whole of what this expanded into from the initial accusations. I've been editing here for 20+ years; I have crossed paths with many, many editors. The vast majority of interactions have been without significant problem. However, I have also sometimes been a problem. Admitting as much has prompted me to improve my collaborative manner; over even eight months ago (these recent discussions--[[Talk:Royal standards of Canada#Terminology|1]], [[Talk:Republicanism in Canada#Opinion polling|2]], [[Talk:King Charles III Coronation Medal#Canadian medallions/medals|3]]--are perfectly fine). I'm okay with disagreement; I'm willing to compromise (if it's not a policy matter).<br /> <br /> But, if my self-reflection is accurate, what's still been problematic up to now is my reaction to what I perceive as not being heard; in whatever manner. I've taken it as an unnecessary drawing out of the dispute and felt an RfC will do so even more (implying an impatience on my part). I become not incivil, but... blunt in my interactions with the other party. Now I see that, ironically, my insistence on getting the other party to hear me (driven, again ironically, by a want to find a mutually agreeable resolution) often leads to an RfC, anyway. The ends truly don't always justify the means. This is not to pick on DrKay; I just think it's relevant to show that even he and I ''can'' interact in a completely decent way: [[Talk:Head of the Commonwealth#Dubious|1]], [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada/Archive 20#Official lists|2]]. So, ''my'' problem must be how I've been dealing with communication breakdown; between myself and anyone I think it's happening with.<br /> <br /> Putting whatever restrictions will inevitably be imposed on me aside, going forward, I'll accept what I think are failures to communicate as soon as I believe they've happened and that the wider community then has to be brought in; I'll accept there's no deadline to complete an edit. Of course, consensus is, as always, consensus. --&lt;span style=&quot;border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%&quot;&gt;[[User talk:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;background-color:black;color:white&quot;&gt;'''₪'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Miesianiacal|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;MIESIANIACAL&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 05:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :In the 20+ years, there seems to be (from you) a tendency to advocate for the monarchy in Canada, to be viewed in a certain way on Wikipedia. One ''might'' see this as breaching [[WP:RGW]]. Charles III, like his mother, grandfather, etc, before him, are/were most recognized as British monarchs. That's simply how the world sees it. At [[Monarchy of Canada]] (for example), we can't be suggesting in anyway, that the monarch resides/lives in Canada. Anyways, that's my theory on what's the core of your problematic behavior. It's up to the community to decide on what to do. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If there has been [[WP:RGW]] behaviour by editors at [[Monarchy of Canada]], it appears to have occurred on both sides of the initial debate there. With all due respect, I am not sure someone calling for a Canadian Republic on their user page is the best person to cast that particular stone. It seems to me many users are talking past each other on the talk page, which seems to be continuing in the new discussions on [[Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Residences]]. MIESIANIACAL is one of the editors commenting in the debates there, but the persistent content dispute(s) there, and the resulting walls of text, are of many editors makings. As I said above, I think the temperature needs to be lowered across the board.-- [[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't edit as a republican &amp; have at times been considered a closet-monarchist. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 03:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::A person dusclosing a political position on their user page should not guide which pages they are permitted to edit. Only whether their edits adhere to Wikipedia standards. As an example, my strident anti-monarchism had nothing to do with my positions regarding the [[Where is Kate]] article - only BLP standards. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I think it would be dangerous if we went down the path of declaring people to be in a COI because of their ideology or belief. Monarchists (or republicans) should no more be banned from editing articles on the monarchy than Christians should be banned from editing articles on Christianity (or even articles on the church they belong to), or Liberals or Conservative supporters or members be banned from articles on the Liberal or Conservative parties or liberalism or conservatism as ideology. What we should look out for is editing conduct and POV-pushing. [[User:Wellington Bay|Wellington Bay]] ([[User talk:Wellington Bay|talk]]) 18:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Deletions of (article) talk page material ==<br /> <br /> I have a long-running dispute that has started on 8. January when [[User:Chaheel Riens]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194299127 deleted 26 KiB of talk page material]. I would like the mentioned 26 KiB of deleted talk page material to be restored (archiving it would also be fine with me). However, this dispute is interrelated with the correct interpretation of [[WP:TPO]], and it might have important consequences as such.<br /> <br /> As a justification for his actions, [[User:Chaheel Riens]] provided [[WP:FORUM]], [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:NOTHOWTO]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1194383866 here]. After some further arguments and counter-arguments, he <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1194505317 refused to properly argue]<br /> . I think that there was some amount of [[WP:LAWYERING]] involved on his part, but I don't see that as important.<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_241#Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Summary_of_the_discussion_so_far I took the issue to the DRN],<br /> but it was not successful. However, my conclusion was that DRN was not a proper venue, because the central issue is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material, which is a conduct issue.<br /> <br /> The relevant guideline related to this problem seems to be [[WP:TPO]]. Some experienced editors are interpreting it as supporting the disputed deletion, while other experienced editors are of the opposite opinion. The editors who support the deletion are referencing various parts of [[WP:OR]] to justify the disputed deletion. In my opinion, such justifications are invalid, because WP:OR clearly states: {{tq|This policy does not apply to talk pages...}} Other justifications for deletion are invalid due to similar reasons. My conclusion is that the policies are supporting my side of the argument, therefore the deleted talk page material should be restored and then archived.<br /> <br /> Currently, this dispute is stuck at some kind of status quo, as I was absent for a month, and other editors apparently refused to argue further. I think that further arguments would be futile anyway, because this dispute is essentially about two widely different interpretations of WP:TPO, as it was noticed <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Some_Follow-Up_Comments_Regarding_Removing_Material here]<br /> .<br /> <br /> This dispute is unlikely to be resolved by any kind of discussion between involved parties. I judge that WP:ANI is the relevant authority for this kind of disagreement, because deletions of talk page material are conduct issues. To escape the status quo, some definitive guidance is needed about the proper course of action in this dispute.<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Someone_has_just_deleted_all_of_my_suggestions Initial discussion at ZX Spectrum graphic modes]<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Removed_sections Link to the continuation of discussion after DRN failed].<br /> <br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Removing_material_from_article_talk_pages Link to the discussion at WP:TPG talk page].<br /> <br /> - [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Is this still the same discussion where you pretty much accused me of being a scammer and a liar? I distanced myself when it because clear it was turning into a slow-motion train crash while beating the dead horse at the same time. I've given a cursory glance over it since I last commented, and you don't seem to be gaining much favour - even the editor who was critical of me seems to have washed their hands of you and the discussion. This could be a case of [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|WP:FILLIBUSTER]] where you just go on and on and on and on and on until everybody simply gives up in exasperation. I've taken the liberty of pinging the other involved editors who were missed, but the discussion is such a mess it's hard to see if all have been included. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 16:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I have never accused you, or anyone, of being scammers and liars. It is just your interpretation of one '''hypothetical statement''' of mine, which I posted in a separate discussion about copyright issues [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ritchie333/Archive_136#ZX_Spectrum_graphics_(modes)] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Parrot_standard.png] that isn't really related to this one. I apologize to you any everyone involved if you were offended by a lack of clarity in my writings, because I don't think that you are a scammer or a liar.<br /> ::I argue that what you have just suggested is essentially an attempt to perpetuate the status quo. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|Z80Spectrum}} You mentioned &quot;''the possbility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers''&quot;. Would you have included Chaheel Riens in that group? &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Segoe Script;&quot;&gt;''[[User:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#BC49A6&quot;&gt;City&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:Green&quot;&gt; o&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:Red&quot;&gt;f &lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]]''&lt;/b&gt; 18:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I must admit that, at that specific moment, I was quite confused about what is happening. Therefore, my statement in question did not refer to anyone in particular. The copyright issues are a serious problem, and my statement was intended to alert to the importance of those issues. I [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01#c-Z80Spectrum-20240129030400-Clindberg-20240129005500 appologized here] to another user, [[User:4throck]], who might have been most obviously affected by that unfortunate statement of mine. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 18:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This doesn't belong here or indeed anywhere. The proper path forward is to work on something else. What practical difference is there between moving this information to the talk page archive vs having it available in diffs? Unwillingness to repeat oneself endlessly is not &quot;refused to properly argue.&quot; [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 18:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Not again!''' - I tried to mediate the dispute, which was originally presented as an article content dispute, but was really mostly a dispute about the removal of talk page material. I developed [[WP:DRN Rule F|DRN Rule F]] and was preparing to mediate a discussion about the removal or restoration of the article talk page material. [[User:Z80Spectrum]] then began discussing the dispute with [[User:Ritchie333]], an end run around my mediation, so I failed the mediation. <br /> *I will comment that I started off sympathetic to [[User:Z80Spectrum]] about the talk page edits. The [[WP:TPO|guidelines on editing other editors' talk page posts]] are poorly written, and do not clarify when the removal of talk page material is in order. My opinion is that they should state that removal is only rarely appropriate, and that normally disputed talk page material should be either archived or userfied. So I started out thinking that [[User:Chaheel Riens]] had been overly aggressive, but I tried to maintain neutrality. [[User:Z80Spectrum]] soon acted aggressively, making an accusation on the talk page of [[User:Ritchie333]] that I still don't entirely understand, but that appeared to be [[WP:ASPERSIONS|casting aspersions]]. Two months later is late to apologize for a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] that was called out at the time. Now [[User:Z80Spectrum]] wants to reopen a dispute that had faded away more than a month ago. <br /> *This filing is a [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] thrown by [[User:Z80Spectrum]]. If the community agrees with [[User:VQuakr]] that there isn't a current issue, then the issue is what to do about this [[vexatious litigation]] by the filing editor. I think that there wasn't a current issue until this report was filed, but now this report is reopening something.<br /> *One possible resolution to this case would be a one-way [[WP:IBAN|interaction ban]] on [[User:Z80Spectrum]] against interacting with or attacking [[User:Chaheel Riens]].[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm not very glad to read this opinion of yours. I would have liked it better if you had communicated it to me earlier, which wasn't the case. I'm not &quot;reopening&quot; this dispute, as the dispute was never closed. <br /> *:I would like to point out that all I want is the 26 KiB of deleted talk page material to be restored and archived (that's the primary reason for this WP:ANI report). I will accept the interaction ban on my behalf, or any similar measure, to get that deleted content restored. I also wanted to clarify the ambiguities in the WP:TPG guideline, but that is secondary. This dispute is not about opinions, it is about proper application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and those are not decided by a community vote.<br /> *:I think that your accusation of vexatious litigation is not very nice. What else should I have done to get the deleted content restored? Did I not do everything you have suggested to me? Did you communicate any other suggestions to me earlier? I do not care about any measures to [[User:Chaheel Riens]], as I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_48#ZX_Spectrum_-_additional_note said earlier on your talk page]. <br /> *:From my point of view, [[User:Chaheel Riens]] was misinterpreting my words so I felt no need to apologize on my own incentive. If he had asked me to apologize on my talk page, I would have apologized. I even apologized to one unrelated editor, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dionysius_Miller#My_aplologies]. The discussion at DRN was interrupted due to the copyright issues, and I considered those a priority over the DRN discussion. In spite of your alleged &quot;sympathetic&quot; stance towards me, your post is a one way attack against me, with not a single word said in defense of my perspective. Therefore, I doubt your neutrality.<br /> *:I certainly don't want this discussion to get derailed again by off-topic comments, so I would like to remind that the reported issue is the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material. If my conduct had not been stellar, I will accept the consequences, I will accept the boomerang, but I won't accept if the reported issue is completely ignored. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 06:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''': I think this boomerang has NOTHERRE written on it; way too much valuable time has been wasted on this. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 05:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ===Another Reply to [[User:Z80Spectrum]]===<br /> ::[[User:Z80Spectrum]] writes: {{tqb| I'm not very glad to read this opinion of yours. I would have liked it better if you had communicated it to me earlier, which wasn't the case. I'm not &quot;reopening&quot; this dispute, as the dispute was never closed.}}<br /> :::When earlier would you have wanted me to communicate with you? In early February? I started a discussion of talk page removals at [[WT:TPG|the Talk Page Guidelines talk page]], in which I said that the talk page guidelines about removal of talk page posts were poorly written. Between 4 March and 17 March? You took a break from editing. If you were ill, I am sorry that you were ill and hope you have recovered. If so, I apologize for any rudeness on my part. <br /> :::You say that the dispute was never closed. It was never closed at [[WT:TPG|the Talk Page Guidelines talk page]]. It was closed at [[WP:DRN|DRN]]. It appears that it was closed there because you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue, in which you said that you had evidence that some editors were scammers and liars. It was your fault that you entangled two disputes, which confused me and confused [[User:Ritchie333]], and looked to me like a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] on [[User:Chaheel Riens]]. <br /> ::It is true that I am no longer sympathetic or neutral. That is your own fault.<br /> ::If you were ill, I am sorry, and I hope that you have recovered. In any case, the talk page removal is not a conduct issue, because it is an issue of a poorly worded guideline. If there is any conduct issue, it is your conduct. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 15:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt1.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|When earlier would you have wanted me to communicate with you? }}<br /> :::For example, at any time after 21 February 2024 would have been fine, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Z80Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209366787 after I had pinged you].<br /> :::'''Pt2.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|It was closed at DRN. It appears that it was closed there because you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue [...cut...] It was your fault that you entangled two disputes [...] }}<br /> :::No, it was not my fault. Or, maybe it is my fault, if I was supposed to stop the editing completely while the DRN case was in progress. How could I had known in advance that my attempt to coordinate efforts with [[User:4throck]] would lead me to stumble upon [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:4throck&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196226931 the copyright issue] (which is at the end of a discussion with him)?<br /> :::[[User:4throck]] was previously mostly sympathetic towards me and my writings, like in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1184433585 this comment], which is a part of the 26 KiB of deleted content.<br /> :::'''Pt3.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq| [...] you entangled it with an attempt to discuss a copyright issue, in which you said that you had evidence that some editors were scammers and liars. }}<br /> :::No, that is just your interpretation. I have said: &quot;You must consider the possibility that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers.&quot;, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197434065 here]. There is a big difference. Notice the words &quot;'''possibility'''&quot; and &quot;'''might'''&quot;. I don't like such serious misinterpretations of my words.<br /> :::'''Pt4.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq| It is true that I am no longer sympathetic or neutral. That is your own fault. }}<br /> :::The evidence is mounting that you were never sympathetic or neutral. For example at DRN, you took no action against [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197162384 this comment], where another editor is acting contrary to your [[Wikipedia:DRN Rule F]], section 9 (also, in my opinion [[User:Chaheel Riens]] is completely misinterpreting the &quot;archiving problem&quot; there).<br /> :::Two days before that, I reported this case to WP:ANI, based on what you have said <br /> :::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1195796819 here], and based on behavior of [[User:Chaheel Riens]], where it took him 42 hours to reply with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196399728 this comment] where I was accused of making a &quot;threat&quot;.<br /> :::After I reported the case to WP:ANI, you have proposed to continue the moderated discussion, which was fine. However, after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196480778 I objected ], the case at ANI should have been reopened, and the case at DRN should have been closed, as you have previously stated. Instead, you said {{tq|I would suggest that you follow the guidance of User:Ritchie333 who closed your complaint at WP:ANI. }}, defending the inappropriate closure of my case at WP:ANI. I agreed, nonetheless. However, given all that has happened at the DRN, it was quickly getting obvious that the case has no chance of succeeding, and it was getting worse by a series of misinterpretations by [[User:Chaheel Riens]]. For example: I was the one who agreed to archiving, and I clearly stated it at least three times: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196507327 here ], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1196752695 here], and much earlier, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chaheel_Riens&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194929135 here] on [[User:Chaheel Riens]] talk page. In the DRN discussion, [[User:Chaheel Riens]] was constantly making it appear as if I had something against archiving, by citing various technical trivialities, and by attempting to dodge the archiving question as long as possible.<br /> :::'''Pt5.''' However, I decided to interpret all that as a honest mistake on your part, [[User:Robert McClenon]]. I considered that the &quot;honest mistake&quot; interpretation is the most likely one.<br /> :::'''Pt6.''' By the time I raised the copyright issue, the discussion at DRN had already have failed, at least from my point of view. I also consider the legal situation with copyright to be of much higher priority.<br /> :::'''Pt7.''' I judge that all the arguments against me are either gross misinterpretations of my words or gross misinterpretations of the entire situation. From my point of view, it is now quite likely that some of those misinterpretations were intentional, and some are a consequence of common human biases (i.e. [[User:Robert McClenon]] is far from being neutral, he is just acting in support of a long term editor, and against me as a newbie). I judge that even such are a normal and expected part of discussions.<br /> ::: All the evidence shows that I was the one who had a lot of sympathy for both [[User:Robert McClenon]] and for [[User:Chaheel Riens]], and I still do. I'm willing to instantly forget all the injustices that you have done to me, under the condition that the 26 KiB of deleted material is restored. Then we can engage in a discussion whether that material is WP:OR, or not, on the &quot;ZX Spectrum graphics modes&quot; page, and any further implications of that material.<br /> :::Took me three hours to write this. I hope that you appreciate it. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 21:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Boomerang''', whether that's a [[WP:CIR]] block, or a topic ban to prevent future disruption. This should have been dropped months ago, but instead [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] has chosen to drag it out. [[WP:FORUM]] is definitely a bit vague, but this is not a good choice of edits to pick a fight over. What's more concerning is Z80Spectrum's insistence that this must be resolved to their satisfaction, after leaving it fallow for a month, as well as trying to insist the ''real'' problem is {{tq|the deletion of 26 KiB of talk page material}}, rather than their dogged insistence on litigating this. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 16:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I was not &quot;insisting&quot; on anything. I don't have the power to do so. I was saying that I would very likely consider it unjust if my complaint about the deletion of the 26 KiB of deleted material is disregarded. I don't see any way in which that deletion can be justified, in the sense that I expect the deleted material to be restored.<br /> *:[[User:HandThatFeeds]] said {{tq|after leaving it fallow for a month}} ... Wikipedia is not my full-time job. As I red in one of the essays, time passes slowly here, and breaks in disputes are usually welcome. It can be easily verified that all the last comments (before I took a break in this dispute) are mine, and that it was other editors who all went silent before I took a break. I can't reply to their silence. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 22:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Z80Spectrum, I mean this with all due respect and in all good faith, but for your own good, walk away. Deciding to go to battle with Robert McClenon, who is basically Wikipedia's aptheosis of equanimity, is not going to find you favor. We know how you judge your situation, but please take into account that others may judge it differently. All the best. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 22:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Thank you for your reply, which I judge was in very good faith. Unfortunately, I habitually don't respond affirmatively to any [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority arguments from authority]. All arguments with me have to be properly justified, in a properly conducted and fair discussion. If that is unacceptable on Wikipedia, feel free to ban me. So yes, I'm going to argue against the respected [[User:Robert McClenon]], until the arguments show that I'm in the wrong, or until I'm banned. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 23:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::To be clear, I am not saying you must agree with anything Robert says. I am merely saying there is a vast swath of territory between 'disagreement' and 'picking a fight.' Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 15:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::I didn't pick a fight with him, he picked a fight with me. I didn't invite him here. I said nothing about him before he did it here first, and I only replied to his comments. I'm also giving a peaceful offer, which is the same one from the very start of this case: to forget it all, if the deleted material is restored and archieved. Perhaps I forgot to say that I will likely write about this incident on my user page, but I can try to avoid mentioning names there. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::{{tq| I'm also giving a peaceful offer[...]: to forget it all, if the deleted material is restored and archieved.}} <br /> *::::::It's [[argumentum ad baculum|either your way or total war]]?!?? &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 18:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|Wikipedia is not my full-time job.}}<br /> *::No one is saying it should be. But, after a month, the discussion is dead and over. Dragging it back out over and over to get your way is just [[WP:TEND|tendentious]]. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 15:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *{{re|Z80Spectrum}} in reviewing past interactions I was reminded of [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk%3AParrot_standard.png&amp;diff=843591192&amp;oldid=843256802 this] (quite specious) interaction regarding copyright. When people are talking about [[WP:CIR]] in this context, &quot;competence&quot; is regarding your ability to collaborate on a project that is defined by its collaboration. It seems to me that you have battled or argued with nearly everyone you've interacted with; is that a habit you are able to change? [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 00:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:A fair question. Primarily, Wikipedia is a system. More precisely, Wikipedia is a complex system consisting of a community of people, principles, policies and guidelines, server-side software and data.<br /> *:All complex systems have faults of significant importance, and no human-made system ever has worked without failures. I am a newbie user here. I have to defend myself from all the consequences of the Wikipedia-as-a-system, including its many faults.<br /> *:In the case you have mentioned, if the copyright information of the problematic image was invalid, then I would have been legally liable to persecution. I consider such circumstances as a physical attack on me, as a consequence of one of Wikipedia's failures. I considered it as a grave and important situation.<br /> *:Wikipedia can't claim infallibility. I can't just rely on opinions of a few editors, or on information displayed by Wikipedia. Thus I demanded an opinion of an expert. I had every right to defend myself, in my opinion. When I got a good-enough explanation, I accepted it. If I have extensively argued before that moment, it means that I always had some unanswered objections.<br /> *:'''The problem would not have existed if the disputed image was hosted on Wikipedia''', instead of a third-party website.<br /> *:Instead, Wikipedia-as-a-system forced me, under a possibility of a legal threat, to extract the necessary copyright information from Wikipedia in a somewhat aggressive way. '''No one was seriously harmed''', as far as I can tell.<br /> *:You are correct in stating that I have argued with many people on Wikipedia. '''The problem is that I joined Wikipedia with a dispute-at-hand'''. It was not just an ordinary dispute, but a dispute where [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Some_Follow-Up_Comments_Regarding_Removing_Material conflicting interpretations already existed] before I joined Wikipedia. '''That is not my fault'''.<br /> *:I would honestly suggest to Wikipedia-as-a-system to try to fix its own faults first, and to not shift blame on the users, and especially not on newbie users. Unfortunately, complex systems are similar to persons, and they don't like to be criticized, so they usually don't listen to criticisms. I would also suggest to Wikipedia-as-a-system to be more tolerant of newbies, to not try to immediately intimidate them with [[WP:LAWYER]]. When reading many pages and essays here, I came under the impression that this criticism is already well-know, and that '''the real problem is in Wikipedia's reluctance to improve itself'''. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 03:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::My thoughts:<br /> *::- There are many ways you could improve Wikipedia that don't involve trying to restore that talk page - ways which it seems to me that a lot of others in this discussion would rather be doing instead of discussing this even more. Maybe seems unfair, but it appears that that is the current state of things.<br /> *::- If you want to improve the article and discuss it in the talk page, you can still do that, if you want to look at the deleted talk page content to find ways to improve the article, you can also still do that (by looking at the talk page from before it was removed).<br /> *::- Are you right? Are you wrong? Those questions should matter a lot less than questions like &quot;How can we move on? What can we still improve? How can we discuss it in a way that won't result in someone interpreting it as violating [[WP:TALK]]?&quot;.<br /> *::The big thing here, is that this does not appear to be an issue of great significance, and the more time that is taken to either try to resolve the dispute or discuss things here in ANI (honestly, the more time that it takes to read big walls of text too) the less people are going to want to do that, because it's a lot of time for little gain.<br /> *::&lt;br&gt;<br /> *::I don't agree with people saying that you should be sanctioned for making this ANI thread and for having dug this topic after people had moved on, because you made this thread as a way to continue the dispute (which seems to have been left as a possibility in the conclusion of the the DRN discussion) and because of what your intentions appear to have been when making it, but I think that you should withdraw this ANI thread and move on from and forget this dispute before people actually do get you blocked for it.<br /> *::The value you bring to Wikipedia is directly weighed against the time that is taken away from other editors without that time being used to improve or protect the Wikipedia.<br /> *::&amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|talk]]) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::And just to be clear, since I'm unsure how aware of how things work you are, withdrawing means saying that you do, that's all. &amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|2804:F1...7E:615D]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:809E:DF01:55E8:CB99:DC7E:615D|talk]]) 04:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::If I understand it right, you are suggesting a compromise in which I withdraw, and I also suffer no consequences. I decline such a compromise (which was provided in good faith) due to the following:<br /> *::::'''Objection 1.''' Such a compromise implies that I consent to devaluing most of my work on Wikipedia so far, in return for some kind of &quot;safety&quot;. I would turn out to be a complete coward, which I am not.<br /> *::::'''Objection 2.''' Such a compromise is not in accordance with my stated principles of justified and fair discussions. I would much rather see and suffer the consequences of the outcome which is at this moment uncertain, than to retreat without being given proper justifications.<br /> *::::'''Objection 3.''' I think that I'm fighting for the right cause. The outcome of this ANI case would likely serve as a precedent that clarifies the ambiguities of WP:TPO, which was one of my goals. One of the worst outcomes from my point of view would be the perpetuation of the status quo, in which WP:TPG remains ambiguous. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 06:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::{{tq|The outcome of this ANI case would likely serve as a precedent that clarifies the ambiguities of WP:TPO, which was one of my goals.}}<br /> *:::::You are vastly overestimating the importance of this discussion. You're also [[WP:RGW|fighting the wrong battle.]] If you want sanctions, I expect you're going to get them now. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 15:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::This isn't a battle to be won and lost based on courage or cowardice. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 00:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::Z80Spectrum, if you feel being banned from the topic page or Wikipedia in general is worth making your point, then that is certainly fine. I just want to make sure you're aware that you are making the former a near certainty and the latter more and more probable. All the best however things should go. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::Thank you, Dumuzid. If I'm banned, I can take it. I wasn't editing Wikipedia much before this incident, and I can certainly live without editing Wikipedia in the future. I wasn't even planning to edit Wikipedia, I was just bored, about 4 months ago. So, don't worry about me. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 01:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ===Yet Another Reply to [[User:Z80Spectrum]]===<br /> :You seem to be arguing with yourself, and one of the risks of arguing with oneself is that one may lose the argument. On the one hand, you agree that [[WP:TPO|the guideline on editing the talk page posts of other editors]] is poorly written and ambiguous. On the other hand, you say that you have reopened this [[WP:ANI]] thread because the removal of your 26K post is a conduct issue on the part of [[User:Chaheel Riens]]. If the guideline is poorly written, it is unfair to argue that there was a conduct violation, but maybe you are arguing both ways.<br /> :You have now decided that I was never neutral. You probably won't believe me, but I started out thinking that your 26K posts should be restored, because I thought and still think that deletion of talk page posts should only be done rarely. I disagreed with [[User:Chaheel Riens]], and thought that they were overreacting when they deleted your 26K post. I still think that, other things being equal, your 26K should be restored either to an article talk page archive, to your user talk page, or to a user talk page archive. I was inclined in that direction until you went to the talk page of [[User:Ritchie333]]. It appeared to me that you are asking for his help with regard to the dispute about the talk page post. I now see that you were asking for his help with regard to a copyright dispute. I still don't know what the copyright dispute was, and I am not sure whether I want to know. <br /> :You say, in '''Pt 3''', that I misunderstood what you were saying, about scammers and liars. That is probably true, but you said that you had evidence:<br /> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARitchie333&amp;diff=1197436589&amp;oldid=1197435165<br /> :You said that you had evidence. Now you say that is only my interpretation. <br /> :You write: {{tqb|I didn't pick a fight with him, he picked a fight with me. I didn't invite him here. I said nothing about him before he did it here first, and I only replied to his comments.}} If you mean me, I didn't pick a fight with you. You say that you didn't invite me here. By &quot;here&quot;, do you mean [[WP:ANI]]? It is true that you didn't ping me, but I was always here. Unlike you, I didn't take a two-week or four-week break from Wikipedia. You wrote: {{tq|I'm not &quot;reopening&quot; this dispute, as the dispute was never closed.}} So did you think that I would have forgotten about it? <br /> :I didn't pick a fight. <br /> :Thank you, [[User:Dumuzid]], for your positive comment.<br /> ====Starting Over ? ====<br /> Now, at this point, here are the issues that I think remain:<br /> *1. [[User:Z80Spectrum]] wants their 26K of deleted posts back. That material has not been [[WP:REVDEL|revision-deleted]]. Z80Spectrum can copy it to a user subpage in user space. If they want it in article talk space, they can resume the discussion of [[WP:UPG|the talk page guidelines]], but at least they will have it. A user has more control over their own user space than over article talk space. If anyone else thinks that the material is inappropriate for user space, they can nominate the material for [[WP:MFD|MFD]]. Userfication should be a satisfactory compromise that doesn't require a community decision.<br /> *2. Z80Spectrum did say that they have evidence. That was not a hypothetical statement, but an allegation against someone. They should either present the evidence, or say that they were just talking wildly. <br /> *3. Is there anything else?<br /> [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 03:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Z80Spectrum said they want {{tq|the deleted material [...] restored and archived}}, or else. &quot;Material&quot; being his [[WP:OR]]. No thanks. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 04:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I dislike your comment, Paradoctor. I repeat, again, a quote from [[WP:OR]]: {{tq|This policy does not apply to talk pages}}. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Article talk pages exist to discuss changes to the corresponding article. &quot;I dislike your comment&quot; is an oddly (bizarrely, even!) confrontational way of putting things. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 17:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Pt11.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq| You seem to be arguing with yourself ...}}<br /> :Your argument depends at least on a presumption that the property of being ambiguous can only have a yes or no answer. I argue that there exist many intermediates, or degrees, of ambiguity. WP:TPO is not ambiguous to such a degree that absolutely no conclusion can be reached. I judge that, upon careful reading, WP:TPO supports my side of the argument to a level significantly higher than the case for deletion.<br /> :I will skip the detailed justification of my previous sentence. Instead, I ask you this: '''can you quote a part of''' [[WP:TPO]] which, in your opinion, supports the case for deletion of the disputed 26 KiB? Such a quotation would be a good start of a fair discussion.<br /> :On the other hand, you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1195796819 have stated at DRN] : {{tq|However, it is my opinion that the removal of material posted by another editor to an article talk page is only allowed under unusual circumstances, and those circumstances were not present. So the removal of the large amount of talk page material was an error. }} From my point of view, it appears that you are the one who is now arguing against own previous statements.<br /> :'''Pt12.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|You probably won't believe me, but I started out thinking that your 26K posts should be restored ...}} Actually, I believe you. In the vast majority of cases, bias is sub-conscious. Biased persons are usually not aware that they are biased. Or, perhaps you were not biased, and it was some other kind of a honest mistake. Still, that DRN case was unjust towards me, primarily because it should have been closed and moved to WP:ANI when I requested it.<br /> :'''Pt13.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|I still think that, other things being equal, your 26K should be restored [...]. I was inclined in that direction until you went to the talk page of User:Ritchie333. …}}<br /> :I judge that as invalid. One thing has nothing to do with another. I see no valid logical connections between whether the content should be restored and what I said on the page of User:Ritchie333 .<br /> :'''Pt14.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|You said that you had evidence. Now you say that is only my interpretation. …}}<br /> :I have already apologized for that entire discussion on User:Ritchie333 talk page, three times: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215019037] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dionysius_Miller#My_aplologies] [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/01#c-Z80Spectrum-20240129030400-Clindberg-20240129005500]. I now apologize for the fourth time. I would also like to point out that I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ritchie333&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1197467546 ended that discussion with] {{tq|You win. I've had enough. I don't even know why am I wasting time here. }}. That final post of mine was an attempt to cancel what I have said there. Obviously, it wasn't clear enough.<br /> :This insistent objections concerning those few sentences on User:Ritchie333 talk page are getting in the way of a fair discussion. I have a feeling that you and [[User:Chaheel Riens]] are trying to scare me and silence me by quoting that discussion only when I try to argue for the restoration of the deleted material. I won't search now for evidence in support of that feeling of mine, but I will do it if the issue is brought up again.<br /> :I repeat: I see no valid logical connections between restoration of the deleted material and what I have said on the page of User:Ritchie333 .<br /> :'''Pt15.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|If you mean me, I didn't pick a fight with you. […] By &quot;here&quot;, do you mean WP:ANI? }}<br /> :Yes, I mean/meant you, [[User:Robert McClenon]]. I was replying to an answer of another editor who used the phrase &quot;pick a fight&quot; first. I re-used his phrase due to concerns of clarity. Yes, I meant WP:ANI.<br /> :'''Pt16.''' [[User:Robert McClenon]] said: {{tq|Unlike you, I didn't take a two-week or four-week break from Wikipedia. }}<br /> :On WP:ANI, I have already provided an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215232772 answer to your allusion].<br /> :So, you claim that you were present on Wikipedia. Tell me, have you done something related to this dispute since February 21st? If you did, I'm still unaware of it. I was mostly absent, and I might have missed some important development, so I would like to get informed. Or, perhaps you did nothing since February 21st?<br /> :-<br /> :'''Answers to the three points titled &quot;Starting Over ?&quot;:'''<br /> :'''Pt21.''' (answer to 1.) The question is not where can I copy the deleted material, but primarily whether the deletion was justified. Perhaps you are trying to say that the deleted material belongs better to my user space, but I don't think it does. The deleted material is strongly connected to the &quot;ZX Spectrum graphics modes&quot; article, where it should be discussed. The deleted material specifically discusses improvements only to that article, and also discusses and documents methods of generating images specifically for that article.<br /> :I see no justification in the guidelines for your proposed compromise. '''Can you quote a part of''' [[WP:TPO]] that would support your proposal to move the disputed material to my user space?<br /> :A rhetorical question: '''What would you say if I proposed that every comment you wrote on any talk page should be moved to your user space, as a compromise?'''<br /> :I propose as an equally good &quot;compromise&quot; (ironically): If the 26 KB of disputed material is moved to my user space, then I should be allowed to pick 26 KB of yours and User:Chaheel Riens posts and move them to your and his user space.<br /> :'''Pt22.''' (answer to 2.) When I said &quot;I have evidence&quot;, I meant that [[User:4throck]]<br /> :a) provided me with a link to an image hosted on a third-party website<br /> :b) didn't upload the disputed image to the Commons, even after I notified him; that inaction appeared to me as a possible attempt to hide information about copyright.<br /> :c) the image he previously uploaded to the Commons was modified in a strange way, which made me extremely suspicious<br /> :'''Pt23.''' (answer to 3.) Yes, there is more. Given the totality of your objections and proposals in this discussion on WP:ANI so far, I would estimate that, generally speaking, you are not arguing properly. I ask for arguments and justifications of better quality. I especially dislike apparent constant attempts to blame me for as many things as possible, which then causes me to spend unnecessary time and space for rebuttals of each accusation (since I might be punished by WP:ANI for any single accusation of yours). To accusations, I might respond with counter-accusations, as I did. To valid arguments, I will respond with arguments.<br /> :Please, if you want to improve the quality of this discussion, then try to provide a small number of well-thought out arguments, instead of a multitude of short, but easily rebutted arguments. You can start by answering the two questions that I have partially bolded/highlighted. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 16:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Good Lord, this is becoming a veritable black hole waste of time. I didn't realise it was still ongoing, as my username was incorrectly spelled in some of the earlier pings, so I never received them. However, I'll make just a couple of observations and try to keep away in general:<br /> ::# {{tpq|I propose as an equally good &quot;compromise&quot; (ironically): If the 26 KB of disputed material is moved to my user space, then I should be allowed to pick 26 KB of yours and User:Chaheel Riens posts and move them to your and his user space}} - that depends on whether the 26Kb in question has been challenged, and the reasons behind it. As this would obviously be a [[WP:POINTY]] edit, then you would most likely find your actions had consequences that you would undoubtedly feel were unfair. (Incidentally, you state that this is a rhetorical question, but also ask for it to be answered. It can't be both, but I chose the latter.)<br /> ::# The issue here that you are still fixated on the talk page removal, and [[WP:STICK|will not let it go]] - to the extent where everything else fades out and your position ''must'' be accepted. However, to every other editor this is no longer the case - even those who supported you at first. It's now turned into a primarily a conduct issue, albeit ''your'' conduct around the original issue (even if mine was questioned at the start) - yet you refuse to accept or take advice in that respect. Even back when DRN was first mooted I was prepared to accept the outcome regardless, and recognised that {{tpq|I've interacted with Robert before in passing - he's to be respected}} [[User_talk:Chaheel_Riens/Archive_1#ZX_Spectrum_modes|here]]. I ''tried'' to support you, I really did - when you first joined I left you a [[User_talk:Z80Spectrum#Welcome!|Welcome template]] on your talk page, and recognised that you were just venting with your userpage, voting to '''keep'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Z80Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1197682148], but you make it a hard row, and I feel like it's against the current. You seem to be making it personal, and that's not a good place to edit from. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt31.''' (answer to 1.) Perhaps I used a wrong word there (i.e. &quot;ironically&quot;). Precisely: that last &quot;compromise&quot; of mine should not be understood at face value. I also think that you didn't correctly identify the &quot;two questions that I have partially bolded/highlighted&quot;. It is likely a honest mistake on your part.<br /> :::Whether the disputed content should be moved to my user space is a question of justification and a question of consistence. A justification has to be found in the policies and guidelines. &quot;Consistence&quot; is about the usual and accepted ways to solve this kind of a dispute. It would be the best if both the justification and the &quot;consistence&quot; coincide into one and the same action.<br /> :::'''Pt32.''' (answer to 2.) I'll only let go if I'm provided with a valid justification (which can also be based on the concept of consistence, but such is a much more complex argument to make). &quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Without a proper justification, you can't convince me. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::[[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]. If you can't convince other editors you're right, then you ''have'' to drop it. This is policy on Wikipedia. If you can't handle it, you're in the wrong place. <br /> ::::[[WP:CONSENSUS]]: {{tq|'''Consensus''' is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making [...] [[Consensus decision making|Consensus]] on Wikipedia neither requires unanimity [...] nor is the result of a [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|vote]].}} &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 00:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::No, I don't have to convince other editors. Conduct issues are decided by WP:ANI, and the deletion od 26 KB is a conduct issue. I'd like to hear the judgement of WP:ANI. I hope that it will be properly justified. Until then, I'll be posting my counter-arguments, in order to better inform the administrators at WP:ANI of my side of the argument. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 01:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|The question is not where can I copy the deleted material, but primarily whether the deletion was justified.}} This seems quite a lot like a [[WP:BATTLE|battleground mentality]].<br /> ::{{tq|...didn't upload the disputed image to the Commons, even after I notified him; that inaction appeared to me as a possible attempt to hide information about copyright....which made me extremely suspicious.}} All editing is voluntary. It is not reasonable to make demands of other editors. [[WP:AGF|Assuming good faith]], however, is not optional. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 17:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt41.''' [[User:Vquakr]] said: {{tq|All editing is voluntary. It is not reasonable to make demands of other editors. Assuming good faith, however, is not optional. }}<br /> :::OK. However, I argue that I had good reasons for being suspicious, due to the gravity (i.e. importance) of legal problems. I argue that I had the right to demand immediate clarification of the copyright problem, and that I had sufficient reasons for being suspicious. Even if it wasn't entirely so, that has no implications on the restoration of the 26 KB disputed material. The issue of my conduct is a separate issue. I can't tell how much have I overstepped, as I am a newbie here. I have already agreed to accept the boomerang. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*{{tq|'''can you quote a part of''' [[WP:TPO]] which, in your opinion, supports the case for deletion of the disputed 26 KiB?}}<br /> ::Can't speak for Robert, but ''I'' do. <br /> ::[[WP:TALKOFFTOPIC]]: {{tq|It is common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself}} <br /> ::Which OR always is, by definition. <br /> ::Which I told you more than five weeks ago, on your talk page. You have [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT|hearing issues]]. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::'''Pt42.''' [[User:Paradoctor]] said: {{tq| WP:TALKOFFTOPIC: It is common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject itself }}<br /> :::I think this is a repetition of the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Z80Spectrum#Talk_page_guidelines_vs._ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes on my talk page], in which you participated. I'll reply [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Z80Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1209392534 the same as I did there], but shorter : {{tq| The deleted discussion is not a discussion about article's subject (the subject are the graphics modes), but about article content (images in the article are content). }} [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::{{tq|I think this is a repetition}} Uh, I literally said so. Let me repeat another bit of yours from slightly further down: {{tq|Frankly, I can't see your side of the argument at all}}. <br /> ::::Me and everyone else. So, lots of not seeing on all sides. What are we to do? The fact is, for whatever reason, and whomever you wish to blame for that, you couldn't convince anyone to accept your position. Which means your position won't result in content. <br /> ::::You dislike this, sure. I understand. But it is clear that further discussion will not lead to conversions. Attempting to continue the campaign will only waste the time of other editors. So, unless you ''wish'' to be sanctioned, it is time to [[WP:DEADHORSE|drop it]] now. Remember what Obi Wan said to Anakin on Mustafar. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 01:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I don't know what's the best way to say this, but I want to say to you that you are, by your nature, quite an amusing person. You make me smile. I would like that to be understood in a positive way. So, I can't say that I dislike your comment.<br /> :::::That was a slight digression. On the serious side, your argument is just a version of a fallacy known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Argumentum ad populum]. I would like to be given proper justifications, not fallacies. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::You know, if you try to condescend to someone, at least make sure you're right. I never said consensus makes right. I said [[WP:CONSENSUS|Wikipedia operates through consensus]], and consensus is not with you here and now. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 02:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I forgot to say that I accept only the original trilogy, so Obi Wan on Mustafar didn't happen. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :* And from [[WP:NOTFORUM]]: &quot;Per our policy on '''original research''', please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: ... #4 Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia ... bear in mind that '''article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles'''; they are '''not for general discussion''' about the subject of the article&quot; &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 18:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:'''Pt43.''' I have already discussed that in other forums. I argue that the deleted 26 KB is solely about improving the article. To verify it, you have to read the deleted 26 KB: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;oldid=1194297511#How_to_simulate_Spectrum's_PAL_output this topic (at least the first post)], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;oldid=1194297511#c-80.80.52.99-20231111154100-80.80.52.174-20231111033300 this part, which is about improving the &quot;Colour palette&quot; section of the article] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Colour_palette].<br /> :*:Also, I would like to remind that [[WP:OR]] does not apply to talk pages. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 00:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::This is your research: {{tq|Let's compute this conversion of &quot;theoretic&quot; ZX Spectrum PAL colors into sRGB color space. They are &quot;theoretic&quot; because we are assuming the maximum possible saturation that a ZX Spectrum could possibly achieve on the PAL output. The real colors produced by a ZX Spectrum on the PAL output are probably less saturated. The real colors are currently unknown, and the only way to find them out is by an oscilloscope, via the UV voltages method (by measuring amplitude-phase shift of chroma sub-carrier).}}<br /> :*::Where is the [[WP:RS|reliable source]] that says what you are saying there? <br /> :*::What do you not understand about [[WP:V]]?<br /> :*::{{tq|content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or [[Wikipedia:No original research|previously unpublished ideas or information]]. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.}} &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 01:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::I would like to remind that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::::WP:OR does not apply to normal appropriate talk page discussions, this means discussing with reliable sources improvements to the article. This type of discussion is not original research. You however are not using the talk pages for discussion within these talk page guidelines, you are using talk pages to try and publish your own thoughts, this is original research and per WP:NOTFORUM is is not allowed. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 02:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::Oh, [WP:V], sorry, here you go: {{tq|All material in Wikipedia mainspace, ...}} [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::::You are abusing talk page discussions to publish your own thoughts, these cannot be WP:V and using talk pages to try and end run around WP:V won't work. I think this is why you are so desperate to have this content put back on a talk page instead of your userspace, you can't get your WP:OR in the article directly, so the talk page is the next choice. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 02:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::::I have replied below at the start of &quot;Courtesy Break (1)&quot;. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Firstly, I'd like to clarify that I'm new to ANI, so forgive me if I miss any formalities. However, I wanted to chime in because like other editors here, I really don't see how this content dispute qualifies as a ''{{tq|chronic, intractable problem}}''. The dispute effectively amounts to a several month-old removal of talk page content, which has been dragged to death via various noticeboards. What exactly is the point of bringing this here? If it's content, this discussion does not belong here. I agree with the IP's suggestion for Z80Spectrum to withdraw this thread, before they continue to dig a hole for themselves, running the risk of potential sanctions. What I ''do'' find intractable, however, is Z80Spectrum's [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground mentality]], which has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout this thread, e.g ''{{tq|users are trying to scare and silence me}}'', (which is demonstrably false, since your own actions have led you to this point, not mine, nor anyone else's), and ''{{tq|I would turn out to be a complete coward, which I am not}}''. As @[[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] succinctly put it, this isn't a battle to be won and lost based on courage or cowardice. Irrespective of whether or not the removal was justified, I think Z80Spectrum needs to stop digging a hole for themselves. This really isn't a hill that one should die on. [[User:Bandit Heeler|Bandit Heeler]] ([[User talk:Bandit Heeler|talk]]) 22:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Courtesy Break (1)===<br /> <br /> After an approx. 15 hours break, I would like to continue the argumentation here. I'll skip the replies to all the argument so far where I estimate that they are either obviously false, fallacious, off-topic, irrelevant, or without sufficient substance. <br /> <br /> As far as I can tell, that leaves only two posts unanswered, by [[User:TimothyBlue]], where he talks about applicability of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]] policies. [[User:TimothyBlue]] said: {{tq|You are abusing talk page discussions to publish your own thoughts ... }}<br /> <br /> '''My answer is as follows.''' Generally speaking, Wikipedia talk pages contain thoughts of users. I estimate that user's thoughts form over 50% of the total Wikipedia talk page material. Wikipedia does not require user's thoughts published on talk pages to be verifiable. Upon reading the [[WP:V]] policy, it can be easily noticed that it speaks primarily about article content, and not about talk page material.<br /> <br /> Additionally, most parts of the disputed 26 KiB material are actually easily verifiable. You just need to use a calculator, and you need some introductory knowledge in the topics covered.<br /> <br /> Similar reasoning applies with regards to [[WP:OR]], which explicitly and clearly states: {{tq|This policy does not apply to talk pages... }} . If Wikipedia was to apply [[WP:OR]] to content of talk pages, it would imply that all the talk page discussions have to be just slight re-interpretations of material already published somewhere else. That would further imply the need to put inline references into all sentences published on talk pages. So, it is not any kind of a wonder that [[WP:OR]] does not apply to talk pages.<br /> <br /> [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :[[WP:PLAYPOLICY]] &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 19:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You have a right to state that opinion of yours. I argue that it is an undoubtable and obvious intention of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:V]] to be applicable only to mainspace (i.e. to articles, and not to talk pages). Therefore, I'm not gaming the use of policies and guidelines. Instead, I'm providing a very obvious interpretation of WP:OR and WP:V. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 19:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Topic ban===<br /> <br /> Given the above lengthy comment, which dismisses concerns as {{tq|easily rebutted arguments}} and that users {{tq|are trying to scare me and silence me}}, I can see no option besides the following:<br /> <br /> *&lt;s&gt;'''Topic ban''' [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] from [[Sinclair Research]] and related articles.&lt;/s&gt; I chose this more broad topic ban (rather than just the [[Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes]] page) as I expect this will continue at those related pages otherwise. This is the only way to put this interminable argument to rest and bring focus back to improving these articles, rather than going in circles over a months-old [[WP:FORUM]] removal from the Talk page. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 21:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|HandThatFeeds}} their area of interest/expertise is clearly linked to that subject area given their user name and editing history; topic banning them from that area rather than addressing the behavioral issues seems like an indef block by another name, and ''if'' they started editing in another area with the same behavior the same issues would arise. Put another way, this boils down to battleground mentality not the subject area so I don't think a topic ban is the right tool. As an alternative: what about a ban from arguing against or uncollapsing off-topic talk page posts, with a warning that future forum-like posts, synthetic talk page posts, or battleground behavior will likely result in a block? [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::&lt;s&gt;Z80Spectrum seems to have an interest in technology in general - a look at their [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Z80Spectrum&amp;target=Z80Spectrum&amp;offset=&amp;limit=500 contributions so far] (once the talk page and ANI chaff is filtered out) shows a fairly wide breadth of computer related interests. A topic ban here would not restrict them as much as a block, indef or not. Additionally, they have made constructive edits to the [[ZX Spectrum]] article - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZX_Spectrum&amp;diff=1214435159&amp;oldid=1214433745 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZX_Spectrum&amp;diff=1211653251&amp;oldid=1211596298 here] for example. I think a topic ban would work for just the [[ZX Spectrum graphic modes]] article &amp; talk page. Not being a mop-holder, I'm also unaware, but I do - best will in the world - think that some kind of attitude warning or restriction based on the [[WP:STICK]] and battleground mentality is in order. As an involved (!) party, I'm not sure how much weight my observations carry though. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 22:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/s&gt;<br /> :::'''Indef block''' - Changed my mind based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215583779 this comment] in '''Pt32.''' (answer to 2.): {{tpq|&quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me.}} Although it's abundantly clear he has no intention of stopping, this is where he categorically states and admits it. He's not going to stop and will keep filibustering until somebody stops him instead. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 08:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::15 years, 37,619 edits, carries a bit of weight. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I don't think a behavioral topic ban will suit, because that's just too vague to enforce. Either an article topic ban, or a CIR block, are the only solutions I can think of to end this. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Comment''': They really have left everyone with few options. I suppose this comes down to how much more time needs to be wasted? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215287811 Based on this] I think the underlying problem will resurface in a different form. After looking at their userpage, I think they want to be blocked to prove what they think is a point. Wikipedia has flaws large and small, but their userpage rant is even more unhinged than this discussion. However the tban is crafted, it needs to be crystal clear that if the problem repeats a block will be fast in coming. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * &lt;del&gt;'''Topic ban''' for [[ZX Spectrum graphic modes]]. I think the crux is that this is about something they put a lot of work in, and the rejection of their work has them [[WP:WIKISTRESS|running a lot hotter]] than their usual self. Let's not forget they are new here. If I'm wrong, we'll learn soon enough, but I'm willing to give them a chance to cool down.&lt;/del&gt; &lt;br&gt; '''Block indef''' Reassessed. &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] ([[User talk:Paradoctor#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Paradoctor|contribs]]) 23:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt; &lt;ins&gt;; edited 02:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/ins&gt;<br /> *:However it turns out, I would like to say that I mostly enjoyed conversations with you. I'm saying this just in case that I'm banned and therefore unable to say it. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 02:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Topic ban''' or '''just block indef'''. Based on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215583779 comment in this discussion]: {{tq|&quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me.}} - it is obvious that some sort of sanction will be required. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 00:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support Indef block''': They just replied above (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;curid=5137507&amp;diff=1215583779&amp;oldid=1215582006]). They made it clear they have no intention of stopping. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;//&amp;nbsp;[[User:TimothyBlue|Timothy]]&amp;nbsp;::&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:TimothyBlue|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' any topic ban from article space. The conduct issue here is the editor's [[WP:FILIBUSTER|filibustering]] in project space about an article talk page. I am not stating a position for or against an indefinite block or site ban, but those are not what is being considered here. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 01:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Indef block''' even now, with this discussion open, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=1215618454&amp;oldid=1215616779 just] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1215618454 can't] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1215618585 help] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1215618692 themselves]. Hopeless case of [[WP:BATTLE]]. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 07:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support Indef''' - Given the new rants and declaration they will not stop until a &quot;justification&quot; which satisfies them is presented, I'm striking my topic ban suggestion and supporting an indef block. User is [[WP:NOTHERE]] to collaboratively edit. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' a '''Site Ban''' after the subject editor wrote: {{tq|&quot;Advice&quot; will not make me stop. No number of Wikipedia editors is sufficiently large to persuade me. Without a proper justification, you can't convince me.}}, since it is also apparent that they want to decide what is a &quot;proper justification&quot;. That insistence may be good mathematical logic, but it is not collaborative work in an electronic office. They threw a [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] at a [[kangaroo]] that wasn't there. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support site ban''' – In the course of human events, sometimes words simply fail. Here, they likely failed months ago. Z80 has been given months more time to adjust their behavior than I had initially expected—time during which they have been consistently afforded a wide variety of patient advice from fellow editors. At several points, it seemed to me that there may have been some getting through to them. Unfortunately, that no longer seems plausible. Beyond a very shallow threshold, Z80 is completely unreceptive to other editors' perspectives. This threshold is unacceptably shallow for Wikipedia. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 07:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ====Accusations of deception====<br /> Just a heads up that [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] is still engaging in battleground mentality, albeit on a much more low-key level over at the [[Talk:ZX Spectrum]] page, where everybody who he disagrees with is being deceptive - although it's probably an honest mistake, so he'll forgive them: (paraphrase, but also my sarcasm)<br /> *{{tpq|I also estimate that I have been deceived by Paradoctor's and VQuakr's interpretation of the situation so far, but it was probably an honest mistake on their part, so at this moment I'm willing to just forget it}}<br /> *{{tpq|This is Paradoctor's statement that I find deceptive...}}<br /> *{{tpq|This is another Paradoctor's statement that I find deceptive...}}<br /> *{{tpq|This is the VQuakr 's statement that I find slightly deceptive...}}<br /> ending with:<br /> *{{tpq|As I have said, I still consider those to be honest mistakes, provided in good faith}}<br /> The last three (and {{tpq|honest mistake}} statement) were made directly after both [[User:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]] and I asked him to stop making such comments - as Paradoctor said (I had a brain-freeze and couldn't think of the term!) they are at best condescending, and at worst insulting. [[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]] ([[User talk:Chaheel Riens|talk]]) 06:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Yeah, I think at this point an admin really needs to take action here. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::[[User:Chaheel Riens|Chaheel Riens]]'s comment is a relatively accurate description of an issue that happened in this very recent discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ZX_Spectrum#The_leading_paragraph]. Therefore I don't have much to add there. I think that the linked discussion is quite illustrative, and I think that it speaks for itself. So I don't need to say anything additional, except my advice to read the discussion from the start to the end.<br /> ::I would like to correct myself regarding another issue here. In my reply numbered &quot;'''Pt2.'''&quot;, I said {{tq|No, it was not my fault.}} Reading it again, I think that the closure of the case at DRN might have been my fault, since my replies at User:Ritchie333's page do connect the DRN case with the copyright case. I must admit that, by the time I have posted on User:Ritchie333's page, I have probably already lost my faith in the DRN case and that I thought DRN has little chance of settling the issue. I think, as I always did, that [[User:Robert McClenon]]'s decision to close the DRN case at that time was a correct decision. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 17:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I have another correction (clarification) of another sentence of mine. In '''Pt41.''' (semicolon instead of the full-stop):<br /> ::&quot;Even if it wasn't entirely so, that has no implications on the restoration of the 26 KB disputed material''' ; t'''he issue of my conduct is a separate issue.&quot;<br /> ::I.e. the issue of my conduct is an issue separate from the issue of the 26 KB disputed material.<br /> ::Also, previously in this discussion I used the word &quot;ironically&quot; instead of &quot;sarcastically&quot; (I guess). Also, I used the word &quot;consistence&quot; instead of the word &quot;uniformity&quot;. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :The issue is battleground mentality and the inability of this editor to drop any [[WP:STICK]], ever. I think the specific concern about the connotations of the word &quot;deception&quot; are less concerning given that English isn't the user's first language, but that's just my opinion. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm not going to directly respond to VQuakr's accusation. Besides, I'm a newbie here, and I don't really know what are the accepted interpretations of Wikipedia policies. So I'll leave the judgement to others.<br /> ::Related, I would like to point out a policy of WP:HARASS, which contains a section [[WP:HOUND]]. I have no idea whether that policy applies, and what is the accepted interpretation of that policy. I'll be leaving it to others to think about it, and to respond if they think it is appropriate. Similarly, there is a guideline [[WP:CANVASS]], which might, or might not, apply in this dispute at WP:ANI. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 07:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :An editor named [[User:CodeTalker]] has just replied in the mentioned discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ZX_Spectrum&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216223186]. I don't know whether that editor is an administrator here, and whether his answers are an official opinion from WP:ANI, or his own opinions. To be safe, at this moment I will refrain from any actions. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 20:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{re|Z80Spectrum}} [[WP:ADMIN|Administrators]] are not authorities that rule by decree. They are editors with extra buttons to allow technical actions. Whether they are an admin or not should have zero bearing on whether you [[WP:LISTEN]] to them. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I just figured out that better words for &quot;deceived&quot; and &quot;deceptive&quot; would have been &quot;mislead&quot; and &quot;misleading&quot;. So, I appologize for that mistake. I can correct myself, by strike-outs, on the &quot;ZX Spectrum&quot; talk page, if the offended editors agree. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 07:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::&quot;Deceive&quot; and &quot;mislead&quot; have the same negative connotations. There is no practical difference between them in this context. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 08:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::OK. I would also like to suggest &quot;misguide&quot;, &quot;misinform&quot; and &quot;misrepresent&quot; as acceptable alternatives. If, at any later time you would like me to change it, just notify me. [[User:Z80Spectrum|Z80Spectrum]] ([[User talk:Z80Spectrum|talk]]) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===ArbCom? Probably not now===<br /> There is a [[WP:RFAR|Request for Arbitration]] currently open before ArbCom that is similar to this dispute, in that it is about the deletion of questionable material from article talk pages. The filing party was in the habit of restoring talk page posts by IP addresses that were deleted by other editors. The filing party was then blocked for seven days for disruptive editing for restoring the IP posts. Having come off block, they are asking for ArbCom action. Their request is unlikely to be accepted, because several arbitrators have already voted to Decline. However, I have made a statement saying that both cases, this case and the RFAR, illustrate that a poorly written and ambiguous guideline is problematic. I don't think that ArbCom considers poorly written policies to be within their scope, but have said that some sort of statement about the guideline would be useful.<br /> [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == User:Fred Zepelin ==<br /> <br /> I am asking for [[User:Fred Zepelin]] to be indefinitely blocked from posting to my personal talk page, and for an administrator to consider appropriate action in response to his hounding and ongoing personal attacks.<br /> <br /> During a recent content dispute, he accused me of “whitewashing” and being a “white supremacist apologist”.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABlake_Masters&amp;diff=1210112045&amp;oldid=1210099756] The two other editors involved in the discussion suggested he “focus on content, not contributors” and “clear the slate with a strike and or apology”.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fred_Zepelin#Careful]<br /> <br /> Instead, he followed me to another article where his first-ever edit there was to revert my content and source[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrei_Cherny&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210119834] and template-warned me inappropriately.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BBQboffin#February_2024]<br /> <br /> I have asked him repeatedly to stop posting on my talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABBQboffin&amp;diff=1210139356&amp;oldid=1210138700], citing [[WP:USERTALKSTOP]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABBQboffin&amp;diff=1210737930&amp;oldid=1210736842] and telling him that I would view future violations as harassment. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFred_Zepelin&amp;diff=1212439892&amp;oldid=1211599745] But days later he again posted there again, and with another personal attack.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABBQboffin&amp;diff=1214772992&amp;oldid=1212595355] [[User:BBQboffin|BBQboffin]] ([[User talk:BBQboffin|talk]]) 17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Which they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BBQboffin&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214772992 immediately reverted and apologized for] (and was in regards to what was not a PA at all). What are you asking us to do if the other user already self-resolved it? &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 17:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Immediately reverted - yes. Apologized for casting aspersions about alleged &quot;whitewashing&quot; - no.[[User:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue&quot;&gt; ''Isaidnoway'' &lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:black&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/b&gt;]] 18:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::So what is being asked for, then? The editor immediately reverted so there's nothing to revert, though it looks like the two have had a running content dispute for the last month but not to a block-worthy extent. I just can't stand when the reporter leaves out something on purpose (the reversion) to try to have an action done, without the other in the dispute being able to respond. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&quot;I forgot&quot; is neither an excuse for harassment nor is it an apology. Posting &quot;Knock off the whitewashing&quot; and then reverting is like someone throwing a punch and pulling it back at the last minute. It doesn't &quot;self-resolve&quot; a situation; it has an intimidating effect. And this isn't the first time FZ has done this: he had been warned about respecting [[WP:USERTALKSTOP]] with another editor[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1060198549], ignored the warning, and got himself a 48-hour block[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&amp;oldid=1130765395#December_2022]. What I want is for him to just stop posting to my talk page: if he can't be banned from posting there permanently, maybe a 72-hour block would help him remember next time that harassment (of me or anyone else) is not OK. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::The edit summary on their self-revert, &quot;''forgot, this particular user asked that I not post on thier talk page,''&quot; gives me faith they'll stop posting there. Do you agree but still think they need to be blocked, or do you think if they're not blocked they'll continue messaging you there? &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Segoe Script;&quot;&gt;''[[User:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#BC49A6&quot;&gt;City&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:Green&quot;&gt; o&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:Red&quot;&gt;f &lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]]''&lt;/b&gt; 22:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I can’t know if he's going to forget again. A talk page block would make it 100% certain. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Sorry but that wasn't what I asked. And they're not going to be blocked from your talk page because it's possible they'll have messages they're required by policy to leave for you. &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Segoe Script;&quot;&gt;''[[User:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#BC49A6&quot;&gt;City&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:Green&quot;&gt; o&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:Red&quot;&gt;f &lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contribs/City of Silver|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#708090&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]]''&lt;/b&gt; 02:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::In lieu of a talk page block I would accept a promise from FZ not to post on my talk page anything beyond required-by-policy messages. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::It's been four days and they haven't posted since you took them to ANI, which is '''not''' a result I want for anyone as &quot;chilling&quot; an editor from posting again is a major reason we discourage ANI reports of this kind if an issue is easily solvable by using a talk page to discuss editing concerns. We're certainly not going to take action on the above because of that, and I truly hope you didn't needlessly scare a productive editor away because of this overreaction to an honest mistake. But in the reverse, Fred had been warned to step back from editing on a particular article on their talk page, so we're not going to warn someone either from taking a break and pausing editing, then coming back a better editor if they do so. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 16:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Fred did return and going by their response, they felt this ANI thread was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Zepelin&amp;oldid=1215718380 completely frivolous (but put it more profanely)] and resumed editing elsewhere. Next time, use the user talk page first before going to ANI, because nothing is happening here. He's done with you, be done with him, and move on, BBQ. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 20:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Ok, next time I'll use the user talk page more than I did, but I don't think this is an &quot;easily solvable&quot; issue. I will move on, although on his first day back I see another editor has already become exasperated with Fred and asked him not to post to their talk page[[User talk:Alansohn#The longest quotes in references ever seen|[1]]]. Fred certainly has value to the project for his tenacity and skill in ferreting out sockpuppets and their ilk, but it would be nice if he would show mutual respect to his fellow editors. &lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:white&quot;&gt;'''BBQ'''&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;'''boffin'''&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:BBQboffin|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#F00&quot;&gt;grill me&lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == TonyTheTiger is gaming the WikiCup through GAN spam ==<br /> Over the course of a few days, {{user1|TonyTheTiger}} has increased the number of articles he had pending at GAN from a handful to [[Special:Diff/1214753203|nearly 70]]. When [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations|asked about it]] by {{u|Ganesha811}}, TonyTheTiger basically admitted to [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system|gaming the system]] to score [[Wikipedia:WikiCup|WikiCup]] points, saying that he'd only be willing to withdraw if another backlog drive was guaranteed to him later in the year (at which point he hoped to have date priority on nominations). Such a huge strain on the process might be understandable if his submissions were all carefully scrutinized, but the only charitable explanation is that they clearly were not. 25 of his submissions have been quickfailed by 13 separate reviewers (myself included) on several grounds, including poor sourcing, unsourced sections, poor prose, unhandled maintenance tags, lack of substantive contribution, and lack of breadth. On multiple occasions, after an article was failed, he lashed out at the reviewer before renominating the article with little substantive change. {{u|Premeditated Chaos}} rightly pointed out that this was a pretty clear abuse of the GAN process, {{u|Epicgenius}} (who is a WikiCup judge this year) warned him that his conduct could be seen as gaming, and {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} noted that he was TBANed from [[Wikipedia:Featured sounds|Featured sounds]] back in 2011 for this exact pattern of conduct.<br /> <br /> His behavior pretty much only gets worse from there. If you look at [[Talk:Michael Schofield (American football)|one of his renomination attempts]], you'll see that TonyTheTiger, who has been editing since 2006 – rather than choosing to respond to any of the admins, backlog drive coordinators, or other senior editors who had raised concerns about his conduct on his talk page in the past day – chose to go after {{u|Generalissima}}, a relatively new editor on the scene, telling her, &quot;{{tq|You are bending over backwards to fail this article... Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know.}}&quot; He then told everyone else to {{tq|Calm down and stop quickfailing stuff for no reason... If you fail a 20-25% {{sic}} of my articles that does not make me a problem editor.}} He told another quickfailing reviewer, {{u|Teratix}}, {{tq|I assume you are lieing {{sic}} to pick a fight.}} He has now claimed in multiple places that a vague group of &quot;vindictive&quot; editors [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Open season on qfing me|are conspiring to fail his articles for WikiCup points]], claiming that articles like his get through GAN in good shape all the time. If he's right, I worry. In the meantime, multiple editors have asked him to find and withdraw his poorer-quality nominations, and he has refused, while continuing to making spurious renominations. This is clearly disruptive behavior that needs to be addressed. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 22:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Proposed sanctions ===<br /> :This is really disappointing, because many of his past FAs and GAs ''are'' high quality. His [[Wikipedia:Featured topics/Four Freedoms|FT on the Four Freedoms by Rockwell]] is great work! Why he has decided to take such a big step down with his quality control in favor of mass-nomination of Start/C-class articles is beyond me; the only way many of these articles would get through GAN is if either a newbie reviewer picks them up without fully understanding the GA criteria, or if a reviewer painstakingly holds his hand the entire way from start class up to meeting the criteria. <br /> :I feel a fair response to this would involve suspension from this year's Wikicup for openly trying to game the system, alongside a tight restriction to how many GANs he can have at once, to prevent this sort of waste of reviewers' time in the future. Maybe just one GAN at a time to start out with? &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::given his past pattern of similar behavior, including disruption at FAC &amp; DYK, i worry that this kind of thing will just continue in another area of the project. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 22:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::That is fair enough. I would absolutely support a '''topic ban from Wikicup''', as I feel this is the primary cause for his behavior. However, a '''topic ban from GAN''' should be instituted if this sort of abuse continues outside of the cup. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 02:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Upon all the new evidence being brought forward of his consistent behavior in this respect, mark me down as in favor of a '''TB from GAN/DYK''' too. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 22:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *A look back to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Featured Sounds Process|this very noticeboard in 2011]]: Tony is topic banned from a) participating in the Featured Sounds process and from b) uploading pictures relating to himself (this is as absurd as it sounds, so let's ignore it). Why was he TBANned from FS? Well:<br /> **{{green|TonyTheTiger nominates anything that he thinks will have a remote change of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back his nominations are closed as unsuccessful, and generally clogging FS with items that don't deserve to be featured...He wants to add stars to his trophy wall, and he wants to feed his ego...TTT has a strong case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and is pursuing his own self-aggrandizing agenda at the cost of significant community patience, and in this case, the quality of Featured Sounds}}<br /> **{{green|Tony previously caused similar issues at FPC, nominating pic after pic after pic relating to Chicago...He has also caused problems with mass nominations at DYK (which reflected very poorly on the WikiCup, in which he was participating)}}<br /> **{{green|TonyTheTiger seems unable to understand the ways in which he disrupts and abuses of featured content processes and other editors' time in his goal of promoting himself...he disrupted DYK in his attempt to win WikiCup, there was an issue at TFA/R, and FAC instituted a special rule to limit repeat noms because of his repeatedly using FAC as Peer review for ill-prepared articles, and bringing back ill-prepared noms the minute the previous one was archived...I don't know if topic bans are a solution, because he just moves on and does the same thing in another area}}<br /> **{{green|I am also very unimpressed with the shouting and calling of specific others &quot;liars&quot;, and would note the lack of support for his position by any other party on this page.}}<br /> *Move on 13 years, and Tony is again nominating anything that he thinks will have a remote chance of passing, ignoring negative responses, fighting back and immediately renominating unsuccessful nominations, clogging GAN with items that don't deserve to be GAs, disrespecting every other editor involved in the Cup and GAN, and calling other editors &quot;liars&quot; while facing unanimous disagreement, all to feed his ego. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 22:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **For the record, I support a '''TBAN from the Cup and nomination restrictions at GAN'''; hopefully that ends the disruption. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 11:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{A note}} Tony *has* withdrawn a few of his nominations since the debacle started ([[Special:Diff/1215223230|Benji (2012 film)]], [[Special:Diff/1215224630|Essex on the Park]], [[Special:Diff/1215224964|NEMA (Chicago)]] and [[Special:Diff/1215225403|The Flick]]). Everything else in your comment is spot on. – &lt;code style=&quot;background:#333;border:1px solid #999&quot;&gt;[[User:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#fff;text-shadow:0 0 5px #fff&quot;&gt;Hilst&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#090&quot;&gt;&amp;lbrack;talk&amp;rbrack;&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/code&gt; 22:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Within my areas of expertise I am still a bit unsure as to why articles are being failed. I think offensive linemen [[Michael Schofield (American football)]] and [[Heath Irwin]] compare well with my current GA for [[Patrick Omameh]]. At [[Talk:1000M/GA1]], I responded completely to the review before renominating. It was not until after a second fail when reviewers explained what the issues were. Had I understood these were the issues, I would have addressed them. Everyone thinks I understand why the articles are deficient in advance of the reviews. I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems. To people who review in any of certain fields the flaws may seem obtuse, but I did not look at the articles and realise the flaws and then nominate them. The reviews are informative to me. I don't understand why &quot;[[Humble and Kind]]&quot; is not regarded as in the general quality range of my 2022 GA &quot;[[Sheesh!]]&quot; except for a tag. I am finding the reviewer responses confusing. I have started removing some of my nominations that I are further afield from my expertises.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 22:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Tony, if you are so flabbergasted by the reviews you're getting, then that is more indicative of you ''not reading them'' than it is an indictment of over a dozen other editors' feedback. Anyways, this is not a place to air your grievances about the quality of the reviews you're receiving, this is a discussion about your ''behavior''. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 23:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Noting I have nominated Omameh for GA reassessment, as it clearly does not meet the GAC in its current state. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I think it is clear that the WikiCup is not good for TonyTheTiger (it is supposed to be a fun competition, but he seems to think it is something he needs to win) and TonyTheTiger is not good for the WikiCup (as a fun game, it really should not take such a heavy toll on the GAN backlog; abusing the general community like this endangers the Cup). A '''topic ban from the WikiCup''' is the minimum that should happen (full disclosure: this would slightly benefit me, as I am also a competitor in the Cup). However, there are wider [[WP:IDHT]] and almost [[WP:CIR]] issues related to [[WP:GAN]]: TTT has nominated (and sometimes renominated directly after a quickfail) several articles that he last edited years ago, and some of them are significantly out of date, have maintenance tags or other obvious issues (I re-quickfailed one of them, [[1000M]]). So a '''topic ban from GAN''' should be at least considered. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 23:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Mark me down in favor of a '''topic ban from GAN''' entirely, given the continued IDHT and inability to take any accountability for his actions, and repeated poor attitude towards other editors. It's clear Tony will not stop this behavior unless he is forced to. The past behavioral issues put me more firmly in support of a restriction. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 23:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *for the record, i also '''support a topic ban from both GAN and the WikiCup'''. the above-mentioned behavior is entirely disruptive, rude, and a waste of our time. the GAN process and the WikiCup do not exist to serve TTT's ego. i concur with Kusma about the IDHT &amp; potential-CIR issues; how ''anyone'' could read [[Humble and Kind]] (for example) and think it's even slightly close to GA quality is beyond me. patience has run dry. &lt;br&gt;'''edit:''' as other people have also mentioned they're competing in the Cup, i'll disclose that i am as well. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 23:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **For the record, without an explanation, I don't understand why (other than one tag) &quot;[[Humble and Kind]]&quot; is worse than &quot;[[Sheesh!]]&quot;. I believe the majority of my recent nominations were in the range of proximity to [[WP:WIAGA]] to be reasonable nominations. After hundreds of GA reviews, you should know that I am not a problem at GA in general. I feel that the intersection of the GA and the CUP is the issue. I do feel I could work productively at GA without the competitive element of the CUP.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 23:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:{{tq|After hundreds of GA reviews, you should know that I am not a problem at GA in general.}} Doug Coldwell also used his number of GAs to justify his poor behavior and shoddy work... and look where that got him. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 23:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:It didn't take long to find a [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/interview-tim-mcgraw-new-album-dueting-daughter-6753874/ half-dozen] [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/lori-mckenna-album-1988-interview-1235375769/ reliable] [https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/humble-and-kind-how-lori-mckenna-wrote-tim-mcgraws-hit-single/ sources] [https://www.tennessean.com/story/entertainment/music/story-behind-the-song/2021/01/25/story-behind-song-tim-mcgraws-humble-and-kind/4228236001/ covering] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/12/22/why-humble-and-kind-was-the-hit-song-we-really-needed-this-year/ the song's] [https://www.billboard.com/music/country/tim-mcgraw-humble-and-kind-video-oprah-6851683/ production], some in great detail, that just aren't being used. Even [https://cmt.com/news/dqi1jz/humble-and-kind-meant-spaghetti-day-for-lori-mckenna the CMT piece] has a lot of untapped material. The fact that I can find this many sources for one section of the article reflects poorly on the rest. To put it bluntly, &quot;[[Sheesh!]]&quot; covers all the major aspects of its topic, &quot;[[Humble and Kind]]&quot; does not. An editor as experienced as you should realize this. [[User:Averageuntitleduser|Averageuntitleduser]] ([[User talk:Averageuntitleduser|talk]]) 00:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **addendum, after reading others' comments: i don't think a time-based restriction will work. his history of disruption goes all the way back to 2011. while i support a full TBAN from GAN (and certainly from the Cup), i would also be supportive of a strict limit on how many GANs he can make at a time, should a full TBAN not gain consensus here. i think his entitled attitude is the single biggest problem here, as PMC pointed out below. i don't see why we have to give him so much more leeway than he has given his fellow editors. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * [[User:TonyTheTiger|Tony]], would you be willing to go through all your pending GA noms and withdraw all except those of ''exceptional'' quality (or just all). Its looking like you could be heading for a GA topic ban, something I'd think would be a shame since you seem to have a great record of producing good content. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 23:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Topic ban from GAN and the WikiCup''', with regret. TonyTheTiger has [[Special:Diff/1215170109|continued (re)nominating]] articles with issues today, well after many editors have expressed both general and specific feedback about the inappropriateness of his mass nominations. His reaction to this feedback has been to deny or underplay issues and shows a lack of regard for other editors' time and the research required for ensuring his nominations are [[WP:GA?|broad in their coverage (#3)]]. Overall, his recent activity has been detrimental to the processes and to the task of building a high-quality encyclopedia. — [[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]] ('''[[User talk:Bilorv|&lt;span style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]''') 23:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''No ban on anything''', Wikipedia eating its own? Assume good faith is a thing. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:with all due respect, did you read the thread? every avenue has been tried before ANI - [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations|his talk page]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Open season on qfing me|the WikiCup talk page]], [[User talk:Teratix#Heath Irwin review|Teratix' talk page]], the [[Wikipedia talk:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2024#Reason for &quot;backward&quot; progress|GAN drive talk page]], and numerous individual reviews. he has been uncivil, [[WP:IDHT|refused to listen]], and continued to engage in the same disruptive behavior after over a dozen editors, including multiple admins, have asked him to stop. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Yes, I read the thread before responding. Have now read Tony's talk page, and there seems a mix of failed and under review Good articles. He now is pulling some back, as mentioned above. My comment was only about jumping from concerns to banning TtT from GAN, where he has excelled for years. Wikipedia eating its own is a thing, as seen many times on this page when that kind of jump is made from discussion to &quot;Get 'em!&quot;. But good faith is one of the best things, so let's use that one instead. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 01:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Tony has not assumed good faith of those who have reviewed his articles. he said to Generalissima &quot;{{tq|You are bending over backwards to fail this article... Maybe stay in your lane in a field you know.}}&quot; he claimed &quot;{{tq|There is an overzealous posse of editors quickfailing my articles.}}&quot; at the Cup talk page. he accused Teratix of &quot;{{tq|lieing to pick a fight.}}&quot; i could go on; what else is there to do at this point? &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;[[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support topic bans from GAN and the WikiCup''' (disclosure: I'm technically still a contestant in the Cup but I have no hope of progressing to the next round). There are seven distinct grounds:<br /> #Mass-nominating GANs to an extent that would be absurd and disrespectful of volunteers' time ''even if'' all nominations were impeccable.<br /> #Mass-nominating GANs with especially obvious, gaping flaws, indicating Tony either does not read the articles he is nominating or fails to understand the GAC. [[Talk:1000M/GA1]] is a representative example (where Tony either didn't notice or didn't care about an entirely promotional and unsourced section) but I recommend reading his other quickfailed articles for the full perspective.<br /> #Renominating GANs after quickfails without fixing the article's problems. See [[Talk:1000M/GA2]], [[Talk:Kenny Demens/GA2]], etc.<br /> #Openly admitting this behaviour is motivated by tactical concerns related to his WikiCup performance. See [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations]]<br /> #Displaying an appalling attitude towards how the GAN process runs, believing the project should bend over backwards to schedule backlog drives and grant special exemptions from date priority for his benefit. Read his replies to Ganesha811 on [[User talk:TonyTheTiger#GA nominations]]. I have never seen more entitled behaviour.<br /> #Behaving uncivilly towards reviewers and critics. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATonyTheTiger&amp;diff=1215214325&amp;oldid=1215211986 Thebiguglyalien's summary], I'm by no means sure this is comprehensive.<br /> #Not recognising and in many cases doubling down on this bad behaviour.<br /> *&lt;li style=&quot;list-style:none;&quot;&gt;To be clear, I see the GAN and WikiCup bans as inseparable – neither sanction on its own would adequately address these problems. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/li&gt;<br /> *:Tony's behaviour has been appalling enough already but I want to add an eighth ground – openly admitting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215238004&amp;oldid=1215237796 &quot;I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems&quot;]. Or, in other words, '''&quot;I nominate articles in areas where I know I cannot competently assess whether they have issues and rely on volunteer reviewers to inform me of obvious inadequacies&quot;'''. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 02:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support GAN nomination ban, temporary or indef''' (edit: or a wider ban that includes GAN) GAN reviewers' time is precious. Wasting it is disruptive. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &amp;#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black&quot;&gt;buidhe&lt;/span&gt;]]''' 02:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from GAN and WikiCup'''. Buidhe and Teratix have both put it very well. Frankly at this point I'm inclined to support a block. This is not the first time Tony has gamed Wikipedia processes for his own arbitrary personal goals, but it is the first time he's been quite so nakedly honest about what he's doing. No one who would make a statement like {{tq|I am willing to stop nominating new articles until April 1 if you can promise that there will be another backlog drive in October}} is operating in good faith. That's right everyone, if we can '''promise''' Tony that we'll organize an entire backlog drive on '''his''' schedule, he'll stop mass-nominating garbage. '''For now'''. Oh, how kind of him! The level of entitlement he feels to other peoples' effort so that he can have points for a '''game''' fucking boils my blood. &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 02:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:For the record, I'm fine with a limited TBAN from GAN (ie X number of noms at once, or for X number of months, or whatever). &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 03:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *There's rightly been a lot of outrage about Tony's abuse of process, both here and elsewhere. Surely a GAN/WC ban is an inadequate response to a very serious conduct issue? Tony's behaviour is a very clear case of [[WP:NOTHERE]] and [[WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT]]. His abuse of process is borderline vandalistic and certainly disruptive edit-warring. His personal attacks on other editors have been unwarranted and severe. He seems to have no intention of changing his behaviour and continues to persevere with a perverse victim mentality. Other editors have been blocked for less. I don't understand why editors in this discussion are not considering a harsher response. '''[[User:–C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 02:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **'''Project block''', minimum one month, preferably indefinite. Per my comment above. Editors in this discussion are ''far'' to eager to excuse serious, sustained, and deliberate misconduct from an editor with an obvious NOTHERE attitude who really ought to know better. If unblocked, permanent ban from WC, GAN, FAC, and DYK. All the red flags have been there for years now. '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 02:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***Tony hasn't got the message – he's written a reply apologising for his abuse of process, but not for his abuse of other editors. I do not believe that his misconduct towards other volunteer members of the project have been properly addressed, either by other editors here or by Tony himself. As such I continue to support a minimum one month block from the enwiki project, just to make sure the message finally gets through that this behaviour will not be tolerated, even from people who have produced good content in the past. '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 13:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Can anyone show that Tony is like this when ''not'' participating in the WikiCup? I don't understand how {{u|AirshipJungleman29}} has turned up quotes from 13 years ago that basically could have been written yesterday. Has everything been fine in the intervening 13 years? Is this a case of someone losing their senses specifically because of the WikiCup competition and otherwise being mostly normal? What is even going on here? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{tq|Has everything been fine in the intervening 13 years?}} No, there was also a debacle last August when he tried to make a special date request for his sister's article (that he wrote) to appear on DYK on her birthday. Discussion is here: [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#COI issue at Carla Vernón]]. &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 02:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::That is just bizarre. He did not see to understand why we don't do any of that, including pictures of himself. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 12:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Asilvering|Asilvering]]: I can say that I think Tony [[WP:BLUDGEONING|bludgeoning the process]] isn't limited to the Cup or GAN. My first interactions with him were on the [[Wikipedia:Vital articles|vital articles]] project, where my impression of him quickly became that he would relentlessly [[WP:BADGER|badger]] anybody (and sometimes everybody) that disagreed with one of his proposals. I don't have the energy to revisit all of it, as this was a big reason why I left the VA project, but I recall [[Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Archive_2#Add_Anna_Kournikova|one particularly bad thread]] in which he (in the words of [[User:The Blue Rider|The Blue Rider]]) {{tq|&quot;[came] after everyone who hasn't supported his proposals enough times&quot;}}. In this same thread, I also expressed discomfort over what I felt were some ''very'' inappropriate remarks about a woman athlete, which he doubled down on. In [[Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Archive_4#Add_Ed_Asner/Remove_Leslie_Nielsen|an earlier thread]], only a few days before this, Tony opened a comment saying {{tq|&quot;Forgive me if it seems I am badgering the voters, which does not seem to be something that we do here&quot;}} before going on to badger the two users that opposed his proposal. <br /> *:I'm not going to comment one what I believe should be done, as I'm not an admin so I don't think this is my place, I'm just recounting some of my past experiences with him. -- [[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk:Grnrchst|talk]]) 14:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::@[[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] it now looks like it isn't limited to bludgeoning, either. The bottom of this thread is in conspiracy theory territory. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 00:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from both GAN and WikiCup''' – Before continuing, I will disclose that I am also a contestant of the WikiCup like others have listed above, so therefore something like this would effect me. At first glance, I didn't think these mass nominations were ''that'' bad, many editors keep a backlog on a backburner. I didn't think it was much of an issue until realizing the quality of them and noticing TTT's behavior beyond this. I view the comments he made towards Generalissima and other editors, as well as the ones he has used to defend himself or make demands (ex. demanding a backlog drive) as unacceptable. I simply can not understand how any editor with good intentions can blatantly attack other users over a game. Hell, knowing his previous topic bans for similar reasons, this is something where the punishment could go beyond a topic ban, and if this discussion escalated to that I'd support that such action be taken. Absolutely egregious. &lt;span style=&quot;border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px&quot;&gt;'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#264e85&quot;&gt;'''Negative'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#7d43b5&quot;&gt;'''MP1'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 03:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from GAN and Wikicup, at the very least''': I was there for the featured sound debacle and well remember it. This is just history repeating again. I'd also support anything from a ban from all article nomination processes up to a block of any length, including indefinite. Enough is enough. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 03:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Weak oppose an outright GAN TBAN'''. While The Tiger's recent acting is...erm...concerning, to say the least, we should not ignore his previous great work, including a bazillion actually good GAs, and an outright TBAN is too much over a single incident with an otherwise constructive editor. I don't have the energy to workshop it, but I would support a proposal that limits how many GANs he can submit per day/week/month and/or a limit on how fast he can renominate GANs. No opinion on a WC TBAN; for disclosure's sake, I participated in round 1 of the cup, but was eliminated. {{not watching}} [[User:Queen of Hearts|queen of 🖤]] (they/them; [[User talk:Queen of Hearts|chat]]) 04:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I would be willing to drop down to just a tban from the cup if Tony would actually take responsibility and agree to only nominate a few articles at a time, articles which he has actually put serious work into (and I think we all know he is perfectly capable of writing quite good articles when he puts his mind to it). But I have not seen that just far, only demands for us to bend our backs for him because he feels entitled to spam half-baked nominations for the sake of a contest where the prize for winning is nothing more than bragging rights. He has yet to even show he understands ''why'' his nominations are being failed despite the reviewers offering clear reasons and actionable feedback. Bottom line, Tony did this to himself despite being given multiple opportunities to self-correct and avoid any sanctions. I don't take any pleasure in supporting a TBAN from creating quality content, but this has gone well past the line of acceptable behavior. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose TBAN from GAN''', but like queen of 🖤, I would also support an alternate proposal for some limitations on how many he can submit in a given time frame. This thread has only been open for a few hours, and going from zero to sixty seems kind of extreme in my view. No opinion on WikiCup.[[User:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue&quot;&gt; ''Isaidnoway'' &lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:black&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/b&gt;]] 05:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * ''' support CUP tban '''. If [[User:TonyTheTiger]] apologises for lashing out at reviewers, I think a cap of 1 open nomination at GAN may work. TTT has engaged well with the process in the past, and if seems the intersection between the competition and the uneven GAN process is driving his behaviour. Without recognition that his behaviour towards reviewers was unacceptable, I do not have trust in TTT engaging with the process. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm also happy to support Schrocats suggestion below, except for the fact that I would like to put the max 5 nominations as part of the restriction to give clarity to TTT. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 09:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Five nominations sounds too many. I think stick to your suggestion of 1. This isn't just about flooding GAN, it's the personal attacks that have come with it. Editors have a right not to face that kind of chilling behaviour. Tony will be lucky to escape a GAN outright ban here so allowing one at a time seems reasonable to me. &amp;nbsp;&amp;mdash;&amp;nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 10:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You're right, I was too hasty: any rope here should be accompanied by TTT showing they understand why their behaviour was unacceptable. A cap of up to 3 would still seem reasonable to me after a 3-month ban, 5 indeed stretches it. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 10:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::What about a limit of 1 to start with, and if those have a decent 75% rate of passing after [some unit of time] it could maybe creep up to 3. That’s just my idea reading this, let me know if this makes no sense. [[User:Geardona|Geardona]] ([[User talk:Geardona|talk to me?]]) 10:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::75% is quite a low pass rate. I expect a near 100% pass rate for experienced nominators. Otherwise, this makes sense. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 11:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::::It's one thing to have a pass rate of less than 100% (though I'd be embarrassed if my pass rate dropped below near 100%, personally). It is another ''entirely'' to have nominations so poor they are being routinely quickfailed. We are dealing with the latter here. I would support Femke's proposal if Tony would take feedback seriously, but thus far he has refused to do so, leaving us with only sanctions as an option to change his behavior. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 15:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from the cup; three month ban from GAN'''. The cup seems to be the driver for the disruption, so ban from that. GAN is where the disruption is taking place, so a more limited ban from that (on condition that all nominations are withdrawn). There’s no point in pushing a harder ban that’s harms the encyclopaedia and punishes TTT after the cause of the disruption has been sorted. He has three months to be able to work on whatever he wants, but a similar mass nomination at GAN (more than five articles in the process at any one time), should be a trigger for further time out off the process. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 08:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from the cup; three month ban from GAN''' per SchroCat. Let's keep remedies simple. I want to address the question of good faith. It's an inevitable feature of the discussions around erring senior editors that we must assume the good faith of an editor who has declined to do the same in return. Good faith really has nothing to do with it. Tony's behavior is disruptive regardless of his intentions. The question is whether Tony is prepared to acknowledge that other editors have a problem with his conduct and change his behavior. That's your standard feedback cycle. Editors get shown the door when they can't or won't change. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 10:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from the cup and remove all his current nominations'''. Tony knows perfectly well how to nominate good quality articles at GAN; if he continues to nominate clearly unready articles that's a problem we can address then, perhaps with a short GAN ban, but I see no reason why he would without the cup as motivation. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 11:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *There is a narrative emerging among a couple of editors' comments here along the lines of &quot;Tony is basically competent to submit GANs but in this case he went too far because he was competing in the WikiCup&quot;. I want to push back on that a little and draw these editors' attention specifically to Tony's comment earlier in this thread, where he says {{tq|Within my areas of expertise I am still a bit unsure as to why articles are being failed.}} That is, he looks at a review like [[Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1]], and actually can't understand what the problem with the article is. And that's in an area he claims to be comfortable editing in. {{pb<br /> }}When it comes to areas he describes as outside his expertise, it gets worse: {{tq|Everyone thinks I understand why the articles are deficient in advance of the reviews. I edit on a wide range of topics, many outside of my expertise and need reviews to understand the problems.}} That is, he nominates articles to GAN, outside his experience, knowing he lacks the ability to tell whether the articles contain basic deficiencies or not, and uses volunteer reviewers as a crutch to paper over the gaps.{{pb<br /> }}I understand these sort of discussions balloon very rapidly, and there are a lot of comments to read through. But if your position is &quot;support an indefinite Cup ban but more hesitant on an indefinite GAN ban&quot;, Tony's comment here should be ringing alarm bells. It speaks not just to a specific incompetence to edit under competitive pressure, but a more fundamental lack of understanding about GAN. It has definitely pushed me to favour an indefinite ban from GAN over a time-limited ban or restrictions on the number of simultaneous nominations. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 11:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;s&gt;i'm inclined to agree with this, unfortunate as it is. an indefinite ban is not necessarily permanent, and if Tony can demonstrate that he can once again produce quality work, i see no reason why he couldn't be unbanned. i do think that the Cup is the inciting factor here, but Teratix is right that he seems to not understand GAN itself, which is very strange.&lt;/s&gt; yeah upon further thought now that i'm more awake, one really can't have gotten multiple FAs and not understand GAN &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I think I disagree here. If somebody has multiple FAs, they know full well what to do for a GA, but choose not to, and perhaps overplay ignorance as an excuse not to prepare their nominations sufficiently, or an unwillingness to take the time to take in reviewers comments. I think the issue is primarily behavioural, rather than competence. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 16:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Agree that seeing this as a competence issue makes no sense, and it's strange that Tony appears to be trying to spin it as one. Someone who keeps a writing habit doesn't just spontaneously forget how to write, barring literal brain damage. Something else is obviously going on. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::good point. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 20:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Femke, you may be interested in reading Gog the Mild's comments on his behaviour at FAC – he hasn't had an article promoted in ten years and his last ten nominations have been archived without success. I'm speculating here, but it could be a case of the project's standard for quality content advancing over time while Tony's writing standard remains the same, resulting in a misperception of what's required. It is difficult for me to explain Tony's comments here as merely the product of Cup pressure. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 01:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{u|Teratix}}, you're right that Tony has engaged in problematic behaviour at GAN, but I think it's clear that the current issue is related to the WikiCup, and since there is ample evidence that he does know how to write good articles, I think we ought to limit the response here. This thread is already giving him ample warning about future GA nominations. I don't think more is needed. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Tony's longer statements have slightly changed my view. My speculation on a mismatch between Tony's and GAN's writing standards was wrong, he is still capable of submitting GANs of acceptable quality in some cases. However, he still doesn't seem to understand that excessive mass nominations can be problematic independent of article quality. To me it seems a one-GAN limit could be a good solution, allowing Tony to continue submitting his absolute best content but also protecting GAN reviewers' time and energy. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 06:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''TBAN from the cup and GAN''' GAN reviewing can be hard enough even when the article is relatively high-quality; you're reading through an entire bibliography and acting as a copyeditor for a basically thankless job. It is not reasonable to expect GAN reviewers to hand-hold somebody who's been around here for so long through writing a GA-quality article; if you don't understand what makes a GA in a certain topic, ''don't nominate 70 of them to figure it out''. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 12:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:In case it matters: I'm participating in the WikiCup and will probably qualify for the next round. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 12:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I'd support a Wikicup ban without question at this point, as it seems like per the above any reward-based area seems to bring out the worst in him. I'm not opposed to an outright GAN ban, but I'd perhaps prefer an indefinite strict nomination limit, no more than 3 so that the articles can actually be properly written. A three month ban stated above isn't going to work since the mass-nomming of articles that don't meet GA standards will just continue. [[User:Wizardman|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#030&quot;&gt;'''''Wizardman'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Changing my stance to '''Support Cup/GAN/DYK ban''' per the added evidence, it's clear that he's not getting it, and seems to think this is a game that he has to win at all costs rather than just writing article to write them. [[User:Wizardman|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#030&quot;&gt;'''''Wizardman'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' I'll note we've seen similar behavior at DYK, including [[Special:Diff/1194391967|arguing about his apparent interest in gaming of DYK rules]] by saying, {{xt|All rules are made to be broken and gamed.}} {{pb<br /> }}Example of how he intends to game [[Special:Diff/1198340366|here]]: {{xt|As I think of my next potential DYK candidate, Joanne McCarthy (basketball) that I have 5xed over the weekend, the new set of rules allows two alternatives. 1. I could DYK now and GA-DYK in 5 years with minimal change 2. I could GA now and DYK within 7 days after it gets approved with a 2nd DYK only possible with another 5x in 5 years.}} This was in a discussion of whether DYK should allow repeat appearances. Tony literally is planning 5 years out so he can get repeat DYK credits. {{pb<br /> }}I'm actually a little concerned that a tban from GAN/WikiCup might just transfer the issue to DYK full time. Tony seems to be extremely interested in scorekeeping. Which of course can be a motivator for some people, and he's certainly created or improved a lot of articles. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 13:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&quot;All rules are made to be broken and gamed&quot; that is absolutely ridiculous, and i think you're right that this disruption will just move over to DYK. his idea of &quot;GA-DYKing in 5 years with minimal change&quot; says to me that he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about how GAN works. probably both. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::He didn't do that, though: [[Talk:Joanne McCarthy (basketball)/GA1]]. Also, in the [[Joanne McCarthy (basketball)]] review, the CUP points gaming again comes up as an issue in a couple of ways. He requests the reviewer promote in a specified time frame ({{tq|Also, be advised that I am competing in the [[WP:CUP]]. Do not promote on Feb 28 or 29.}}) and in response to a sourcing concern about the subject's Polish heritage, a source is quickly added to the article that likely does not meet [[WP:BLP]]. The McCarthy article is not a problematic page (loads of pages have small sections or a few missing sources), but Tony is clearly capable of better writing ([[Juwan Howard]]) outside of this CUP context. [[User:Rjjiii|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps;&quot;&gt;Rjj&lt;sup&gt;iii&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 15:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::i'm not entirely sure if you're disagreeing with me (or if you were intending to respond directly to Valereee's comment?) but i agree with the substance of what you're saying &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 19:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Not so much disagreeing with either of you, but pointing out the nuance that even though his talk page comment was regarding DYK, the actual disruptive edits (overloading GA and placing a bizarre citation into a BLP) were again done in the context of the CUP. To be clear: I would '''support a WikiCup TBAN''', but I'm not speculating on how he'll react. I empathize with the frustration from editors in this discussion about the need for this discussion to get this far, but don't see the need to impose the various restrictions mentioned in this thread all at once. Apologies if I was opaque before, [[User:Rjjiii|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps;&quot;&gt;Rjj&lt;sup&gt;iii&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 02:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::no worries! i just wasn't entirely clear on your position. &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 02:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I am not familiar enough with the WikiCup situation to have any firm opinion on it, but '''when it comes to GAN I support, at minimum, the removal of all outstanding nominations'''. I noticed the nomination of [[Malcolm (Macbeth)]], which is very obviously very far from GA standards even at a quick glance. An editor with both hundreds of successful GA nominations of their own and hundreds of reviews of other people's nominations surely knows better; on the off chance that they genuinely do not, I think it's reasonable to conclude that they likely never will. Nominating articles that are not ready would appear to be a pattern; looking at the user's talk page, I saw that during the course of a 24-hour time period (20:25 UTC on 22 March to 20:25 UTC on 23 March), no fewer than 25 &quot;Failed GA&quot; messages were left by ({{u|ChristieBot}} on behalf of) ten different reviewers. This indicates to me that leaving the remainder of the (rather large number of) nominations up would not be a good use of the community's time. [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 14:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I think part of the problem is with the editor but part of it is with the WikiCup... Its not set up for an honest editor to win, its set up for the winner to be the person who games the system the hardest without betting disqualified. The WikiCup clearly encourages gaming the system because a significant number of the recent winners won that way. The difference is that most of those editors were more subtle about it than this one. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:This is a valid criticism, and indeed is why I declined to participate in the cup this year. My suggestions to balance scoring to stop this have yet to be adopted. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 16:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::For the curious, can you link to those suggestions? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 16:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::The suggestions are at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2023/1#Points for next year]]. For what it's worth, any Wikipedia contest such as the Cup will by its very nature be competitive and could be considered by some as gaming; however, the vast majority of editors don't also violate Wikipedia guidelines or policies while participating. &amp;ndash; [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 18:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I agree that the WikiCup encourages users to time their nominations for maximum score (instead of nominating when the article is ready). I'm not sure that this is a huge problem; different people have won the Cup using different strategies over the last years, and some of them increased my respect for the winners, others did not. The issue here is that TTT did not just try to score WikiCup points with little effort, but disrupted other processes while doing so. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 16:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::I agree its not generally a problem, its kind of a poster child for something that is objectively a net positive... But that doesn't mean it doesn't have downsides. But on the other hand these are issues the community should never be having to deal with, the whole point of the game having referees/managers is to prevent this sort of community disruption and time wasting from happening. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I checked the past four WikiCups and you can't say any of the winners were gaming; they all did a fair number of FACs and otherwise earned their points in a lot of ways, from doing lots of GANRs to making large GTs to ITN. Only one winner mainly relied on points from GAs, and nominating 60 articles you've worked on over the course of the year over two months is hardly gaming. This is poor decision-making on TTT's part and not something that's a trend with the cup. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::More than one way to game the system. Agree to disagree on whether this is a trend, but note that it would be remarkable if a competition like the wikicup didn't come with the negatives normally associated with open entry organized competitions. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *For the sake of completion I note that TTT's last ten nominations at FAC have all been archived. Nine are from 2014–2016 and one from 2023. This included five nominations of [[Emily Ratajkowski]]; in the last of these TTT received a coordinator warning &quot;Tony, I'm not prepared to allow accusations of bad faith leveled at reviewers without substantive evidence. Please strike these immediately and keep your comments focused on the content, not the editor. This isn't the venue. Additionally, there are many occasions when nominators and reviewers come to an impasse about content. I'd prefer you let [the FAC coordinators] weigh the matter rather than posting repeated pings and harangues when the reviewer has disengaged.&quot; TTT [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FEmily_Ratajkowski%2Farchive5&amp;diff=727511236&amp;oldid=727508803 kicked back]. (Disclosure: I have been a FAC coordinator since 2020 and closed TTT's 2023 FAC nomination.) [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 17:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Based on the assembled examples of tendentious behavior in relation not only to GAN/WikiCup, but also DYK, FAC, and COI editing, I think that a GAN/WikiCup ban is the bare minimum sanction, and that a broad WP-space ban may in fact be more appropriate (although this is somewhat complicated by the fact that these various processes exist across multiple Wikipedia namespaces). What I see here is a pattern of behavior for over a decade of consistently engaging with quality-control/content-promotion processes in an entirely self-serving fashion, conveniently ignoring guidelines when it suits them, and accusations of bad faith against editors who don't provide review results to their liking. There's little reason to believe that this behavior will change other than by barring them from engaging with such processes. &lt;sub&gt;signed, &lt;/sub&gt;[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from WikiCup and GAN'''. TTT has an ''extensive'' history of NOTHERE gaming the system for Wikipedia points and self-promotion. I would support further bans as well. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support WikiCup TBAN''' I don't like commenting at ANI, but this seems like a good time to step in as someone who has experience with Tony from the Vital Articles project. Sadly, it would appear that a TBAN from the WikiCup is needed to deal with disruption, but I believe that he can be productive. I also '''weakly support a restriction on open GANs''' as a fair step to prevent disruption without barring him from making good content entirely. I '''oppose an indefinite ban''' because he has shown himself to be a quality contributor who can contribute productively when not doing stuff like this. I believe a WikiCup TBAN and a restriction on GANs will solve the problem while allowing him to continue to contribute productively. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 18:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support WikiCup TBAN''' with the suggestion of leaving our snarky remarks at the door in the future. [[User:Panini!|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#F40&quot;&gt;Panini!&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;span style=&quot;color:#F40&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; [[User talk:Panini!|🥪]] 20:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support permanent WikiCup TBAN and temporary GA and DYK TBAN''', as a minimum. I was prepared to limit my support only to a TBAN from WikiCup, as the current locus of disruption, until I saw Valeree's comment quoting TTT as very recently saying &quot;All rules are made to be broken and gamed&quot;. No. That is not the sort of collegiality and cooperation that we should be bringing to Wikipedia editing. Some rules are obstructions but almost all were created as a response to a specific problem, and TTT's behavior is a problem that is currently producing a push for more obstructive rules at [[WT:GAN]] that could slow down the whole GA system for everyone. If we take away WikiCup, it seems likely that GA badge counts will become the next personal contest to game. The GA process needs time away from TTT's disruption, for one thing to evaluate what is to be done to distinguish TTT's many valid Good Articles from those that may need reconsideration (with at least two currently under formal reassessment). Valeree's comment raises DYK as another very likely locus of disruption and a temporary TBAN could well head that off. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I'm going to stay neutral on the GAN and CUP topic ban proposals, since I don't think I have anything more to add to those discussions, but I '''oppose a topic ban from DYK''' in any form, at least for now. TonyTheTiger's conduct at DYK has only peripherally been discussed in this thread, and while there would be some more to unpack if it were focused on, I'm unconvinced that the DYK-specific evidence could necessitate action at this time. TBANs are preventative, but they're &lt;em&gt;never&lt;/em&gt; preemptive. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 22:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I agree with tlc. I wasn't intending to suggest a ban from DYK just because if banned from GA/cup, that's the only place left to keep score. It might even be good to allow that one last place for TTT to show us they can learn from this. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support permanent WikiCup TBan'''. TonyTheTiger's participation in the WikiCup has caused problems since at least 2010 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&amp;oldid=386613217 &quot;Michigan basketball overload&quot;, 2 sections at [[WT:DYK]]). I also '''propose topic ban on solo nominations in any article recognition venue''': FA, GA, FP, FL, DYK&amp;nbsp;... anything. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194391967 &quot;All rules are made to be broken and gamed&quot;] on January 8, 2024 (after repeated discussion of his gaming and overwhelming at review venues, including sanctions applying to specific venues); the attempts to bargain by making new demands on backlog drive dates, also recent; and the admissions of insufficient knowledge about topics on which he is submitting articles for GA consideration. The COI promotional submission at DYK is the cherry on top. He's too focused on collecting accolades and evidently will continue clogging any recognition process in which he participates. If he wants to create and improve articles for the benefit of the encyclopedia, let him collaborate with other editors on nominations. Otherwise, do without the potential recognition. (And yes, I recommend a procedural quickfail of all his current GA nominations. Someone else can further improve an article they believe has GA potential and renominate it; at GA level there's always room for further improvement, and the list can be a useful source of improvement candidates.) (I have not participated in the WikiCup for many years, or in DYK for a similar number of years, except for a couple of nominations of articles I'd worked on by someone else.) [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 23:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from GAN and DYK, also remove all his current GANs'''. This diff in particular is just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1194391967 shameless], also given past incidents of gaming the system.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 01:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Block''' from any &quot;awards&quot; whether GAN, WikiCup, DYK or what have you. Should have been when he tried to get his sister onto the fromt page with blatant disregard for COI. [[Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_195#COI_issue_at_Carla_Vernón]] but escaped it then. Clear history of acting in his own interest and not that of the project. [[User:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#be33ff;&quot;&gt;Star&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#ff33da;&quot;&gt;Mississippi&lt;/span&gt;]] 01:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:He tried to get his SISTER on the front page? Jesus Christ. I've collaborated with him on some FAs, but no one with the interests of the encyclopedia in mind would dare to pull that. Chalk me up as well as advocating a '''Block from all &quot;awards&quot;''' as per Star Mississippi. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''&lt;span style=&quot;background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF&quot;&gt; '' Ravenswing '' &lt;/span&gt;''' ]] 06:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::and this wasn't even, &quot;I know this is not the right course, but here's my case for why she deserves it&quot; but rather &quot;I don't see what your issue is.&quot; That was the most problematic especially from someone of his tenure. Besides the WT:DYK, the discussion is also on the article talk. [[User:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#be33ff;&quot;&gt;Star&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#ff33da;&quot;&gt;Mississippi&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Quite. If he was lying about that, that's a [[WP:BADFAITH|massive downcheck]]. If he ''wasn't'', that's a massive [[WP:CIR|competency issue]]. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''&lt;span style=&quot;background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF&quot;&gt; '' Ravenswing '' &lt;/span&gt;''' ]] 00:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *(Disclaimer: I first heard about the situation involving Tony on Discord a few days ago, when it came up in a discussion among GAN reviewers, but I wasn't canvassed or asked to participate in any discussion, and my views here are purely my own.) Having reviewed the different discussions that have taken place at Tony's talk page and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiCup]], I think a '''permanent topic ban for TonyTheTiger from the [[WP:CUP|WikiCup]] is warranted'''. Tony has repeatedly [[WP:IDHT|refused to get the point]] that their conduct has been disruptive and a drain on other editors who are trying to participate in the WikiCup in good faith. Some of Tony's remarks that were directed towards other editors, especially Generalissima, are also pretty subpar and fall below the expectations I would have of somebody who has been editing Wikipedia for nearly 18 years. As for a topic ban from GAN or other featured content processes, I am more neutral; I think Tony could contribute to these areas constructively provided that he no longer participates in the WikiCup, but I understand why others feel that a broader topic ban or restriction might be necessary to address Tony's conduct. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 02:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Having read Tony's statement below, my opinion hasn't changed too much. I think an indefinite topic ban from the WikiCup is the bare minimum required to prevent further disruption. I am still not really in favor of an indefinite topic ban from featured content creation processes (e.g., GAN, DYK) ''at this time'', but I think the removal of any of Tony's recent GANs which have not yet been reviewed or are not currently being reviewed is acceptable. However, it is evident that there have been issues in the past with Tony and featured content processes (i.e., the issues with Featured Sounds and the DYK conflict of interest incident that have been mentioned by others). If anything comes up again in the future with Tony's conduct in featured content processes on this noticeboard, I will be far less likely to give Tony the benefit of the doubt if a topic ban or more severe sanctions are on the table. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from GAN''' and removal of current GANs. His current behavior is disruptive to the GA process, as many have stated above; a TBAN from GAN is sufficient to prevent that disruption. I very much doubt the disruption will stop until TTT recognizes why his behavior is disruptive and commits to changing it (I have seen evidence of neither). An indefinite TBAN until he's prepared to make such a commitment seems appropriate. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 02:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Given TTT's apology below, a GAN limit of 1 nomination at a time is also fine with me. If he shows he can handle that, I'm sure folks would be willing to increase that nomination limit before too long. Also just a note that I think we should clear his current unreviewed nominations -- which basically everyone seems to agree are problematic -- from the GAN queue. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 12:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''No bans''' {{ec}}I am not sure why every solution to problems must include onerous sanctions. As {{u|Starship.paint}} has said below, we are in the middle of things... and IMO there is not an immediate need to stop a disruption. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 02:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:So, just to be clear, you don't feel there's any problem with Tony's behavior here at all? &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 05:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support limitation on active GA noms, no bans''' - Limiting the amount of active GA noms Tony is allowed to have seems to take care of the immediate problem at hand. Not sure why we are ready to throw prolific content creators off a cliff when they are just going through a bad phase. He does good work overall, and long-term bans here are detrimental to our readers. To be clear, he has acted questionably in some of the diffs mentioned here, but not quite enough to be permanently put away.--''[[User:MaranoFan|&lt;b style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;N&lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:MaranoFan|&lt;b style=&quot;color:teal&quot;&gt;Ø&lt;/b&gt;]]'' 08:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:What makes you think this is just a &quot;bad phase&quot;? TTT has been engaging in this behavior since at least 2010. And by &quot;this behavior&quot; I mean relentlessly pursuing &quot;awards&quot; collection and self-promotion to the detriment of the encyclopedia. He was banned from Featured Sounds for the same reasons outlined in this RfC. Last year he tried to get an article he wrote on his sister onto the front page on her birthday, accompanied by a picture with him in it (despite a previous ban on uploading pictures of himself!). He has been [[User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 86#Blocked|blocked]] [[User talk:TonyTheTiger/Archive 71#Blocked 48h|multiple]] times for baselessly accusing editors who didn't support his TFA/FS requests of racism. At what point does this become a pattern? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 18:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Remember kids, you can get away with anything so long as you're a &quot;prolific content creator&quot;. They live by an entirely different set of standards. We are approaching Coldwellian levels of misconduct (and apologism for said misconduct), along with total refusal to accept any responsibility for one's actions here, and that is ''not'' something I say lightly, given my prominent involvement in that saga. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 20:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from Cup, limitation on active GA noms''' preferably to one active nomination at a time. If the disruptive behavior relocates itself to DYK, we can deal with it there, but I feel a sanction for that would be premature at this stage. [[User:Lepricavark|L&lt;small&gt;EPRICAVARK&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;]]) 15:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from WikiCup''', support '''limitation on active GA noms''' (I'd prefer something between three and five), '''oppose DYK ban'''. '''Oppose ''indefinite'' GA TBAN''', but not opposed to a three-month GA ban (with the carveout that he can continue any GA work that is currently being reviewed or that he is reviewing). The WikiCup seems to be the main driver of the disruption – if the disruption continues outside the Cup then we could revisit. Also not seeing enough for a DYK ban. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Comment''' Tony has been removed from the cup by the judges.<br /> *'''Support indefinite TBAN from WikiCup, support limitation on active GA noms (I'd prefer one), support DYK ban.''' &lt;b&gt;[[User talk:OlifanofmrTennant|Questions?]] [[Fourth Doctor|four]] [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|Olifanofmrtennant (she/her)]]&lt;/b&gt; 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support indefinite ban from Cup, limitation on GA noms''' The gaming has been quite breathtaking, and TTT seems unrepentant. I would suggest no more than 1 GA nom at a time. -- [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 19:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support indefinate TBAN from WikiCup, low limitation on GA noms''' (three seems reasonable), '''removal of all current GANs where a review is not yet posted, and a minimum three-month gap between a failed GA review and renominating the article''': TTT has been renominating quickfails after edits that only address a small portion of the issues raised, which is one reason why I think he needs limits on his participation at GAN. If the community insists on a TBAN there, I won't oppose that, though it's a second choice. If he persists in nominating articles that don't meet the GA criteria per the GAN instructions, then a TBAN there seems inevitable (and may be so already). [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support indefinite TBAN from Cup and GAN limits''' Most of the problems seem to stem out of WikiCup gaming, but I think TTT could still be a useful contributor at GA. (I wouldn't mind a 3 month GA TBAN though, but I have no strong thoughts one way or the other.) If abuse continues, I would be open to a harder GAN limit or Star Mississippi's proposal. [[user:HistoryTheorist|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;color:#2F7E98&quot;&gt;❤History&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:HistoryTheorist|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Courier;color:lightpurple&quot;&gt;Theorist❤&lt;/span&gt;]] 00:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''&lt;s&gt;Support indefinite ban from GAN&lt;/s&gt;''' (EDIT: See below), second choice a nomination limit of ''one'' (but would honestly be healthier just to leave it at zero IMO). Did not want to pile on until Tony made a statement, but... that was the wrong statement. Notably there doesn't appear to be an &quot;In deference to GA norms, I'll withdraw some/most of my nominations on my own&quot; in it, and I still see the spam sitting in WP:GAN. That is table stakes in any statement given that he's been told to do this, repeatedly, bluntly, and now en masse at ANI, and the fact that he hasn't done it himself speaks poorly of him getting the point. If Tony didn't &quot;consider [it] would be a problem&quot; at first, how come he didn't trust his fellow editors when they told him that yes, it was a problem? To state what's been said many times before... GAN is not some sort of content assessment service to drop off articles you've worked on. It's more like trading peer reviews, and it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what GA nomination &amp; reviewing is to spam it so blatantly just to &quot;use the further polish of GAN attention&quot;. And ''everyone'' has waited a long time for GA reviews before, it's not unique to Tony, and shouldn't it be obvious that this kind of spam makes that problem ''worse''? Tony can be a great content creator; it's time to rekindle the love of doing it just to do it, no stars and no icons attached. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 07:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** As a side note: &quot;I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light&quot; is wishful thinking. Many of the cited GA quickfails should not have passed GA even with 2010 standards. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 07:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:I'm not sure it ''is'' wishful thinking, but unlike Tony I think that's a problem. I think if he hadn't drawn the attention of several experienced reviewers by submitting such a high volume at once, many of the articles that were QF'd would have instead been reviewed by reviewers more prone to looking at the list of GA icons he has on his user page and deciding that ''they'' (ie, the reviewers) were in the wrong, not him. &quot;He must know what he's doing... I guess I don't really understand the standards,&quot; etc. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 14:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** '''Upgrade to full ban from all content review processes''' with narrow exception of GANs currently under review and GAR / FAR of TTT's content. I was unimpressed with Tony's original reply and not withdrawing his noms (I'm not demanding mind control, it'd have been fine to say &quot;I strenuously disagree but if the community considers such mass nominations a problem, fine, I won't do that&quot;), and his later comments appear to be from a different planet, seemingly still defending miles-off nominations like Heath Irwin and viewing himself as the victim, rather than the aggressor. GAN is to take a mostly-there article and make it better. Maybe there's some other process for articles wildly far off from GA status, like a Tony-specific &quot;this month's article to help me improve&quot;, but it ain't GAN, and this isn't hard to understand. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 20:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose sanction''' The entire point of the WikiCup is to encourage editors to do more in order to score points as a form of [[gamification]]. The participants will, of course, game this and competitive pressure will then generate this sort of excess. If this seems problematic then the rules of the competition should be adjusted. For example, if a GAN is quickfailed, the nominator might lose points as a penalty. So, fix the game, don't punish the players. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 08:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ** &quot;Gamification made me do it&quot; is not an excuse, and the WikiCup rules are already very blunt that editors who worsen Wikipedia in an attempt to win will be kicked out. As indeed happened in this case. There's no need to create [[Wikipedia:Asshole John rule]]s which will be a feel-bad for good faith editors who get a nom'd quickfailed for standard and legitimate reasons. I would suggest striking your rather bold claim that Wikicup &quot;participants&quot; in general behave this badly, which is obviously false - nobody else in the WikiCup harassed valid reviewers like TTT did. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 13:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **:See similar comments above such as &quot;''The WikiCup clearly encourages gaming the system because a significant number of the recent winners won that way. ... This is a valid criticism, and indeed is why I declined to participate in the cup this year. ... any Wikipedia contest such as the Cup will by its very nature be competitive and could be considered by some as gaming.''&quot;<br /> **:As TTT has been disqualified now by a WikiCup judge, that seems adequate to correct the immediate issue. My point is that the contest's checks and balances should be left to work themselves out without ANI piling in too.<br /> **:[[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 08:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''SUPPORT BAN from all content review processes''': (saw this while I was here for another thread above). TTT's abuse of content review processes for personal reward-seeking reasons is a problem more than a decade old, where the FAC page and FA process was seriously misused, mostly fed by TTT's desire to win WikiCup, with most of TTT's articles having be extensively re-worked by other editors. TTT has continuously and constantly abused content review processes (FAC, GAN) to gain rewards at WikiCup and DYk, while content produced has been initially marginal and sapped reviewer time to bring pages to standard, and Wikipedia will not lose if this problem can be removed from the pages it is draining. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''&lt;span style=&quot;color: green;&quot;&gt;Georgia&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 05:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support ban from all content review processes''': I've experienced Tony's combative behaviors around not-ready content at FAC, and it's clear that it's an issue at DYK and GAN too. With such an egregious track record going back years across all areas, this seems to be the minimum to save everyone else time and frustration. &quot;The Wikicup made me do it&quot; is not a valid reason to defend this. [[User:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User talk:David Fuchs|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #ad3e00;&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support ban from all content-related Wikipedia contests''', but not from GAN. Tony does good work, they just need to focus on improving Wikipedia instead of getting high scores. I had to go looking a long way back to find the dispute that caused me to remember TonyTheTiger's name. Way back in 2014, TTT created a content fork on the high school career of a professional basketball player, and it was deleted at AFD. Tony challenged at DRV where it was endorsed, and then it was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination)|nominated for deletion a second time]] after Tony recreated it anyway. Tony's bludgeoning and assumptions of bad faith in that discussion included a bizarre conspiracy of Canadian editors being secret members of [[WP:HOCKEY|WikiProject Hockey]] working against coverage of basketball topics, and spawned an [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:TonyTheTiger gaming AfD, bludgeoning and personal attacks against multiple editors|ANI thread]] in which Tony was warned to back off. The article was then salted, which led Tony to start [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262|''another'' AN thread]] requesting its restoration, which was a rather transparent attempt to set up for recreating the deleted article a third time. The player's high school career was later expanded in the main article, which is what should have happened in the first place without all the drama, but Tony was after points for the WikiCup or the [[WP:FOUR|Four award]] or some other contest so we got to play this game for a few months instead. What's happening with GAN spamming isn't the same issue but it's the same root cause, and it's disappointing that the same problem persists a decade after our spat: Tony is editing to score points, and improving content only because it scores points. [[WP:CIR|As the essay says]], &quot;a mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess that needs to be cleaned up.&quot; Tony is a prolific and valuable editor who just needs to refocus on content and stop making messes, and a ban from participating in these contests and awards will help. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]&lt;/sub&gt;) 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{u|Ivanvector}}, just to clarify, are you also wanting Tony to be banned from claiming [[WP:Four Awards]]? &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Would you say that's not covered by &quot;all content-related Wikipedia contests&quot;? [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]&lt;/sub&gt;) 21:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Yes, that's why I wanted to clarify. I don't view 4A as a contest, as you're not competing against other people for a prize in a limited timeframe. (I know there have historically been issues with Tony and 4A, and I'm not trying to say he ''shouldn't'' necessarily be banned from 4A, just clarifying your stance). &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 21:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::Fair question, then. Yes, I think he should be banned from seeking those awards, but that does raise an issue of enforcement since we can't stop other editors handing them out. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt;/&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]&lt;/sub&gt;) 21:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support TBAN from both GAN and WikiCup''' per Ivanvecor, PMC and Buidhe. Bling is one thing, but active disruption (and the complete wasting of people's time that has with it!) brings behavior into the community's purview. &lt;small&gt;...and PMC, particularly, oozes a degree of sarcasm that I can only dream of.&lt;/small&gt; [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support TBAN from WikiCup and content review processes''' per PMC, Sandy, DWF, my previous comments on the WikiCup talk page, and Tony's recent comments below (starting with {{tq|In the back of my mind...}}) which amount to a conspiracy theory about other editors. (Disclosure: I am currently competing in the WikiCup.) [[User:Dylan620|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;Dylan&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:purple&quot;&gt;620&lt;/span&gt;]] (he/him • [[User talk:Dylan620|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dylan620|edits]]) 23:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Appeal for GAN TBAN exception for already actively reviewed GANs===<br /> <br /> I see that there are GANs already actively being reviewed '''before''' the start of this ANI. One is &lt;s&gt;[[Talk:3:16 game/GA1]]&lt;/s&gt; (closed now) where Tony is the reviewer. Another is [[Talk:In a World.../GA1]] where Tony's article is being reviewed. Others include [[Talk:2018–19 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/GA1]], [[Talk:Wait a Minute (The Pussycat Dolls song)/GA3]] and [[Talk:Joanne McCarthy (basketball)/GA1]]. Perhaps there are more such GANs that I missed. In the interests of being reasonable, having courtesy and respect for Tony and the other reviewer/reviewed editors of these GANs, I suggest a carve-out to allow Tony to participate in these if he receives a GAN TBAN. This does '''not''' apply to GANs Tony nominated but no one has reviewed yet. This would also not apply to any GAN review Tony started after the ANI began. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :In the case of GANs where Tony is the reviewer, that seems fair enough. In the case of GANs where Tony is the nominator, the reviewer should be made aware of the situation here (if they aren't already) and given the option to discontinue the review. But if they're happy to continue, giving Tony a carve-out seems fair enough. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 06:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Yes, if the other reviewers wish to stop for any reason, then that is the end for that nomination. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 09:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I missed &lt;S&gt;[[Talk:Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention/GA1]]&lt;/S&gt; (closed now), [[Talk:A Christmas Story: The Musical/GA1]], [[Talk:Chris Hill (basketball)/GA1]]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 12:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ===Junk the Wikicup===<br /> {{hat|1=Proposal SNOW closed and wrong venue. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])'''}}<br /> {{atop|Closing this per [[WP:SNOW]] and (more importantly) the wrong venue to request a project be closed. {{nac}} — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 21:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> ...because it regularly leads to this kind of trouble. It's long outlived its usefulness. [[User:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:red;&quot;&gt;E&lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:blue;&quot;&gt;Eng&lt;/b&gt;]] 16:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Really? When was the last time? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' due to being obviously incorrect. The purpose/&quot;usefulness&quot; of the cup is to encourage users to improve content, which it does. One person possibly trying to game the system isn't a valid rationale to junk the entire competition. It's silly to suggest we do so just because of one person. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose'''. Clearly not the correct outcome. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 17:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * I really don't think this is the right conclusion to draw from the discussions above. The vast majority of WikiCup participants don't violate any Wikipedia guidelines or policies, and when they do, they get disqualified from the competition (as Tony was just recently). As for {{tq|It's long outlived its usefulness}}, it's inspired people to expand or create hundreds of articles over the years, the vast majority of which, again, have no issues. I'm going to say that ''any'' type of competition is liable to have issues like this come up; it's just a matter of how well the problem is handled by the judges of such contests. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Junk and never replace... Or junk until we can come up with something better? Not super open to the first but could see the second being valuable. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' I feel the fact that the community is so eager to sanction someone gaming the cup in this way is a good sign that Wikicup participants not want this sort of incident to occur again. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::People want to sanction them for gaming wikipedia, not for gaming the cup... As far as I know that would be up to the Cup's organizers and I don't think they've chosen to take any action here. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Tony's already been kicked out of the cup. &lt;small&gt; [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) &lt;/small&gt; 17:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ec}} {{tq|I don't think they've chosen to take any action here.}} - I disqualified him from the cup earlier today, once I got to my computer. I had limited internet access over the weekend, so I couldn't do it earlier. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you, I didn't know that you were the only organizer who could do that. Is there a reason they're recorded as withdrawn rather than eliminated on the project page? [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::{{u|Horse Eye's Back}}, if this is an underhanded comment directed at {{u|Cwmhiraeth}} and {{u|Frostly}}, you're still required to notify them as you're now discussing their conduct at ANI. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::It isn't, I wasn't aware who the organizers were or how many there were when I made the original comment. If that is not the case I apologize, but then I don't really understand why Epicgenius having limited internet access is relevant. [[User:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&amp;#39;s Back|talk]]) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::While Cwmhiraeth and Frostly are also judges, I'm currently acting as the ''de facto'' main organizer of this competition. Hence, I made the decision to withdraw them as soon as I was able. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Noting here that I support the decision to withdraw.&lt;span id=&quot;Frostly:1711397869258:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&amp;apos;_noticeboard/Incidents&quot; class=&quot;FTTCmt&quot;&gt; —&amp;nbsp;[[User:Frostly|Frostly]] ([[User talk:Frostly|talk]]) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/span&gt;<br /> :::::::{{ec}}Cwmhiraeth is now largely retired from WP, and is there to help Epicgenius and Frostly, who are both new to the role. So far (in the 30% of a cup we've had), Epicgenius has done the work of setting up/eliminating contestants. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::It's largely a technical distinction. Contestants are marked in red if, at the end of the round, they don't have enough points to qualify for the next round. Contestants are marked in purple if they are removed or if they withdraw from the competition in the middle of the round. [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose''' because despite the extra drama it really is needed to help reduce backlogs (at GA, for instance) and would have done so this time if not for TTT's gaming. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 17:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::It still does, even with TTT considered. [https://wikicup.toolforge.org/index.php?year=2024 So far this year], Cup competitors have contributed 316 GA reviews and 108 featured article/list reviews, against 141 GAs and 26 FAs/FLs promoted. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&amp;#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I stand corrected, thanks. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 18:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''', unsourced claim. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' – I'm really really mad I got knocked out in the first round. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{smiley}} [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' drastic proposal without even an attempt to provide evidence. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''oppose''' per Epicgenius &amp; Gog &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 20:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' - It’s been a long time since I had available time to participate in the WikiCup, but the year that I did, it encouraged me to keep putting in effort and working on the encyclopedia. I kind of like that. It’s a shame some people have to game, like robbing the bank in Monopoly, but proper enforcement by the coordinators and responding to gaming complaints seems like a small price to pay for a positive force for editing. I may want to see some reforms personally that continue to encourage contributions from those eliminated early on, but nothing wrong with the concept as a whole. [[User:Red Phoenix|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#FF0000&quot;&gt;Red Phoenix&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Red Phoenix|&lt;sup style=&quot;color: #FFA500&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 20:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose'''. It's not really my cup of tea but it prompts people to improve the encyclopaedia and they have fun while doing it so it's harmless at worst. It has been known to cause some problems with backlogs at review processes but I believe steps have been taken in recent years to mitigate that. It's unfortunate that one editor took things too far and didn't participate on the principle that it was fun, but I see no reason to think that's typical of editors participating in the cup. [[User:HJ Mitchell|&lt;b style=&quot;color: teal; font-family: Tahoma&quot;&gt;HJ&amp;nbsp;Mitchell&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|&lt;span style=&quot;color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman&quot; title=&quot;(Talk page)&quot;&gt;Penny for your thoughts?&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *This is daft, even by your standards, EEng. '''Oppose''', obviously. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 20:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' - no real evidence has been provided that the WikiCup {{tq|regularly leads to this kind of trouble}} or has {{tq|long outlived its usefulness}}. I don't think we need to get rid of something that most people seem to be able to constructively participate in just because a few don't. [[User:MaterialsPsych|MaterialsPsych]] ([[User talk:MaterialsPsych|talk]]) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> {{hab}}<br /> <br /> ===TonyTheTiger's statement===<br /> Today, I stumbled upon a User talk page of a user who had been blocked, with instructions on how to appeal a block [[User_talk:Ptb1997#September_2023]]. It gives the directive that <br /> <br /> To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that<br /> <br /> *the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or<br /> *the block is no longer necessary because you<br /> *#understand what you have been blocked for,<br /> *#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and<br /> *#will make useful contributions instead.<br /> <br /> I know bans are different than blocks, but the spirit of the directive is relevant here. I have tried to not say anything that I would regret for the last few days. I will be making a statement in the next 6 hours.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 00:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> I joined the [[WP:CUP]] this year. I remember finishing 2nd in the 2010 CUP and had honestly forgotten about [[WP:FS]] topic ban surrounding the 2011 CUP. Knowing myself, I probably figured out a strategy that if allowed to run its course would have given me a good chance to finish at least 2nd again without recognition of the broader implications of the strategy to WP in general and to the CUP. I apologize for whatever happened then (again, if I have already done so &amp;mdash; finally, if I have not).<br /> <br /> This year, I entered the CUP on a whim. As it progressed, I regained some editorial vigor that I had had before and during the 2010 CUP. I started feeling competitive. First, I started thinking about making the finals again and before you know it I was trying to strategize a podium finish. In the CUP great [[WP:FA|Featured Articles]] producers have an advantage. I am not such an editor. I have a pretty low success rate at [[WP:FAC]] for the number of FAs that I have. I large percentage of my FAs are the results of co-nominators or co-editors who are far better copyeditors than I. However, I have a long history of success at GA and DYK. So I decided to focus my efforts on those two methods of scoring CUP points. <br /> <br /> There were two main impediments to my prospects for success in the 2024 CUP. First, the way I have been keeping the bills paid is highly seasonal. Last year, I earned over 82% of my income between May and October. The busy season is usually May through September and it can roll into October depending on certain factors. I needed a strategy that would enable me to compete even when I get busy with work. Second, I don’t tend to get reviewed very quickly on GA. Recent history will show you that I don’t get the fastest GA reviews (probably because I don’t do a lot of reviews anymore). See the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations&amp;oldid=1168120698 GAN queue before last year’s August backlog drive]. I took a look at the rules and figured a way that I could have a good chance at continuing to score a lot of GA points while I am very busy and while my review lag tends to be high. I figured, that if I could put a lot of articles in the queue in a way that they would have date priority at GAN I would be able to score enough cup points in rounds 3 and 4 to have a good chance to make the finals. Since I have had hundreds of DYK promotions since my last run at the CUP, I felt that many of them were a good way up the hill toward GA. Cramming them into GAN all at once without significant recent editorial activity was not something I considered would be a problem.<br /> <br /> GA evaluation is a very subjective process. Artilcles that might meet with good favor under the right sunlight may suffer a bad fate under a cloud of darkness. Although I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light, they were reviewed at a time when I had upset a lot of active GA reviewers with my GA strategy. Ex post, it looks like I submit a lot of crappy articles to GAN. My long history at GAN probably says otherwise. However, I am not here to debate the quality of recently reviewed articles. <br /> <br /> I do understand that a common theme among the reviews for the old DYK nominations at GAN is that they have not aged well. Some have become out of date. Others have evolved into states where maintenance tags should have been or were added to the articles. I think in the neighborhood of 2 dozen (if not more) of my GAN articles have been quickfailed at in recent days. All but one of these have been DYKs from past years. There has been little issue with my recent editorial activity. I’ll try to give you a list here for comparison with those that have been rejected. You will probably agree that my most recent work upholds the standards of GA that all interested parties are concerned about. The following are current nominations (all sports articles except for one and mostly basketball) from recent work: [[Gary Bossert]], [[Andrew Dakich]], [[Jennifer Martz]], [[Sean Jackson (basketball)]], [[Dave Jamerson]], [[Billy Garrett Jr.]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;The most recent lead hook at [[WP:DYK]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;, [[Todd Leslie]], [[Peter Patton (basketball)]] and [[Eustace Tilley]]. Additionally, the following recent works were going to be heading into the GAN queue soon: [[Kobe Bufkin]], [[Will Tschetter]], [[Drew Golz]], [[Draft:Kasey Morlock]], and [[Draft:Alia Fischer]].<br /> <br /> I realize that it would be easier on reviewers and better for the GAN system if I refrained from nominating stale, atrophied and otherwise less exemplary articles. However, I do believe that things that I have recently researched continue to be of benefit to the WP readership and could use the further polish of GAN attention. Although I continue to have faults as an editor in need of correction, none of my recent works (mostly created from scratch) should have much in common with the recent batch of quickfails.<br /> <br /> I probably should not be involved in the CUP since I have twice gotten too competitive in ways that are adverse to the general mission of WP. I don’t really think the GA ban is entirely necessary. My current work at GAN is probably not as problematic as the topics that have been distant from my attention for years. The real problems that I am having with GAN are not so much as my general lack of understanding of what is deserving of review attention, but my competitive CUP juices compelling me to nominate articles with very slight consideration and minimal recent editorial involvement.<br /> <br /> I consider it highly unlikely that you will ever see a slew of articles with prominent blemishes if my GAN privileges were allowed to continue in general. It would be fair to all to remove all nominations stemming from my historical DYK activity, but nominations related to recent editorial efforts would probably benefit WP without burdening the GAN reviewers any more than normal.<br /> <br /> My apologies to all of the hardworking GA reviewers and all participants that keep the GAN system going. I apologize to all CUP contestants and judges. In addition, I apologize for all the time that I took away from other activities by necessitating discussant activity here and elsewhere on WP. Furthermore, my competitive juices also warrant an apology to several DYK parties as well for actions not at issue here, but not so remote from them either. However, I don’t really think that a person who gets too competitive with the CUP needs much more than to be removed from the CUP to continue to be an asset to WP.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Thank you Tony. I have a few follow-up questions.<br /> :#{{tq|Since I have had hundreds of DYK promotions since my last run at the CUP, I felt that many of them were a good way up the hill toward GA}} What inspired this feeling? Did you read back over the DYK promotions and feel each one was worth a shot at GAN? Or was it a more general feeling that if you'd managed to get an article through DYK, it was probably worth giving it a shot at GAN?<br /> :#:Read back over would definitely be a wrong description. Basically, I took a quick glance at every [[User:TonyTheTiger/DYK|DYK I have had since mid 2010]] and some related articles. E.g. Some Big Ten or Ivy League seasons as well as Michigan and Princeton seasons may have been before that cutoff, but I looked at all of those similar article types with a quick glance. I eliminated all short DYKs. I think anything that was not at least 2800-3000 characters was cut. I glanced for citation needed templates, but surely missed some. If it had a top maintenance tag, it probably got cut. No real scientific process. I probably cut a list of 550 down to about 100. Then I looked at the ones I had to work on before nominating and the ones that I thought were close enough to be shaped up. I think I looked to see if I was the top 3 or 4 editors on each page as well, but confess I did not pay much attention to my percentage contribution. --[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#{{tq|Cramming them into GAN all at once without significant recent editorial activity was not something I considered would be a problem.}} That's a comment on your past mental state. Do you, as of now, consider the number of GANs you submitted at once to have been a problem?<br /> :#:The GAN process is set up to have hundreds of simultaneous nominations at once. I would not be surprised if the GAN could present 1000 at once. I have in the past had upwards of 30 simultaneous nominations at once I believe. GAN is an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor. The 70ish number is not a problem on its face. The problem is that I have never dug up articles from the past and nominated them. I have always nominated articles that I have recently honed and crafted. As I mentioned above, I stand behind all of the DYK creations from the past few months as viable GAN candidates. I should have given more serious consideration to which types of topics tend to atrophy over time. Many of the subjects that I submitted were BLPS of subjects I last paid close attention to on the order of a decade ago. They either had or should have had significant changes that I was not involved in editorially. I think I placed too much faith in added contributions with [[WP:IC]]s. I think I sort of felt if all the added stuff had ICs, it was an article that was probably up to snuff, which is not really a valid check. My process was flawed and that was a sort of a problem.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 05:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#{{tq|Although I think many of my nominations might have been more kindly reviewed under a favorable light, they were reviewed at a time when I had upset a lot of active GA reviewers}} To be more specific, do you believe e.g. [[Talk:Heath Irwin/GA1]] would have passed or had a significantly improved chance of passing had you not &quot;upset a lot of active GA reviewers&quot; at the time? Are there specific failed GANs you believe would not have been failed had you not &quot;upset a lot of active GA reviewers&quot;?<br /> :#:There was definitely a time when the current version of [[Heath Irwin]] would have passed as is. For an offensive lineman who has not met with [[Pro Bowl]]-level or [[Super Bowl]]-level success, his article has some heft. I have had hundreds of successful GAs and don't remember a quickfail. I may have had some though, but I doubt I have had even 1 per 100 nominations if I have had any. A huge percentage of my GAs are American football and basketball related. So, I feel that I do have an understanding of what is a GA-caliber article for these sports. If there is a new 2024 standard for GA articles, I am not familiar with it. To my recollection, [[WP:WIAGA]] seems relatively unchanged. I use to be a lot more active with football nominations. 10 or 15 years ago when I was more active with football nominations, my rep might have kept me from having a nom quickfailed in the past and helped with some promotions. I concede that the percentage of football reviewers who even know me from Adam nowadays is much smaller. Nonetheless, I can see the patience that I have had as a reviewer at [[Talk:3:16 game/GA1]] for an article that was not well formed and immediately nomed at [[WP:AFD]] when I began my review. I am also aware of the skill and patience of many reviewers. I believe that there are many reviewers who would have had the patience and skill to coax me into recrafting [[Heath Irwin]] as a GA.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:Skill in this sense is meant to be a combination of wikipedia institutional expertise and subject matter expertise.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 12:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:I mentioned above that only one of my recent DYK creations met with the quickfail hatchet. In the past, I have presented several precollegiate athletes for GAN. I believe myself to have been one of, if not, the groundbreaker on producing pre-collegiate basketball GAs. When I started producing a lot of pre-collegiate basketball (and football) GAs over a decade ago many of them may have been a bit longer than [[Olivia Olson (basketball)]]. In some regards, I still was quite surprised that Olson was quickfailed. I find it hard to believe that you could expect so much more than was presented for this subject that what was presented was so remote from that expectation that it deserved a quickfail.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 06:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::You've been informed many times that high school athletes have to meet much higher standards for notability, otherwise we would have articles on literally every DI and DII football recruit. We sometimes don't even consider NFL draftees notable despite their garnering national coverage. This article is sourced almost exclusively to local and non-independent or primary media hype, which per NSPORT do not contribute to notability at least partly because they inherently fail to demonstrate breadth and depth of coverage and are routine for the topic. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 08:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::[[User:JoelleJay]], to be more specific to this article. [[WP:LOCAL]]'s nutshell summary states: &quot;This page in a nutshell: An article about a local place or person may be created if there is enough referenced information to make it encyclopedic.&quot; Furthermore, although like all pre-collegiate athletes Olson does not meet [[WP:NHOOPS]], further up that page [[WP:SPORTBASIC]] says &quot;A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.&quot; Furthermore, in regard to the numerous discussions regarding pre-collegiate athletes and this issue of local vs. national coverage, the general agreement was that only a very few and possibly a singular national level source would suffice to meet this standard. In this case we have [chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://playeroftheyear.gatorade.com/poy/assets/writable/84707/2024_GK_OOlson.pdf Gatorade.com], [https://michigan.rivals.com/news/five-star-point-guard-olivia-olson-commits-to-michigan Rivals.com], [https://www.aol.com/news/state-top-senior-girls-basketball-145400425.html AOL.com] and [https://www.si.com/fannation/bringmethesports/mn-high-school-sports/2-minnesota-girls-basketball-stars-named-mcdonalds-all-americans Sports Illustrated albeit a locally targeted offshoot]. With that support a QF was quite surprising. I don't think I have had a pre-collegiate athlete nomination with two or more national articles fail (let alone quickfail) in the past. It would not have been unreasonable for a patient reviewer to ask me if I could beef up the international section and personal life.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 12:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::I and others have pointed you to [[Wikipedia:YOUNGATH]] several times. &lt;br&gt;Gatorade is obviously not an independent source, the AOL piece is from the Star Tribune, the Rivals source is the offshoot specific to Michigan sports, and the SI piece is as you say a local offshoot. None of these are sufficient. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 16:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::: &lt;small&gt;FWIW, not all local sources should be discounted, especially major papers like the ''Star Tribune''. The only requirement is that it needs to be &quot;[[WP:YOUNGATH|clearly beyond routine coverage]]&quot; – though I admit I haven't analyzed the sources. [[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 16:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :#::::::Just dropping into this subthread to add that GA reviews don't take a position on notability. If there isn't sigcov in reliable sources it may be quite hard to write a GA-review-passing article, but at no point is the reviewer asked to make a notability call. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::What? The [[WP:GAN/I#R1|instructions]] for reviewers: {{tq|Ensure all articles meet [[Wikipedia:PG|Wikipedia policies and guidelines]] as expected of any article, including [[Wikipedia:NPOV|neutral point of view]], [[Wikipedia:V|verifiability]], [[Wikipedia:NOR|no original research]], and [[Wikipedia:N|notability]].}} [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 21:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::It isn't one of the criteria, and you'll find it explicitly listed at [[WP:GACN#Beyond the scope]]. AfD, not GAN, is the place to decide notability. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::::It's not one of the criteria, but it is explicitly in the instructions for GAN reviewers so there should be an expectation of notability. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 22:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::::{{reply to|JoelleJay}} It was added without consensus when the same wording was added the nomination instructions. Discussions on the GA talk page have generally held that notability is not part of a GA review and should be handled at [[WP:AFD]]. [[User:Rjjiii|&lt;span style=&quot;font-variant:small-caps;&quot;&gt;Rjj&lt;sup&gt;iii&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 05:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::Indeed. On occasion FACs are queried re notability. In principle, there is no reason why an FA couldn't be AfDed. I don't know if this has ever happened. [[User:Gog the Mild|Gog the Mild]] ([[User talk:Gog the Mild|talk]]) 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::It has! I recall at least one. A baseball player, I think? Nominated by its main author, actually. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#:::::::::{{ping|Gog the Mild|Asilvering}} I believe you are thinking of [[Lewis (baseball)]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination)|AfD]], [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lewis (baseball)/archive1|FAR]]). [[User:TompaDompa|TompaDompa]] ([[User talk:TompaDompa|talk]]) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::::Yes, that's it for sure. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#::::::::[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination)]]. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 01:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :#{{tq|It would be fair to all to remove all nominations stemming from my historical DYK activity, but nominations related to recent editorial efforts would probably benefit WP}} Which specific GANs do you stand by? Which specific GANs should be withdrawn?<br /> :– [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 14:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Just a quick comment based on Teratix's #4, I've removed that set of nominations from the GAN queue (i.e. nominations that you haven't edited substantively in over a year, and that hadn't been reviewed yet). If you, or anyone else, thinks I hit a false positive, you are of course welcome to revert. [[User:Ajpolino|Ajpolino]] ([[User talk:Ajpolino|talk]]) 18:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Aside from those articles that I have created or 5xed in the last 6 months or so, there are not too many that I can really stand solidly behind with confidence. Given the time between my past DYKs and now, I have to develop an understanding of how GAN evaluates formerly prominent athletes who have been less interesting for quite some time. Basically, anything that I have not worked on in the last 6 months is a candidate for removal.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 06:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :If I may add one question. You seem to apologize for nominating a large slate of underprepared GA noms. Can you also talk to your behaviour towards editors, where you failed to assume good faith, and what you would do differently in the future? [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::WP is a community of people with different backgrounds, interests, expertises, skills, and roles. We are all here to help present knowledge to the world. It certainly works best if we always assume good faith. As I have stated above, I get a bit competitive about the cup. If I could turn back the clock (now that I am reassessing my overlycompetitive nature), I would have taken the CUP less seriously, which in turn would have caused me to be less in your face. I think I am having something akin to a WP midlife crisis in which my worth as a WPian is tied up in making the finals of the CUP. I am no longer one of the great editors and need to stop competing with ghosts of my past. Trying to figure out how to play the game to make the finals the way that I did was not fair to other editors who were working hard to reduce the GAN backlog, to achieve their own success in the CUP, to maintain the integrity of GA, and to keep things going. What I should have done is just participated in the CUP with things I had worked on recently. In the future, all of my GANs will have at least a recent flourish of activity or a solid reaffirmation based on close inspection.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::These aren't recent, but it may be relevant that Tony has had issues at ANI about bad faith accusations [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive811#Continued policy violations from User:TonyTheTiger at WT:FOUR (close requested)|in 2013 where he was indeffed]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:TonyTheTiger gaming AfD, bludgeoning and personal attacks against multiple editors|in 2014 where he was warned]]. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 19:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{re|TonyTheTiger}} Do you have any intention of apologising directly to the editors who you cast aspersions on? Further, if a new editor behaved as you did, do you believe they would have been offered the leniency this discussion has afforded you? '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 12:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Above when I stated &quot;My apologies to all of the hardworking GA reviewers and all participants that keep the GAN system going. I apologize to all CUP contestants and judges. In addition, I apologize for all the time that I took away from other activities by necessitating discussant activity here and elsewhere on WP. Furthermore, my competitive juices also warrant an apology to several DYK parties as well for actions not at issue here, but not so remote from them either.&quot; it was certainly intended to include them. If any of them do not feel covered by that statement, I do apologize for casting aspersions on anyone who felt thusly treated and anyone in any way offended by my CUP related behavior. In regards to leniency, I believe anyone brought up at [[WP:ANI]] is allowed to make a statement. I did not mean to abuse the system or seek special treatement by making mine, if that is the perception. I believe a new editor would be allowed to make any statement that they want.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 12:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::That's a blanket apology Tony, not a direct apology which is what is owed to Generalissima, Teratix, the editors at WT:CUP and on your talk page, and probably elsewhere. This is not a matter of them &quot;feeling thusly treated&quot;, it's a matter of you having made direct and explicit allegations of bad faith on their part. Perhaps you can present your mass nomination as a misjudgement or misunderstanding, but the statements you made towards other editors cannot be so excused. Regarding my second question, let me rephrase it: had you been a new editor who flooded GAN with obviously un-passably bad articles and then proceeded to make numerous allegations of bad faith against other editors, do you believe you would have been afforded the opportunity to continue editing with an ANI discussion being the most serious consequence for your actions? '''[[User:5225C|5225&lt;sub&gt;C&lt;/sub&gt;]]'''&amp;nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&amp;nbsp;&amp;bull;&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 13:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I took a long time to make an extensive statement because I am trying to remain level headed. I meant to make an apology that was sincere to all individuals whom I behaved inappropriately with. I feel the heat getting turned up a bit here and I am not trying to do [[Twelve-step_program#Twelve_Steps|steps 8 and 9 of the 12 steps]]. This is especially so as I see the line forming below for #MeToo apologies. In my time on WP, I have offended many (surely dozens). In the past week, I have offended several. Wrongly, I took offense to extremely negative reviews. I do not have any right to positive reviews regardless of my process, role, contribution, or performance. All reviewers have a right to give any review that they feel they can justify. All reviews are largely subjective, and I can not disprove any review. So, I must accept all reviews assuming good faith by their reviewers. Thus, all derisive responses to individual reviewers and even secondary discussants beg for apologies. Derisive and possibly hurtful statements to Teratix are at the top of my list of things I mean to apologize for and I do so here directly. Generalissima is likely the leading scorer in CUP points for quickfailing my reviews, but only one of these was particularly contentious to me. I actually think many of these points were well-deserved. Regardless of my contentions (is that a word) regarding any single review, I need to remain professional. I went beyond any acceptable manner of decorum with Generalissima. In fact, my interactions with Generalissima are correctly a huge part of an intervention like this. I apologize for the lack of respect conveyed in my interactions with Generalissima.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I too had hoped for a direct apology. Tony, you may want to read the lead of [[non-apology apology]] and the section {{section link|non-apology apology#Ifpology}}. The way you apologized is quite common, but not that convincing. I'm still hoping we can end this discussion with you continuing to contribute to GAN, but me at least need to be convinced you are willing to mend trust. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 18:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I don't recall interacting with you at any other page in relation to this $#!T storm. I went back about 10 days in your contributions to double check. By my investigation our first interactaion in what is at issue was 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC). So are you asking for a direct apology to you? Or are you seconding 5225C above? -[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::: I was seconding 5225C above. [[User:Femke|—Femke 🐦]] ([[User talk:Femke|talk]]) 07:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Since following the thread is already a tad confusing, moving this below, but re Tony's in-line replies to the list above:<br /> *: {{green|GAN is an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor. The 70ish number is not a problem on its face.}}<br /> * You've been told this repeatedly already, but just to say so again: Yes, it is a problem, on its face. Past a certain point, it's not on everyone else to explain why it's a problem to your personal satisfaction, you just need to accept that it is. It would have been a problem even if all your mass noms were perfect, no notes, ship it productions. It is a far worse problem when - as you yourself admitted you knew - you were seeking some &quot;polish&quot; from nomination review. Just as AFD isn't a way to demand other editors do cleanup, GAN isn't a way to demand other editors fix up an article for you. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> **[[User:SnowFire]], my point was that I felt it was the quality of the submissions more than the quantity. That was of course only my opinion. It may be that the quantity was more of a problem than the quality and I was wrong. It is likely that each individual here assigns a different weight to how much of this issue is related to quantity and how much is related to quality. As I have stated, in the past I have had dozens of simultaneous nominations without issue. But as we are here there is some element of the problem related to quantity and some related to quality. Clearly you assign a higher proportion of the problem to quantity.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 04:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *** ''Both'' quantity ''and'' quality were problematic. It's just that you seem to grudgingly accept that the quality was an issue, but still don't seem to get that the quantity was an issue, too. And frankly I'm skeptical that your previous activities were truly &quot;without issue&quot; given that you've proven not particularly perceptive to the time of other editors.<br /> *** Hypothetical situation: an eccentric millionaire reveals that he's paid a team of independent researchers to create 1,000 new articles on notable topics, that are mostly about GA quality or close. This person is ''awesome''. They deserve a barnstar, a Signpost article, a shout-out, whatever. However, the contracts are up so the researchers can't really do any good peer reviews themselves. Should our millionaire - who has done a fantastic service to Wikipedia (just as you have) - submit all 1,000 of these articles to GAN, because it's &quot;an agnostic process that does not regard how many are nominated or reviewed by any one editor&quot;? The answer is ''emphatically not''. The awesome part was the GA-level articles themselves, not the green icon which readers neither recognize nor care about. GAN is useful as a mechanism of trading around peer reviews and second opinions, not about classifying the very best articles, and our millionaire can't possibly do their side of the equation for 1,000 articles. Which is fine. It just means that GA status is not in the cards. Basically, even in the scenario where the articles you nominated were in significantly better shape, this sort of mass nom is not a thing. The &quot;reward&quot; of your work is the articles having better content. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:Personally as both a GA contributor and a millionaire, I consider your hypothetical to be ridiculous.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 11:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::I'm just taking what you wrote seriously and where that would go in an extreme situation. You've completely dodged responding to the merits of the question - you ''still'' think that nominating 70 or 1,000 or whatever articles at once is no problem? I guess I should have listened to my own advice and not bothered to attempt to even convince you. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::You dig yourself a deeper hole with every reply here, Tony. [[User:Trainsandotherthings|Trainsandotherthings]] ([[User talk:Trainsandotherthings|talk]]) 22:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:There's an [[Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposals_to_address_the_backlog|ongoing discussion about ways of improving the GA process]] to better cope with the growing backlog of reviews. One idea is to formalise a limit of 20 nominations per person and it's surprising that this hasn't been done before. A QPQ system is obviously needed too. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 09:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::I already linked Asshole John rule above to you. If someone is abusing the process, just ban them from the process, which you opposed above. Don't create bespoke, hacky rules just for them that also impact others. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 14:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:::These are not bespoke, hacky rules; they seem quite natural and sensible. And they are used successfully elsewhere. The FA process limits nominators to one at a time. And DYK has a QPQ process which seems quite productive. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 17:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::::DYK has a QPQ system that requires them to argue over like a fourth of hooks 3 hours before they go on the main page because everyone pumps out QPQs to get it over with. It'd be even worse at GAN, where there's a significant time investment for a good review. Every person who doesn't actually want to do a review will just tick their way through a template and the end result will be even more strain on reviewers because now they have to check every else's work too. [[User:AryKun|AryKun]] ([[User talk:AryKun|talk]]) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***:::::DYK has a system of triple-checking so naturally there's a further round of issues when set-builders and promoters make their additional checks. The GA process doesn't make such double-checks immediately because there's no big impact immediately. But there's a [[WP:GAR|reassessment]] process which currently has a queue of articles awaiting further review. All such processes are naturally imperfect per the [[Wikipedia:General disclaimer|disclaimers]]. [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 10:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ***::::::Reassessment of poor reviews is not the solution. After a poor review, an opportunity has been wasted. The GA process is good when an article gets an in-depth review that makes it even better. Encouraging checkbox QPQs takes away the best thing about the process. Getting a shiny green badge is and should be secondary to the improvement to the encyclopedia that results. More shiny green badges is not itself an improvement to the encyclopedia. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *In the back of my mind, I am wondering if this all has anything to do with my decision to do a GAN review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3:16_game&amp;oldid=1214023874 this malformed article with no infobox and a prominent maintenance tag] to turn it into a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3:16_game&amp;oldid=1216053622 Good article]. Were the subsequent quickfails of my works and the nomination of the article at [[WP:AFD]] a vocalization of disapproval of my decision to commit to doing such a review. I.e., is there an effort to make it known that we don't want people to commit to that type of improvement.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:You know Tony, I really thought with your statements above that you might kind of be getting it, but this accusation of a bad faith conspiracy shows you obviously aren't. &amp;spades;[[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]]&amp;spades; [[User_talk:Premeditated Chaos|(talk)]] 18:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:??????????????????? – &lt;code style=&quot;background:#333;border:1px solid #999&quot;&gt;[[User:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#fff;text-shadow:0 0 5px #fff&quot;&gt;Hilst&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Hilst|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#090&quot;&gt;&amp;lbrack;talk&amp;rbrack;&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/code&gt; 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::took the words right out of my mouth. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::ditto &lt;span class=&quot;tmp-color&quot; style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;... [[User:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;sawyer&lt;/span&gt;]] * &lt;small&gt;he/they&lt;/small&gt; * [[User talk:Sawyer-mcdonell|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#618A3D&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't even understand what the purpose of the conspiracy would be here... to discourage high-quality GA reviewing? Why would anyone want to do that? My motivation in raising an issue with your nominations, for the record, was solely to keep morale high at the March GAN backlog drive, per my role as coordinator. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Should I assume that this discussion means that we expect people to quickfail such articles regardless of whether they have the skill and patience to guide the article toward GA?-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])&lt;/small&gt; 18:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:We ''should'' presume that they are different skillsets, and that it is entirely possible to gauge whether or not an article is fit for GA status without necessarily being inclined to take an article to GA status. You've been around far too long to fall into the delusion that only some Consecrated Elite has what it takes to make such determinations. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''&lt;span style=&quot;background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF&quot;&gt; '' Ravenswing '' &lt;/span&gt;''' ]] 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{u|TonyTheTiger}} - by my reading of the situation, the sanctions have nothing to do with 3:16 game. It’s really other parts of your behaviour you have to improve. It’s not about other editors. '''[[User:Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;starship&lt;/span&gt;]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#512888&quot;&gt;.paint&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 01:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Frankly, I would be ''more'' likely to quickfail an article from an experienced nominator who possesses &quot;skill and patience&quot;. For a newbie, I'm usually happy to give them some latitude, work closely with them to improve the article, and help them go through the process to understand the GA criteria. But once someone has 100+ GAs under their belt, I expect that they will have the criteria down pat and ensure that the article basically meets them ''before'' they nominate it for GA. That applies doubly when the experienced nominator is mass-nominating old articles without re-checking them in order to score points in a competition. —[[User:Ganesha811|Ganesha811]] ([[User talk:Ganesha811|talk]]) 01:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == User:SheriffIsInTown chronic reverting problem ==<br /> <br /> Continously reverting and redirecting ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan_general_election_forms&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210942217], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan_general_election_forms&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211734720], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan_general_election_forms&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215365066]) on [[Election Commission of Pakistan general election forms]] and trying to impose a redirect without a consensus. Generally, this should be handled through [[WP:AFD]] and considered as a failed [[WP:PROD]], but this guy will mindlessly revert, revert, and revert. [[Special:Contributions/141.195.113.18|141.195.113.18]] ([[User talk:141.195.113.18|talk]]) 18:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#SheriffIsInTown Similar problem] was highlighted by {{ping|Saqib}} as well a few days ago, but it was archived prematurely by a bot. [[Special:Contributions/141.195.113.18|141.195.113.18]] ([[User talk:141.195.113.18|talk]]) 18:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Ping to {{ping|Wiki.0hlic}} who was also involved. [[Special:Contributions/141.195.113.18|141.195.113.18]] ([[User talk:141.195.113.18|talk]]) 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *The author of that article was blocked following the investigation detailed in [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toomanyyearskodakblack#19 February 2024]]. According to policy, contributions by blocked editors can be reverted without justification. In this instance, the forms were appropriately relocated to [[Election Commission of Pakistan#General election forms]], resulting in a redirect. There seems to be a concerted effort by these individuals to impede my editing. They file frivolous ANIs daily in hopes that if they persist, an admin will block me, thereby eliminating opposition. It appears this IP is connected to the blocked editor. This ANI warrants immediate closure, and the IP should be blocked. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;Sh&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: red;&quot;&gt;eri&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;ff&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: black;&quot;&gt;☎ 911&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; 18:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Sheriff, while an editor ''may'' revert edits of a banned editor, per [[WP:BRV]], the same also notes that 1) they are not ''required'' to be reverted, and 2) once non-banned editors (such as Wiki.h0lic) revert, [[WP:BRV]]'s 3RR exception no longer applies, as you're no longer reverting a banned editor, but an editor in good standing. If the articles should be BLAR'd, I expect consensus will bear that out. <br /> *:That said, IP, I note that you have no other edits except to the disputed page and this noticeboard. I can understand Sheriff's [[WP:ABF|assumption]] that you are connected with the blocked user. Have you done any other editing on Wikipedia? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 19:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::In the two days since this report was opened, the page in question was BLARed by consensus and protected, and the reporting IP has not edited. No further disruption seems forthcoming, so this section can be closed without prejudice. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Sorry, I was away for a professional engagement so could not reply to the ping. I don't know how chronic this problem is, but in the past couple of months I have had 2 run-ins with Sheriff. It happened on the page in question and secondly, it occurred on [[Qazi Faez Isa]], where my effort to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qazi_Faez_Isa&amp;oldid=1211007521 build consensus] was ignored and, true to their moniker, they have adopted a &quot;my way or the highway&quot; approach after persistent reversion. Apart from the disregard for consensus, what troubles me in the case of both the articles, is that I have significantly contributed to the them, and Sheriff just comes in and copy-pastes ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Election_Commission_of_Pakistan&amp;oldid=1210941932] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PTI_intra-party_elections_case&amp;oldid=1195845734]) the content elsewhere in a manner ignorant of [[WP:CWW]], effecting my attribution. [[User:Wiki.0hlic|&lt;b style=&quot;color:#01A0CA;&quot;&gt;Wiki.0hlic&lt;/b&gt;]] [[User talk:Wiki.0hlic|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #01A0CA;&quot;&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(talk)&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Regarding their [[WP:CWW]] concern, I am just replying for the record. Their attribution was not affected in that particular case. Firstly, there were significant contributions by me to the content at [[Qazi Faez Isa]], secondly, the article [[PTI intra-party elections case]] was completely rewritten by me, they can run it through a copyvio tool. If they had contributed to Qazi Faez Isa to a specific case section, that does not mean no one else can write a separate article about the case. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;Sh&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: red;&quot;&gt;eri&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;ff&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|&lt;b style=&quot;color: black;&quot;&gt;☎ 911&lt;/b&gt;]] &amp;#124; 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Logosx127]] must be [[WP:NOTHERE]] ==<br /> <br /> <br /> For several days, this Wikipedian has made some contributions which necessitated reaching a consensus for [[Eastern Catholic Churches]]-related articles, especially the [[Syro-Malabar Church]] article and talk page. That conversation was then brought to [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Is_the_Catholic_Church_a_single_denomination_or_a_communion_of_24?]], and it has lasted for days on end again. After the involvement of multiple parties disagreeing with their contributions and seeming rejection of notice given [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Logosx127&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214852164 User_talk:Logosx127&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214852164 here], and then the lack of consensus, they opted to continue their contributions claiming a consensus had been reached. Now, discussion is at a stalemate with Logos themselves seemingly verbatimly disregarding the arguments against their desired overhaul of edits. With their latest responses, it also appears that they might just be [[WP:NOTHERE]] to build an encyclopedia, but [[WP:ADVOCATE]]. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 13:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :When there are arbitrary corrections to articles, how is it wrong to question them in the discussion? How is questioning and taking a strong position in a talkpage pointing out a very clear and obvious contradiction be considered wrong? That too, especially when other editors are agreeing with me and clearly recognising the issues as in [[Talk:Oriental Orthodox Churches#SCOOCH source|here]]. About the issue with the claim of consensus, it was actually another editor who initiated the claim of consensus as seen here [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Antony%27s_Syro-Malabar_Church,_Ollur&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215440856][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mar_Thoma_Sleeha_Syro-Malabar_Church,_Thulappally&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215441146][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Mary%27s_Syro-Malabar_Cathedral_Basilica,_Ernakulam&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215442132][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marth_Mariam_Cathedral&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215442430] and many more. Since they were the original user involved in the dispute with me, I agreed with them. I too tried to implement it, even though it was against my position, believing that the consensus was created against my position. How'd that be considered advocacy? When you make such accusations like nothere about me despite all my recent edits being there at various talkpages, please also explain the rationale. Because the only rationale I find behind is an urge for harassment. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 14:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Well, forgive my ignorance on that part of their consensus claim. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 14:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::For more details, you may please have a look at [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism&amp;diff=1215502400&amp;oldid=1215488573&amp;title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Catholicism&amp;diffonly=1 this response] that I gave to Lion there. I have answered more of their allegations there. I think copying all of it here will be boring for the adminstrators as well as me. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 15:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :To offer my two cents: With {{noping|TheLionHasSeen}}, I participated in the discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism]], trying to offer several possible solutions to the ambiguities/confusions that {{noping|Logosx127}} (and seemingly only Logosx127) believes are present in Wikipedia's coverage of particular pages. The solutions I presented didn't seem to satisfy the concerned editor. I'm not sure about [[WP:NOTHERE]], but I am concerned that the whole thing ballooned into a very long, timesinking discussion when this is, in my view, all possibly resolved by any editor taking the time and making the effort to add one or two sourced sentences. As the only editor who seems to believe that the pages affected currently present ambiguity/confusion, the rather obvious question is why Logosx127 didn't do this themselves. I was also concerned that Logosx127's discussion seemed to have two prongs which are impossible to reconcile: on one prong, we need to clarify ambiguities/confusions; on the other prong, the only correct interpretation of the ambiguity is their own with no possibility of nuance. My instinct is it might just be a good-faith but counterproductive zeal against any possible ambiguities/confusions that does not square nicely with nuances and reasonable interpretations, rather than [[WP:NOTHERE]]. But this is only based off our discussion. [[User:IgnatiusofLondon|IgnatiusofLondon]] (&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:85%;&quot;&gt;he/him&lt;/span&gt; • [[User talk:IgnatiusofLondon#top|☎️]]) 16:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I also participated in the aforementioned discussion, and I concur entirely with {{noping|IgnatiusofLondon}}'s interpretation. I think {{noping|Logosx127}} sees a problem and is trying to fix it; whether there actually is a problem to fix is being debated. There are issues here, but NOTHERE and ADVOCATE are not the ones. [[User:Smdjcl|Smdjcl]] ([[User talk:Smdjcl|talk]]) 18:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I agree. Logosx127 is a stubborn editor who occasionally intentionally pushes the edit warring limit and sometimes is unwilling to concede to consensus, but they seem to be genuinely here to build an encyclopedia and lobbied hard to have their editing privileges restored. Especially considering that I rose the matter with admins who looked into Logosx127's editing history and found no serious misconduct, I'm inclined against any sanctions at this time. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 18:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Well, after reading these observations, I have to admit that I would like to not be inclined against any sanctions either at this time. From seeing others' input here, I see that it is merely zeal, even though it seems to be coming off also as hardcore zealotry. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 21:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::@[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] what might be an alternative if they continue to push the edit warring limit however and is unwilling to concede to consensus? - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 23:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Your comments are contradictory. Initially you said there is no consensus, now you are claiming that there is. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 00:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::If there is a consensus, it's that no one here agrees with you, and I will '''not''' engage in another edit war with you on [[Oriental Orthodox Churches]]. This is becoming enough, and I am beginning to wonder again if you are here to contribute in peace or war with others? - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::If there is also a consensus, it is that on the lists of Christian denominations by category and membership, no one desires to remove the Eastern Catholic Churches completely by your measured understanding. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::@[[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]], @[[User:IgnatiusofLondon|IgnatiusofLondon]], and @[[User:Smdjcl|Smdjcl]], I am growing tired of this continually being dragged. It came to the point of me putting a warning notice on their talk page, but I reverted and recanted publishing it because it would have done no good. Now, they have come on my talk page copying what I did. I reverse my request of no sanctions, and request a hammer. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 15:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::You have been continuously disregarding the article talk page and the reliable sources at [[Oriental Orthodox churches]]. Now you are disregarding your own words and is edit warring by removing sourced content. At this point I must certainly respond to this mocking {{tq|wonder again if you are here to contribute in peace or war with others?}}: Well I am not here to war, my policy is [[WP:NPOV]]. Some editors tend to attack me when they believe I am a threat to their POV. In the specific case of Eastern Catholic Churches, it is their catholic pov. I find it very ridiculous considering the fact I am myself a Catholic too. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 16:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::Given the edit warring going on right now, I'd say you both need blocked from editing the article for a while, and need to hash it out on the Talk page. [[WP:DRR|Follow the Dispute Resolution]] process.<br /> :::::::::::That said, Logosx, templating in retaliation is not a good idea per [[WP:POINT]]. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 18:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::I am withholding myself from any contribution regarding this, because while they might not care, I do care that I am not blocked and would like to exemplify the character of one who doesn't desire a blocking, @[[User:HandThatFeeds|HandThatFeeds]]. I do however choose to ignore their retaliatory report, when they could have easily been reported for edit warring before, but again, I digress as I refuse to have that permanent record on my account. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::Also, in my own defense, I withheld responding on the talk page because it seemed that you, @[[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]], did not understand that the source was not removed whatsoever, as you have disregarded it seems before with other discussions which became prolonged. The information was restored back to its form before any of these issues ensued. The information in the versions has been sourced prior to your contribution, and then properly sourced thereafter. I am now more confused than ever. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::Well, must be inevitable anyway since they opted to report me at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] after all of this. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::Wait a minute? Isn't there a discrepancy with that edit warring report? I reverted them 3 times on that article today, once on yesterday (the 27th), and then twice on the 24th? I did not go beyond the 3RR warning. Oh well, as I said, I'm not trying to take any bait and be blocked by responding to retaliation and as others stated, zealotry (not me, though later affirming). - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 19:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::::Edit warring does not specifically require violating [[WP:3RR]]. And frankly, Logosx reporting that while there's an ongoing discussion here smacks of [[WP:FORUMSHOP]]. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 20:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::::Fair enough. Thanks for enlightening me lol. - [[User:TheLionHasSeen|TheLionHasSeen]] ([[User talk:TheLionHasSeen|talk]]) 20:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::::There is no forum shopping here. It is related to a different issue altogether. Here we are discussing about the dispute at the Eastern Catholic Churches and related articles and there is no edit warring in this case. I have purposefully distanced myself from editting articles in this case. I have been mostly editting only in the talk pages for a while. But there, at Oriental Orthodox churches, it is a totally different scenario. Lion is disregarding the talk page and opinion of other users and is actively edit warring. In my report, there is a reference to this report too. Meanwhile I have temporarily stopped editting in that particular article too as I am fed up of this. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 23:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::::::It's the same issue, you and LionHasSeen in an editing dispute. Hence forum shopping. It should've been handled here, rather than splitting up the admin actions. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}Logosx127, your behavior across multiple articles and discussions has been an issue. Not to a degree that merits a block or any formal sanction, but just that you should probably avoid pushing the edit warring limit, avoid forum shopping (this is the second time recently), and be ''far'' more willing to concede to consensuses you don't like. You're making good contributions in other contexts, though, and your new article on the Indian Christian schism deserves high praise. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 03:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :If I were to edit war, I wouldn't have any time left to do anything constructive. But I've been distancing myself from disputed articles. It's not because of any change of mind but I really don't have much time to waste in reverting back and forth and I find it ridiculous to do so. [[User:Logosx127|Logosx127]] ([[User talk:Logosx127|talk]]) 07:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Possible content ownership at [[List of X-Men members]] page ==<br /> I joined Wikipedia in mid-March 2024 and started editing [[X-Men]] related pages yesterday and participating in recent discussion some of those pages and noticed so many ongoing discussions (also not archived) in [[Talk:List of X-Men members|List of X-Men members talk page]]. I read last two talk pages of it, which made me suspicious of [[Wikipedia:Ownership of content|ownership of content]] of the [[List of X-Men members]] page by @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]]. Then I read last 500 edits of said page and made this report. I took me 1 day to make this report. I am new here and it is not my intention to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|Personal attack]] by mentioning so many users including @Hotwiki, just so you all don't feel that way. So below are 7 points of my report.<br /> * '''1:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:RS]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] sometimes asks for references but sometimes he himself don't provide a reference. Also one time he called a reliable secondary source moot while doing this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213677279] on the basis of ''&quot;This was already discussed before in the talk page, so that reference is moot. As for Fall of X, there's not a reference given to that issue.&quot;'' but you can search that that not any reference is declared moot in any discussion in [[Talk:List of X-Men members]]. He reverted the edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1167384151] done by @[[User:Tomahawk1221|Tomahawk1221]] on the basis of ''&quot;Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source''&quot;. He reverted the edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1168505738][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1168631372] having the same information (some more addition) done by @[[User:Ringardiumleviossa|Ringardiumleviossa]] and @[[User:Lipshiz|Lipshiz]] on the basis of ''&quot;Unreferenced, not providing a reliable source&quot;''. But when some of the information were removed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210006942] by @[[User:Sewnbegun|Sewnbegun]] on the basis of ''&quot;Removing unreferenced content&quot;'', he reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210009006] them on the basis of ''&quot;Restored, I've read those issues before, and they do infact became trainees in those issues since they were working aside the X-Men in a field mission.&quot;'' I don't get why many editors need reference as per [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] for adding same information but one editor don't. That resulted to @Hotwiki making disruptive edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1210042724] on the basis of ''&quot;these are unreferenced as well, we aren't going to cherry pick which unreferenced material to stay here here right?&quot;'' '''Also''', when several secondary sources were added on the basis [[WP:RS]] - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211422889&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1] on the basis of ''No there's NO need to add Multiple references in a single info, if there's already a VALID/reliable reference posted''.<br /> ** '''1.2:''' Reliable sources were finally provided regarding the above mentioned information in these edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1169349294] by @[[User:Sookenon|Sookenon]].<br /> * '''2:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[MOS:GRAMMAR]]) Another of the authoritative attitude is seen during simple changes like fixing basic grammar/grammatical errors or expanding sentences. He reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1192149858] an edit done by @[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] to the previous version. Another similar edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211375774] (on the basis of ''&quot;Full stop is unnecessary because they are just words and not full sentence.&quot;'') was reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211376225] by @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] on the basis of ''&quot;its fine to add a period in table descriptions, especially the other descriptions have a period in them. We aren't to edit war with these simple changes, are we?&quot;''. Lastly, he kept reverting[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212819056][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212819769][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212819910][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212820201] changes regarding some sentences in [[List of X-Men members#Substitute X-Men teams|Subtitute X-Men teams section]] and only stopped until these edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212822711][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212823378] were made on the basis of ''&quot;Fixing basic grammatical errors, double check before making any edits to it&quot;'' and ''&quot;Adding extra and suitable information won't hurt (Like the big ones added in the X-Force and X-Club)&quot;'' respectively.<br /> * '''3:''' ([[WP:OWN]]) One of the most interesting edit was done here[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1205235066] by @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] on the basis of ''&quot;No need to state the obvious&quot;''. He later himself made an edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212753131] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of ''&quot;fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as &quot;Muir Island X-Men&quot; thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute&quot;''.<br /> * '''4:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:CON]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] made this edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1208905355] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of ''&quot;Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well&quot;'' but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding [[Talk:List of X-Men members#Current members of the X-Men|current members of X-Men]] at that time.<br /> * '''5:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:OVERCITE]]) An IP user added[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211171452] months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] reverted the edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211174817] on the basis of ''&quot;Not all of those months are referenced.&quot;'' I thought [[List of X-Men members]] is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211369903] of numerous primary sources in [[List of X-Men members|that page]], which verge of [[Wikipedia:Citation overkill|citation overkill]].<br /> * '''6:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:RS]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] agreed to one thing from above point that List of X-Men members page is not the list of names of members of X-Men when @[[User:Sewnbegun|Sewnbegun]] added[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212720670][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212720997][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212721825] references to full names. You can clearly see that many of the names just had references added but some had changes made to them on the basis of those sources. Eventually those changes were also reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1212752207] whole by him on the basis of ''&quot;Again, you don't really need to add a reference to every single name, especially those who have a Wikipedia article. This is a list of X-Men members. Not list of names of X-Men characters&quot;''. The question also arises why reverting those name which are clearly well sourced? because in fact these &quot;sourced reverted names&quot; were the only names not picked by from [[Talk:List of X-Men members#Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members.|Proposal to change a lot of things in the list of X-Men members.]] which was in consensus - You can confirm it by checking these edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216709][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216790][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216976][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217413][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217684][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217918][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206218163][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219033][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219249][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220100][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220556][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220778][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220968][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221082][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221187] if you have time.<br /> * '''7:''' ([[WP:OWN]], [[WP:CON]]) @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] also reverted the same edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215149738][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215230551] regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of ''&quot;Revert unnecessary changing of order&quot;'' and ''&quot;Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes.&quot;'' This edit war between him and @[[User:Sewnbegun|Sewnbegun]] resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, [[Talk:List of X-Men members#Drastically changing the order of the members|Drastically changing the order of the members]]. In the same discussion I had my opinion of ''This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic.'' While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#List formats|Manual of Style/Comics]] and [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Regarding some orders|answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun]]. The change was made[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215514179] but it was again reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215515294] on the basis of ''&quot;Still no talkpage consensus&quot;'' but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against).<br /> ** '''7.2:''' I wasn't going to mention above point since I think editors should wait for few days before making changes &quot;as per talk page&quot;, but I did it to show you the more of the authoritative attitudes of [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] as the same situation as above happened in this discussion [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer]]. 2 were in favour (@[[User:Storm1221|Storm1221]] and @Hotwiki) and 1 against ([[User:ToshiroIto7|ToshiroIto7]]). &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Teedbunny|contribs]]) 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;<br /> <br /> :You ''must'' notify users you are reporting on. Says so at the top of the page. &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I already did. Thank you! [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Gone in 60 seconds, eh? ;) &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::See it again please. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Uh, I already did. Therefore [[Gone in 60 Seconds (2000 film)|the reference]]. ;) &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I still don't understand the reference but should I notify all the users mentioned or the only user reported on? [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Editors whose conduct is being discussed here should be notified of such. [[User:Remsense|&lt;span style=&quot;border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff&quot;&gt;'''Remsense'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Remsense|&lt;span lang=&quot;zh&quot; style=&quot;border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000&quot;&gt;诉&lt;/span&gt;]] 15:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Let me mention that There were TWO editors who were making drastic changes in the article. [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]] and [[User:Sewnbegun]]. Both are now blocked due to sockpuppetry and apparently they are connected. There's recently unusual activity from IP users who are making a ton of changes. These are already discussed in the talkpage of the article. I'm surprised that Teedbunny is bringing this up now? I'm not the one who reverted your most recent edit in the article. And Sewnbegun who I reported for sockpuppetry yesterday, is finally blocked today. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 15:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Also please read [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ringardiumleviossa]] and this is how [[User:Sewnbegun]] was blocked. How am I taking ownership of the article, when clearly [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]], [[User:Sewnbegun]] and a bunch of IP users making their 1st edit on Wikipedia, in the same article - was/were trying to manipulate the outcome of the article by jumping through different Ips/accounts. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::Also can Teedbunny simplify what am I being accused here. Yes I reverted edits that were unreferenced. But what unreferenced material in the article did I include in the article?From February to March 2024, there were a lot of drastic changes coming from two editors (who are both apparently involved in a sockpuppetry). There were making so many drastic changes and I've tried my best to discuss everything in the talk page. When I added &quot;names&quot; in the article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216709][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216790][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216884][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206216976][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217413][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217684][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206217918][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206218163][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219033][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206219249][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220100][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220556][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220778][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206220968][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221082][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1206221187]) it was from the article proposal of [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]] in the talk page or it was already in the article, I simply repeated names for consistency as several characters are mentioned more than twice. I don't recall anyone from the article, calling me out for unreferenced edits? [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::As for #5 (''An IP user added months in the page which was based on consensus on the talk page and yet @Hotwiki reverted the edit on the basis of &quot;Not all of those months are referenced.&quot; I thought List of X-Men members is the list of X-Men, not the list of name of X-Men or joining months of X-Men. This resulted to addition of numerous primary sources in that page, which verge of citation overkill''). I asked for references for the months, simply because there were too many months being added, and I was unsure, if those months were accurate anyway. At that time, the article was tagged at the top of the article, for needing more sources. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::As for #7. ''( @Hotwiki also reverted the same edits regarding implementation of chorological and alphabetical order respectively on the basis of &quot;Revert unnecessary changing of order&quot; and &quot;Once again, I disagree, you can use the talkpage for a consensus. This article is a STABLE article. That order has been like that for YEARS, any major changes should be discussed (including order of the members) in the talk page especially when there's different opinions when it comes to those said changes.&quot; This edit war between him and @Sewnbegun resulted in talk discussion in that article's talk page, Drastically changing the order of the members. In the same discussion I had my opinion of This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic. While there also things in favour this implementation like - list formats in Manual of Style/Comics and answer from teahouse for question asked by Sewnbegun. The change was made[290] but it was again reverted[291] on the basis of &quot;Still no talkpage consensus&quot; but consensus was there (2 in favour and 1 against)''. How is there already a consensus? beside me and Sewnbegun. The only editor that made another comment in the talkpage was Teedbunny. The IP user who originally made the changed - is a suspected sockpuppetry that is connected to Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun. I was waiting for more editors to make a comment, (not just one editor). Sewnbegun reverted it again right after Teedbunny posted a comment, like as if Teedbunny made a consensus for the article. And I just didn't see it as a consensus yet.[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::As for #4 (''4: @Hotwiki made this edit[264] on on 19 February 2024 on the basis of &quot;Per talkpage, if you are gonna bold characters indicating they are currently member of the X-Men, please add a reference as well&quot; but in fact there was no consensus regarding bolding current members of X-Men at that time.''). What is the problem with that? Plenty of different editors in the past, have been bolding name of characters indicating that they are current members of the X-Men- without leaving a reference/citation for verification. I even addressed about this in the talkpage in its own section.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=1207714300&amp;oldid=1207710556] [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 16:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::As for 3 (''One of the most interesting edit was done here[263] by @Hotwiki on the basis of &quot;No need to state the obvious&quot;. He later himself made an edit[264] where there were clearly no need to state obvious on the basis of &quot;fixed, these are called substitute teams of the X-Men. If they are billed by Marvel Comics as &quot;Muir Island X-Men&quot; thats because they were the X-Men , despite not being the main team and just being a substitute&quot;.'') I don't see the issue of me adding the X-Men in section titles, and it was a non-issue if I remember correctly. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::::Also, one more thing. [[List of X-Men members]] is now protected from persistent sockpuppetry until April 26, 2024. For those who are just seeing this, I hope you are aware of the sockpuppetry going on in that article in the last two months. I've done my best to cooperate with [[User:Ringardiumleviossa]] and [[User:Sewnbegun]] via talkpage of that article, even if both of them turned out to be the same person, that was also jumping through several IPs, in order to manipulate the outcome of that article. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 17:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::::{{Ping|Teedbunny}} how am I being called out here in ANI, yet you didn't mention the sockpuppetry suspicions towards {{ping|Sewnbegun}} especially if you read the talkpage of that article. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::As for 7, I stated it I think editors should wait for some more to get more editors to respond. You said &quot;'' I just didn't see it as a consensus yet&quot;'' because only two voted for it and one, who were you didn't. I must also point out why you didn't any see any consensus over [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer]] here when clearly there were two in favour (including you) and 1 against? Reverts[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;diffonly=1&amp;oldid=1173010598][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1173148124&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1201825159&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1] were kept being done as per [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|this discussion]]. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::Not all your reverts were unreferenced. There were many names which were perfectly sourced that were removed. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::I hope you don't ignore the fact that in the last two months I was dealing with 2 registered editors (Ringardiumleviossa/Sewnbegun) and several IP users involved with sockpuppetry, in that 1 article. If you have read the entire talk page, you would know I have tried my best to keep my cool and worked with those editors as much as I could, especially with Sewnbegun despite my suspicions of them being the same person which turned out to be right. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 18:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::Also may I add, Sewnbegun was adding &quot;references&quot; to content that wasn't being challenged/questioned in the first place. No one was asking in that article for the name of Professor X, to be added by reference as his name was already in the article for more than ten years. As I explained in that article, a reference for the date/issue of membership was already enough. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::I am talking about the changes based on sources like for example see Magneto's name. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::::::Yes, I also noticed that and prepared another report on him, but beat me ahead by doing sockpuppet investigation yesterday. I also noticed the above points I mentioned in this report regarding you too. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::::::Also, you could have easily adressed this in the talkpage of that article or in my talkpage first, rather directly going to ANI. I haven't encountered you directly in the past, so this ANI report is comingoff as a surprise. [[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] ([[User talk:Hotwiki|talk]]) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Is it just me, or is [[List of X-Men members|that article]] a prime example of why [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]] are rules? Looking through the talk page, I see a great deal of debating what constitutes a [[No true Scotsman|real]] X-men member. If reliable secondary sources verify, then the debate could be settled by citing them. If no such sources exist, I question how such a list fits in with the rest of Wikipedia. <br /> ::In any case, while I agree that Hotwiki can come off as having slight [[WP:OWN]] leanings, it doesn't seem to rise to the level of sanction, and I also note that I cannot find a discussion from Teedbunny attempting to address this on Hotwiki's talk page. Also, this [[WP:WALLOFTEXT|very long]] report doesn't make it easy to see at-a-glance what policies or guidelines Hotwiki is alleged to have broken, other than [[WP:OWN]], which seems to me to be a weak claim. Rather, everyone seems to be operating in [[WP:AGF|good faith]], and so this situation seems like a good candidate for [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], not administrative intervention. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 18:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]], please just read the last point (7 and 7.2) carefully. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 18:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Having reread both 7 and 7.2, I continue to see no wrongdoing. There doesn't seem to be a consensus; there's Hotwiki who discussed at length their opinion, a sockpuppeteer whose opinion is rightly discounted, and you with a single comment. Attempting to make the change once with ''per talk page'' is well within [[WP:BRD]]. Hotwiki reverting is likewise part of BRD. Frankly, even if there was a 2-on-1 split of opinions, [[WP:NOTVOTE|consensus is not a vote count]]. If there's still disagreement, perhaps posting a neutrally worded request to a related wikiproject would get a broader base of opinions. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 18:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I know this report is long which was the Main reason why I reported this to administrators.<br /> :::::* Along with [[WP:OWN]] @[[User:Hotwiki|Hotwiki]] has also possibly broken these:<br /> :::::** [[WP:RS]] for point '''1'''.<br /> :::::*** Also, when several secondary sources were added on the basis [[WP:RS]] - primary source should be supported by secondary sources, since this page is dominated by primary (not indpendent) sources. They were kept reverted[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1211422889&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1].<br /> :::::** [[MOS:GRAMMAR]] for point '''2'''.<br /> :::::** [[WP:CON]] for points '''4''' (no consensus at that time at all but still edits were made) and '''7'''.<br /> :::::*** While for point 7 why reverts[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;diffonly=1&amp;oldid=1173010598][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1173148124&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1][https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1201825159&amp;title=List_of_X-Men_members&amp;diffonly=1] were made on the basis of [[Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 5#Dark X-Men (2023) &amp; Woofer|this discussion]] even if there was a 2-on-1 split of opinions?<br /> :::::** [[WP:OWN]] leading indirect [[WP:OVERCITE]] for point '''5''' which too only primary sources (detailed reason is given above).<br /> :::::[[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 19:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I'm wondering why you're expending so much effort on digging up months-old edits when you could try talking it out with Hotwiki. In any case, responding to your points... <br /> ::::::* Point 1: While I agree this shows Hotwiki leaning towards OWN behavior, I disagree that this represents a serious breach of [[WP:RS]]. Sometimes people fail to include a source. It happens. I've done it. Tag it and move on. The example you gave directly above likewise seems to be ''avoiding'' the [[WP:OVERCITE]] you mention later on. Maybe it'd be better with two references, maybe not, but that's a content dispute, not a behavioral one. <br /> ::::::* Point 2: MOS:GRAMMAR: Hotwiki's edits there seem to me to ''support'' the MOS, and were therefore justified. <br /> ::::::* Point 4: That's not violating consensus. I read that as Hotwiki pointing to the talk page for their reasoning. Again, part of [[WP:BRD]].<br /> ::::::* Point 5: I see no consensus on the talk page for the inclusion of all those sources. And again, I'm curious what you're looking for: In Point 1, you criticize Hotwiki for removing unnecessary material, but here you object to them leading to more references. I'd be okay with either, but you can't have it both ways. <br /> ::::::* Point 7: Not being Hotiwki, I won't speculate as to ''why'' the reverts were made. I will say that, glancing over that discussion, there were indeed 3 editors in good standing, with 2 opposed, 1 in favor of inclusion. Furthermore, Hotwiki alluded to [[WP:NODEADLINE]], which is a policy-based argument of &quot;Let's wait and see before we add it.&quot; I may be misunderstanding (this isn't my field) but even if that ''was'' against consensus, one violation ''seven months'' ago does not demonstrate ongoing disruption. <br /> ::::::Teedbunny, I'll be frank. In my view, there is no demonstration of any ongoing disruption. I strongly recommend you try ''talking'' to Hotwiki if their behavior is suboptimal, or otherwise following [[WP:DR]]. I also submit that it will be far easier than continuing this thread. Your reliance on tenuous or dated evidence makes this seem more like a grudge, which could lead to a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] if it continues. You seem passionate about this topic, so I hope you'll direct your energies to improving the encyclopedia; spending them at ANI would not seem to be be a productive use of your time. I've said enough in this thread, and will bow out and await other editors' input. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thanks, I will take in consideration in the future. [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : I'd have to second {{np|EducatedRedneck}} that this doesn't seem to be an urgent issue immediately requiring administrator intervention. [[User:OverlordQ|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#171788;font-weight:bold&quot;&gt;Q&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:OverlordQ|T]] [[Special:Contributions/OverlordQ|C]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Issues should be discussed on the talk page before they're brought to ANI. This page isn't for disagreements on sourcing or reverts you don't like. The exception is that it ''is'' disruptive to revert if your only reason is that the previous version is &quot;[[WP:STABLE|stable]]&quot; or that someone [[WP:DRNC|didn't ask for consensus in advance]]. Removing unreferenced content is allowed, and best practice is not to add anything unless it's accompanied by a secondary source. Sock edits can always be reverted without question after the editor is conclusively determined to be a sock, although they're no longer subject to indiscriminate reverting if another editor restores the edit. Finally, the entries should ''not'' be based on comic book references per [[WP:PRIMARY]] policy #5: {{tq|Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.}} Editing to preserve a policy violation can be disruptive, but it should be discussed before we call it disruptive. I second everything that EducatedRedneck said in their initial response above. This should probably be closed so the issue can be discussed on the talk page, and this doesn't need to be an ANI complaint unless discussion fails and disruptive behaviors continue afterward. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#324717&quot;&gt;The&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#45631f&quot;&gt;big&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#547826&quot;&gt;ugly&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#68942f&quot;&gt;alien&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|&lt;span style=&quot;color:sienna&quot;&gt;talk&lt;/span&gt;]]) 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]], do the [[List of X-Men members|list of X-Men members]] need more reliable secondary sources? [[User:Teedbunny|Teedbunny]] ([[User talk:Teedbunny|talk]]) 15:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Sca]]'s jokes on [[WP:FPC]] ==<br /> {{atop<br /> | status = <br /> | result = 36 hours in, and no consensus for anything, really, has emerged. Except, perhaps, that {{u|FatCat96}} could be a mite less hasty with the ANI button and that {{u|Cremastra}}'s dark day has not yet dawned. {{nac}} [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;——Serial Number 54129&lt;/span&gt;]] 13:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I suggest that [[User:Sca|Sca]] be topic banned from [[WP:Featured picture candidates]]. Sca has been making jokes on FPC instead of using it as a place to usefully collaborate with others. This is not a new practice, he has been doing it for several years, and despite being banned from [[WP:ITN/C]] twice for the same reason, he persists. Some examples include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/African_buffalo_with_oxpecker_(2)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215670769 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/African_buffalo_with_oxpecker&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=942747418 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/John_Cage&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214531087 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Happy_Chandler&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1184458215 here]. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :OK, I've deleted '''two''' &lt;small&gt;small&lt;/small&gt; humorous comments on nominations (''not'' those of ''FatCat69'') currently listed at [[WP:FPC]], leaving '''11''' serious and constructive comments of mine. I suppose user ''FatCat69'' might feel ill-disposed toward me because of (serious) critical comments I've posted about a few of his nominations, and I suggest that he and I agree not to engage in any continuing disputation, but seek to cooperate from now on. (Further, I would agree to a &quot;no contact&quot; direction covering the two of us.) -- [[User:Sca|Sca]] ([[User talk:Sca|talk]]) 20:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I agree. I really don’t mind the criticism. After all, ''instructive'' criticism is how things get done. That said, it’s the jokes that bother me, I don’t think that FPC (and other areas) is the right place for joking, as it can sometimes come off as a bit disrespectful. I usually don’t mind humor, as long as it’s kept respectful and in the right place and time. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Personally I think the jokes are funny. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 21:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support''' no contact as this report seems unnecessary and is likely indicative of larger beef. [[User:LegalSmeagolian|LegalSmeagolian]] ([[User talk:LegalSmeagolian|talk]]) 20:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : '''Comment''' A German with a sense of humor, and an American without. The world has gone mad, I tell you, MAD! &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 20:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :OP, did you make any attempt to discuss your concerns with Sca? It appears that you skipped that step and jumped directly to proposing a tban. [[User:Lepricavark|L&lt;small&gt;EPRICAVARK&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;]]) 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I don't know if a FPC topic ban is needed yet, but it is disappointing that Sca appears to be repeating at another Main Page venue the same kind of behavior that got them partially blocked from [[WP:ITN/C]]. It certainly would not help any future appeal of that sanction. They previously promised to regard ITN as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive349#Appeal_of_partial_block_on_Sca &quot;serious business, not a venue for jokes or personal comments&quot;]; perhaps they should take the same attitude towards FPC as well. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 00:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I’ve got to be honest, but it’s because of Sca’s persistent nasty behavior that I have pondered on the concept of no longer contributing to FPC. It’s not just my nominations that he posts snarky comments on, it’s everyone. Very seldomly does he post actually useful comments. Unless he can get his act together, I feel that FPC would be a much better and more welcoming place without him. I also feel that the other users in this conversation are wholly ignoring the fact that Sca was blocked from ITN ''twice'' for this type of behavior. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 10:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I get that they are not treating the nominations with the seriousness you'd like to see, but it seems extreme to describe that as {{tq|persistent nasty behavior}}, as it seems pretty mild. Like others, I'm wondering why you didn't raise this with them at their talkpage instead of going straight to ANI. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 15:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::FatCat96 did raise the issue with them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASca&amp;diff=1196671107&amp;oldid=1195156259 here on January 18] but was immediately [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sca&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1196671107 reverted by Sca]. A less confrontational tone from FatCat may have had more success, perhaps. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 15:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Yeah, that wasn't an attempt to discuss so much as it was a belligerent ultimatum. OP should have tried a more collegial approach. [[User:Lepricavark|L&lt;small&gt;EPRICAVARK&lt;/small&gt;]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark#top|&lt;small&gt;talk&lt;/small&gt;]]) 17:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Thanks, I chuckled at a few of these. If users get blocked ''for making harmless jokes'', it's dark day for Wikipedia. [[User:Cremastra|🌺 Cremastra ]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 20:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I think you should read [[WP:Humor]]. It states:<br /> ::* {{tq|Humor is sometimes misinterpreted}}<br /> ::* {{tq|Irresponsible humor damages Wikipedia's credibility}}<br /> ::* {{tq|Not everyone is looking for humor}}<br /> ::* {{tq|What one may find hilarious, another may find offensive}}<br /> ::I believe that Sca's jokes fall into several of these categories. These may not be true for everyone, but one should certainly remain mindful of these (which I think it's pretty obvious Sca does not) when commenting these &quot;humorous&quot; comments. One could easily misinterpret Sca's &quot;humorous&quot; comments as hateful, rude, or offensive. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 05:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::[[WP:HUMOUR]] is an essay, and an absurdly stringent one at that. [[User:Cremastra|🌺 Cremastra ]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 12:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I don’t know… I think it makes some pretty valid points. [[User:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:gothic; border-radius:10em; background-color:black; color:orange;&quot;&gt;🐱'''''FatCat96'''''🐱&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:FatCat96|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Gothic;font-size:small;color:orange&quot;&gt;'''''Chat with Cat'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] 12:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == [[User:Mann Mann]]'s vandalism on [[Central Asia]] ==<br /> <br /> I gave Mann Mann his first warning in edit history, second warning in my own user chat history, third warning on his own page. I noticed an entry that said Central Asia were predominantly Iranian before the 10th century. In the reference, this was a claim made by Ferdowsi in Shahnameh and only valid south of Amu Darya(disputed if it is even in Central Asia.) So I fixed that. That's the reference keeps trying to revert back to, it is from Ferdowsi in the reference and only refers to south of Amu Darya, not ALL of Central Asia. I added my own contributions towards Botai Culture and Tiele people. Mann Mann just keeps vandalizing ALL of my well-referenced edits by reverting. He should be at least banned from [[Central Asia]] and other related pages.<br /> [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 19:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This appears to be a content dispute, see the discussion on the Help Desk. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Mann_Mann_keeps_vandalizing_my_edits_in_Central_Asia._What_to_do?] TheLastUbykh has already been asked to read [[WP:VANDAL]], and to '''discuss the matter on the article talk page''', apparently to no effect. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 20:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I already started a talk in regarding that source by Ferdowsi. That should resolve that part. <br /> ::This is also about Mann Mann's vandalism of my other edits in that page. He down righted deleted my contributions in regarding Botai Culture and Tiele. <br /> ::&quot;The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. &quot; [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], you started a discussion (not a good faith discussion, but at least you started one) at [[Talk:Central Asia]], then immediately restored the disputed content, posted at Help Desk, posted a warning at [[User talk:Mann Mann]], then opened this thread, as well as repeating it at [[WP:AIV]] and [[User talk: Michael D. Turnbull]]. Mann Mann hasn't even edited since you started the discussion on the article talk page; you need to wait and give other editors time to respond before escalating matters so rapidly. (By the way, &quot;warnings&quot; in edit summaries are meaningless.) [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Look, I just did what he did. He didn't start a talk in regarding my edits either.<br /> ::And unlike him, I am new to this and went to help desk to proceed. I don't see how that's not in good faith. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], wait for Mann Mann to respond at the article talk page and work out the content dispute there. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], you also failed to notify Mann Mann of this discussion. Please go to the top of this page, read the large banner, and follow its instructions. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I did leave a message to his username talk page. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]], '''read the red banner at the top of the page. Follow those instructions.''' [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::And I did that after reading your first post. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 20:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::When you said you'd left a message on Mann Mann's talk page, you had, but not the proper ANI notification. You posted that to their talk page at the same time that I repeated the statement about the instructions at the top of the page. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{nacc}} The OP had discussed this topic earlier at [[Wikipedia:Help desk#Mann Mann keeps vandalizing my edits in Central Asia. What to do?|the help desk]], and I haven't been impressed with how they've been navigating the problem. What started off as a content dispute over the reliability of some sources soon devolved into an accusation of [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] against Mann Mann, but looking at some of the target's relevant edits, such as [[Special:Diff/1215606808|this one]] as well as [[Special:Diff/1215695930|this one]], they were concerned about possible [[WP:OR|original research]] and other policy contraventions, something that is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia. —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::there is no original research, shahnameh by ferdowsi is the original historical document for the claim. keep going back to references between arabic and western researchers after 10th century, it keeps going back to this 'historical' document. the references they use, goes back to those same arabic and western researchers with this claim of Central Asia being Iranian majority. What we discuss is that Iranian languages eventually replaced Chinese as the franca lingua due to trade. And that they were Iranian-speaking, not Iranian majority besides lands south of Amu Darya, which I included in my edit that would include Sogdians.<br /> ::this was an easy discussion on a classroom setting but I don't have my phd(or a phd) to easily recognize to all these sources. so the time strain keeps getting bigger than the scope I initially thought it would be so I am questioning my commitment level at this point. I might add those to the talk page and wash my own hands off until someone nerdier comes along. <br /> ::anyways, there is no reason still for the removal of my Botai and Tiele contributions. that I considered a vandalism. he didn't just dispute those parts but removed my contributions unrelated to Ferdowsi. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 10:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Wikipedia is based on [[WP:RS]], not our own conclusions. You added info under citations that did not support it. This is still [[WP:OR]] / [[WP:SYNTH]]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 12:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::there is no personal conclusions, only a question of use of primary or secondary sources. secondary resources in academia, especially when those secondary resources use references that were secondary resources themselves from a time with less academic integrity. <br /> ::::again, this claim goes back to shahnameh, through following the references and going back to other articles and books published in 19th and 20th century that use shahnameh as a reference to try to push this claim. <br /> ::::[[shahnameh]] is the primary source. the main historical document of this long-standing and wrong claim, that has no prior basis before 10th century and contradicts earlier Chinese historical records that are also primary sources. period. this is what we study in our eastern asian studies departments. it is &quot;paris is the capital of France&quot; in the current mainstream Academic consensus. [[User:TheLastUbykh|TheLastUbykh]] ([[User talk:TheLastUbykh|talk]]) 12:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::You're proving my point. Please read [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]]. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 13:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> '''Comment''' Besides personal attacks, TheLastUbykh is also misusing sources per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Central_Asia#Mann_Mann_is_vandalizing_my_edits_in_regarding_Botai_Culture_and_Tiele_in_this_page.]. You don't need to know the Wiki rules to know that misusing sources is bad. [[WP:OUCH]]? --[[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> My reverts on [[Central Asia]] were justified. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215606808 the first revert], I restored the most clean/acceptable revision before the mess (including your edits). I did not restore my revision and I even restored the correct contribution that I reverted.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215263441][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215607017] In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215695930 the second revert], my mistake was not writing a better edit summary to convince you taking your concerns to [[Talk:Central Asia]], but the revert itself was the right decision. On the other hand, you started edit warring[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215714757] and launched a crusade/quest by calling me vandal.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215707854][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215714192][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215723939] You even used log-in/log-out method (editing as IP) to push your edits[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Asia&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215492100] and targeting me.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215706954] Was I harsh? Maybe. But your [[Special:Contributions/TheLastUbykh|contributions]] show some kind of [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. Also, your report and your comments are just [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. Yeah, I was a vandal since August 2012[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&amp;page=User%3AMann+Mann] that you discovered me. --[[User:Mann Mann|Mann Mann]] ([[User talk:Mann Mann|talk]]) 16:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Anyway, I don't edit/patrol Central Asia for a while because I'm not interested in working with [[Talk:Central Asia#Mann Mann is vandalizing my edits in regarding Botai Culture and Tiele in this page.|someone who doesn't even know how to open a discussion without harassment and personal attack]]. I let other editors reach a consensus. --[[User:Mann Mann|Mann Mann]] ([[User talk:Mann Mann|talk]]) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I'm very concerned that TheLastUbykh is trying to justify their edits, which means they will likely do it again, and thus get reported to ANI again. In these type of topics, we commonly have new users who make some sort of disruption and get blocked. [[User:HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] ([[User talk:HistoryofIran|talk]]) 15:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == NewImpartial - BLP discussion touching GENSEX ==<br /> <br /> I wanted to ask whether [[User:Newimpartial]] exceeded their [[WP:RESTRICT|editing restriction]] by participating in a BLPN discussion about Tim Hunt's alleged sexism or sexist comments about women in science and making more than two comments per day.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215544653][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215660109][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215672946][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215683633] This particular controversy would seem to fall under GENSEX as raised earlier at ANI by another user.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215377951] [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Addendum: I'm missing a diff [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215740145] [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 03:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Your last diff comes more than 24 hours after your first diff, though. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 03:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yes, but within 24 hours of the others. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 03:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{tq|they may however reply to questions provided the answer is reasonably short and they may add very brief clarifications of their own comments}}<br /> :Your links appear to be specifically two comments left in that discussion. And then two short replies to responses from others to those original comments. That appears to be perfectly within the wording of their editing restriction. [[User:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: dimgrey;&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;seren&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::What about the GENSEX topic ban, a separate restriction in itself? [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 02:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Wasn't that GENSEX ban regarding LGBT topics, particularly transgender topics and gender? Was it really meant to cover anything involving women and sexism in addition? Would that also include literally anything involving women's or men's rights? Feminism? Ect? I don't believe it was meant to be that broad, unless I'm misreading the prior discussion. [[User:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: dimgrey;&quot;&gt;Silver&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Silver seren|&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;seren&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::That's why I asked. [[WP:GENSEX]] expressly references [[Gamergate (harassment campaign)]], which was about sexism in gaming. [[User:Morbidthoughts|Morbidthoughts]] ([[User talk:Morbidthoughts|talk]]) 02:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::So it's...complicated. After doing some digging through the [[WP:ARCA]] archives, I came across a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 82#Clarification_request: GamerGate (March 2015)|GamerGate clarification request from March 2015]] about whether the topic of [[campus rape]] would fall under the then GamerGate discretionary sanctions. After reading the arbiter views from that request, and the two article revisions linked [[Special:PermaLink/1215781924#Tim Hunt|BLPN discussion]] I could see this content dispute plausibly being considered within the GENSEX content area, as it is dealing with remarks that were described as sexist, which would be considered a gender-related dispute.<br /> :::::However, despite the text of GENSEX stating that {{tq|Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people}} are the scope of the sanction, it's not immediately obvious from the four listed clarifications in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case (February_2021)|motion to transfer GamerGate to the GENSEX shell case]], nor my own personal experience editing within the content area that this would be in scope. Two of the clarifications (1 and 3) deal with transgender related disputes, and the other two (2 and 4) deal with disputes relating systemic bias and the [[WT:GGTF|Gender Gap Task Force]], and it's not immediately obvious from skimming the text just how broadly we interpret the term {{tq|gender-related dispute or controversy}}. By and large most of the disruption we see in GENSEX is restricted to content relating to trans and non-binary people and topics, with some spill-over to GamerGate and related articles. The last non-trans, non-GamerGate GENSEX sanction I can quickly spot in [[WP:AELOG]] was the semi-protection of [[Manosphere]] and [[Men Going Their Own Way]] in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#GamerGate_(superseded_by_Gender_and_sexuality)|June and July 2020]] respectively. If other editors agree with my reading of the 2015 clarification request, I'd say that this TBAN violation is a plausibly an accidental one. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 03:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I don't have an opinion on whether this violates any specific editing restriction, but I think it would be odd to say that content related to debates about systemic sexism '''don't''' fall under {{tq|gender-related disputes or controversies}}. Restricting the scope to the four clarifications would seem to open up a pretty big loophole in the topic, even if it's in a subsection that doesn't see a lot of admin action. [[User:CarringtonMist|CarringtonMist]] ([[User talk:CarringtonMist|talk]]) 12:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::&lt;p&gt;I have to agree with CarringtonMist, I didn't participate in any arbcom case and as a non-admin I don't have to be that familiar with the details. But I've always understood that it was decided in the GamerGate arbcom case that because it was primarily about harassment arising due to commentary sexism and portrayal of cis-women in games with criticism over feminism etc; with a less focus on other issues like LGB, race etc and other so called social justice issues, arbcom wanted to ensure that if similar issues cropped up in other areas they would be covered. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I mention cis-women and LGB, because AFAIK at the time there was only very little focus on transgender and non binary characters. So I'm fairly sure the concern was about issues like misogyny, sexism and the portrayal of women etc with the gender related wording and little to do with transgender issues. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Eventually the GamerGate decision was merged with the Sexology one which had dealt with transgender issues since it was decided it would be simpler to deal with them with one DS area. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It does seem to be true there has been little dispute outside of transgender related issues recently, but that applies even when we consider GamerGate until the recent blowup with Sweet Baby. Note there was a recent case which dealt with the restriction on MGTOW [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&amp;diff=1195025878&amp;oldid=1195025792#GalantFan] but outside of that from what I saw in 2023 until this year, the only non transgender related example was 3-5 stuff all to do with Brianna Wu. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also I had a quick look at the comments here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision&amp;oldid=645127421] seem to agree with my view about fears this sort of stuff would spread to other areas. I think the current extreme focus on transgender issues is sort of reflective of the modern world especially US-UK but Sweet Baby shows it's not the only possible area where stuff can happen. While Sweet Baby might be fairly tied to GamerGate, I don't think it's actually that easy to separate these sort of sexism issues even if the particular case of Tim Hunt is maybe somewhat disconnected. However it's the sort of thing where I suspect there could easily be a similar blow up especially if things had been different e.g. more recent, in the US and the person who made the comments had doubled down on them. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 17:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/p&gt;<br /> :::For the record, I looked again at the text of [[WP:GENSEX]] before posting, and didn't see anything relevant to the [[Tim Hunt]] discussion at [[WP:BLPN]]. <br /> :::(Also, I don't know whether {{u|GoodDay}} intended an oblique reference to me by raising his question at ANI, but if he did, that seems to me to be worth discussing.) [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 02:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::The question was for myself. As I was debating on whether or not to get involved in the content being discussed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :If this is considered covered by GENSEX, I propose that rather than sanction NewImpartial we narrow their topic ban to &quot;transgender issues, broadly defined&quot;. To the best of my knowledge, the issues that resulted in the topic ban did not extend beyond that, and I see no reason why they can’t participate in this debate and others like it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support'''. &quot;Transgender issues, broadly defined&quot; is broad enough. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 09:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support''' as well. The edits are plausibly in violation of the &quot;GamerGate part&quot; of GENSEX, but that's also clearly not what NewImpartial's topic ban was actually about. [[User:Endwise|Endwise]] ([[User talk:Endwise|talk]]) 09:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support''' an explicit narrowing of the topic ban as described above. The conduct that warranted the ban was in a specific area, and it doesn't make sense to impose a rule more broad than that. Edit-warring and bludgeoning behavior on articles about trans or anti-trans activists should not disqualify an editor from, e.g., wiki-gnoming edits to biographies of long-dead cis women mathematicians. [[User:XOR&amp;#39;easter|XOR&amp;#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&amp;#39;easter|talk]]) 16:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: '''Support''' narrowing the topic-ban. None of the discussion when the topic-ban was placed touched on any part of the topic area except transgender issues, so a ban that goes beyond that seems punitive. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 05:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose any action''' - I'm not certain if the page-in-question falls under the GenSex area. PS - My question was based on whether or not I wanted to get involved with the topic being discussed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose''', because the whole Tim Hunt discussion on Wikipedia has been a shambles dominated by forum-hopping, unpleasantness, bludgeoning, inability to listen, and attempts to get the other side banned. And to be clear I'm talking about behaviour on both sides of the argument. It has been so unpleasant that I dropped out, for fear of landing up here myself. Regardless of the good or bad motivation of the current ANI, it is vital that ANI is not permitted to become a weapon in a content dispute. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 13:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose''' per Elemimele, I shouldn't have peeked, I am on a break mainly because of this toxic environment. Though I did wonder myself whether perhaps a warning was warranted that this was a violation of the topic ban, albeit inadvertent. As I note above, ANI is being abused as a weapon to remove opposition. Intervention is badly needed to fix this toxic editing before it results in an arbcom case. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 13:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{tq|ANI is being abused as a weapon to remove opposition}} [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_removal_of_NPOV_tag_by_JayBeeEll|Astonishing]]. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 19:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : '''Oppose''' action except for '''Support narrowing of topic ban'''. I voted against imposing this topic ban in the first place but if it's going to exist it should at least be targeted a little more narrowly than ''this''. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Oppose action''' except for '''Support narrowing of topic ban'''. There's enough ambiguity here that if there is a TBAN violation, it's an entirely unintentional one. I also would support narrowing Newimpartial's topic ban to just &quot;transgender issues, broadly construed&quot; as that is more representative of the specific issues raised in the discussion that lead to it being placed. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :It seems pretty clear that participating in a discussion about Tim Hunt's sexism allegations fall squarely within {{tq|Gender-related disputes or controversies}}. That's been the scope of the topic area as far back as the Gamergate arbcom case, which included {{tq|any gender-related dispute or controversy}} as a separate item from Gamergate itself, along with people associated with either of them. There's also a [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 122#Clarification request: Gender and sexuality|2022 ARCA]] initiated by {{u|Sideswipe9th}} that confirms the scope includes non-trans/nonbinary people, and those four numbered points are only there to preserve previous clarifications rather than being the whole scope. That said, I agree it seems plausible that this was a misunderstanding by Newimpartial. Absent any evidence of further violations, or that the edits themselves were disruptive, I don't think any sanction stronger than a reminder/warning is needed. As a side note, if {{u|Newimpartial}} would like to appeal part or all of their sanction, they should make a specific request in it's own discussion thread. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 21:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : I agree with others that this discussion is inside the locus of the CTOP, but also I think Newimpartial's behavior in the discussion has been exemplary and I think that the natural response to this pair of facts is the narrowing of the topic-ban. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support reminder/warning''' at most. '''Oppose narrowing of the topic ban'''. Broadly per the rationale provided by {{noping|The Wordsmith}}, above. Clearly within scope of the topic ban; and reasonably expected to be understood to be so. Unconvinced that skirting the fringes (from the inside) should result in reducing the scope. Behaviour in the linked diffs is verging towards that which resulted in the ban. Not particularly enamoured of the tone nor personal focus of this [[Special:Diff/1215740145|diff]]. But do not believe that the evidence presented warrants sanctions beyond a reminder/warning. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 01:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Hello, Rotary Engine. I have pasted the entirety of the diff you cite into the collapsed section here:<br /> {{Cot|content of diff Rotary Engine linked juat above}}<br /> Thomas B., you haven't produced any support for your opinion that &quot;Hunt is not sexist&quot; beyond your own interpretation of primary source opinions quoted by Fox. That simply isn't a reason to insert any such statment in the article, which appears to be your goal here.<br /> I know you believe that Hunt is not sexist, but that opinion simply is not relevant to article content which must be based on independent, secondary sources to the greatest extent possible. What is more, you insert into your latest comment the [[Gävle goat|straw goat]] question whether Hunt has &quot;hindered any female scientist in her career&quot; - which isn't really relevant to this article or even the controversy, as far as I can tell.<br /> Inserting editors' opinions into article text is a violation of [[WP:NPOV]] and also [[WP:BLP]]. Contrary to the impression some editors seem to hold, BLP policies do not encourage a treatment of living people that says the nicest thing possible about them, but rather they must be treated according to the [[WP:BALANCE]] of [[WP:HQRS]], and the current article appears to so so.<br /> {{cob}}<br /> ::I would appreciate, as a neurodivergent editor, if someone could explain to me what about the {{tq|tone}} or {{tq|personal focus}} of the diff seems problematic. Is it the use of the second person in the first two paragraph, for example? Or my word choice at {{tq|There simply isn't a reason}}? I am here to learn and to do better. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 12:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Your tone was proportionate, I think I would tone it similarly if I were you. People should be confronted over disruptive editing if softer means fail to carry the point across, which certainly has been the case here. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 12:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This seems like a stretch to put Tin Hunt's topic under a topic ban on GENSEX that was born from trans related topics. It seems that most here feel that the edits in question were not a violation of the tban and I suspect it's because most editors, like I do, see a big gap between the topics that resulted in the tban and the Tim Hunt topic. My proposed solution would be to say the GENSEX topic doesn't cover the Tim Hunt discussion. Alternatively perhaps the GENSEX topic should be split up a bit. Denying an accusation of sexism is quite a bit different than arguing if someone/thing is transphobic. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I agree that GENSEX should be split up just in general. Disruption about feminism, feminist issues, and sexism is not the same thing as disruption about LGBT issues. Editors with a history of disruption in one area can certainly contribute productively to the other. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:Springee|Springee]] I don't think the whole of [[:Tim Hunt]] falls under GENSEX; just the bits that relate to a {{tq|gender-related dispute or controversy}}. And, for mine, arguing if someone is sexist is ''very'' similar to arguing if someone is transphobic.<br /> ::@[[User:LokiTheLiar|LokiTheLiar]] A well phrased request at ARCA might result in such a split; though I would consider that on more than a few occasions, editors disruptive w.r.t. the feminism aspects are also disruptive w.r.t. the sexuality aspects. [[User:Rotary Engine|Rotary Engine]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Rotary Engine|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 02:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Warning''' I've always considered based on the wording that contentious topic restriction is intended to apply to stuff like this, and so would think any topic ban from the whole area is the same. I have no comment on whether it's need, and if someone wants to ask arbcom to clarify/limit it to only the Gamergate style stuff I have no problem with that. Likewise I agree it might have made sense to limit NewImpartial's topic ban to only gender-identity and sexuality related issues, but that wasn't what we did. So until any of this happens, NewImpartial needs to stay away from the dispute. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 16:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Inappropriate comments ==<br /> <br /> Could an admin review these two comments here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn#March_2024] -[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 03:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> As well as this comment here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADreameditsbrooklyn&amp;diff=1206421399&amp;oldid=1201187430] (Context: [https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/deez-nuts]) -[[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 04:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brigham_Young&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215782221 this one]. The only reason I'm not blocking immediately is the tenure of the user. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''&lt;span style=&quot;color:#8b00ff;&quot;&gt;Eve&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#6528c2;&quot;&gt;rgr&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#3f5184;&quot;&gt;een&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#197947;&quot;&gt;Fir&lt;/span&gt;''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 04:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Note this is one of the two comments I referred to above. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 04:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Perhaps [[Special:Diff/1215175271|&lt;this&gt;]] might have something to do with it, admittedly not the same days. &amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8093:5F01:AD1F:D79E:FFC5:945B|2804:F1...C5:945B]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:8093:5F01:AD1F:D79E:FFC5:945B|talk]]) 04:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I recommend ignoring this unless there is evidence of an ongoing problem. {{user|Dreameditsbrooklyn}} wrote &quot;this guy liked to fuck, huh?&quot; on an article talk page. That very inappropriate comment was quickly reverted. It relates to [[Brigham Young]] (1847–1877) who had at least 56 wives and 57 children. I would not write the comments seen at [[User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn#Stubs]] but they are ok. If there is some problem regarding edits at stubs, that problem should be spelled out. The glowing signature comment is again ok: it's an understandable reaction to an inappropriate signature. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The comment on the user talk page is concerning to me as I interpret it as disrespectful and it pertains to personal religious beliefs. Also the fact that the user the comment was directed towards is going through a difficult time right now — in a situation involving their religious affiliations — is a compounding factor for me, although it's unclear if Dreameditsbrooklyn was aware of this. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 05:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Maybe I'm being too dramatic; the user seems simply immature and not malicious after all. But still, comments like these have to stop. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 05:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The &quot;deez&quot; remark is an obvious reference to &quot;deez nuts&quot; memes which derive from the lyrics of a 30 year old [[Dr. Dre]] gangsta rap song that discusses a woman's facial contact with testicles while performing fellatio. It is an inappropriate allusion to use while interacting with another editor. The question to a self-identified LDS church member about what it feels like to be Mormon is creepy, intrusive and inappropriate. The comment about Brigham Young's enthusiasm for intercourse is unnecessarily profane, unproductive and provocative. None of these remarks was intended to help improve the encyclopedia, and instead serve to unnecessarily irritate people. I was inclined to block Dreameditsbrooklyn, but decided to ask for input from other editors, and a statement from Dreameditsbrooklyn. I would expect a commitment to refrain from such provocative comments in the future, since they do not help to improve the encyclopedia in any discernable way. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I sincerely apologize for these remarks. It will not happen again. I am sorry for causing other editors to waste their time addressing the matter. [[User:Dreameditsbrooklyn|Dreameditsbrooklyn]] ([[User talk:Dreameditsbrooklyn|talk]]) 11:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Don't sweat it, I don't think you had bad intentions. But don't let it happen again though and hopefully we can all walk away from this having learned something; Dreameditsbrooklyn learning to be more professional, especially when it comes to sensitive personal matters like a user's religious beliefs, and myself having learned the history — in great detail — of the deez nuts meme. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 12:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Selo007 are using talk pages to attack BLPs ==<br /> {{user|Selo007}}<br /> <br /> * {{pagelinks|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Reliability}}<br /> * [[Special:Diff/1215793401|Comment]]<br /> This does not contribute to the project--[[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 05:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Indef''' This person seems a key example of [[WP:NOTHERE]] - Wikipedia is not a place to obsess over microscopic details of photographs of BLPs. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I used Verifiability (V) and Neutral point of view (NPOV)<br /> *:unlike the editors<br /> *:Im currently requestion a second opinion based on bias [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 00:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::We used verifiability and NPOV. You used [[WP:BLP|BLP]] violations. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:default;color:#246BCE;&quot;&gt;Liliana&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;&quot;&gt;UwU&lt;/span&gt;]]''''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])&lt;/sup&gt; 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Still not blocked--[[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 22:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Clearly and unambiguously [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Seems to have mistaken Wikipedia for Reddit. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 00:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> Indeffed for competency, IDHT, RGW, using WIkipedia as a forum, and imagining that Wikipedia evaluates sources based on close examination of someone's tattoos. This is a regular admin action, not an arbitration enforcement action. '''&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Arial;&quot;&gt;[[User:Acroterion|&lt;span style=&quot;color: black;&quot;&gt;Acroterion&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;[[User talk:Acroterion|&lt;span style=&quot;color: gray;&quot;&gt;(talk)&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;''' 12:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Editor Rhain, Aquillion and Dumuzid missuing power to shut down peoples opinions. ===<br /> <br /> <br /> Missuse of [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view|NPOV]] and [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability|V]]<br /> On [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Baby_Inc.]] &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Selo007|contribs]]) 01:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;<br /> <br /> Ignoring fact given by other non elevated editors.&lt;br&gt;<br /> Using non verifiable information. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Using hearsay. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Taking one side. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Refuse to listen to other side. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Dont add factual information. &lt;br&gt;<br /> Locks talkpage so people cant dispute editors (not just me) &lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Would like a third opinion to check without relying on opinions from a newsarticle that is written by a arguably biased person.<br /> &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Selo007|contribs]]) 00:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt; &lt;!--Autosigned by SineBot--&gt;<br /> <br /> :{{ec}} @[[User:Selo007|Selo007]], you are '''required''' to notify editors when you take them to ANI. I have done so for you. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;'''—asparagusus'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#682&quot;&gt;(interaction)&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Asparagusus/Sprouts|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;''sprouts!''&lt;/sup&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Also, do you have any [[WP:DIFF|diffs]] that prove these editors have violated policies? Making a new section will not help with you potentially being blocked. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;'''—asparagusus'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#682&quot;&gt;(interaction)&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Asparagusus/Sprouts|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;''sprouts!''&lt;/sup&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 01:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Its all covered by people in talkpage<br /> :::Its very long to list all of them<br /> :::Some things include adding that harrassment started with attacks from SBI against an individual called Kabrutus, with evidence.<br /> :::And that the harrassmentclaims againt Kotaku can not be verified and instead added as facts. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 01:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Instead they insist on using quotes from a journalist that has a questionable racist agenda (evidence) and that tries to harass and doxx people for writing hitpieces. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 01:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::thank you [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 01:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I guess I have so much power that I can't keep track of it all, because I don't recall being able to lock talk pages! I am pretty powerful when it comes to hearsay, though, if I do say so myself. The gravamen of the complaint here seems to be that I like to stick to Wikipedia's policies of preferring reliable secondary sources, and to that accusation, I admit my guilt. Cheers, all. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I take the blame. I forgot to mention that to him [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 02:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::&lt;small&gt;[[User:Trade|Trade]], that's okay! They should've read the guidelines and huge banner anyways. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;[[User:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;'''—asparagusus'''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Asparagusus|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#682&quot;&gt;(interaction)&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User:Asparagusus/Sprouts|&lt;sup style=&quot;color:#562&quot;&gt;''sprouts!''&lt;/sup&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 13:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (reposting because I accidentally made half of ANI smalltext haha)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :For the record, I am not an administrator and (obviously) was not the one who ECPed the talk page; although I queryed ArbCom to make sure it could happen, it occurred independently of that. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> There's nothing actionable here, and this report by Selo007 appears to be an abuse of process that frankly merits [[WP:BOOMERANG]] sanctioning. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :At it's core there is an fundamental misunderstanding on how Wikipedia articles are supposed to work and how RS works on Wikipedia [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|talk]]) 02:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * As far as I can tell, I've never interacted with Selo007 before directly, but I'd agree a boomerang of some sort (at least a topic-ban from this topic area) is called for based on their repeated BLP violations, eg. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215797429&amp;oldid=1215793401&amp;title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Reliability][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215781814&amp;oldid=1213261466&amp;title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Reliability][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215413986&amp;oldid=1215409250&amp;title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.]; they seem to be basing this on YouTube videos (the second-to-last diff) and Twitter posts (the last diff). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215799757&amp;oldid=1215732825&amp;title=User_talk:Blaze_Wolf This] isn't great either. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 02:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Feel free to block me, im not that active anyways. &lt;br&gt;<br /> :All i want is for third opinion to take a second look at that wikipedia page since its riddled with reliable sources (Kotaku is case to case and the one writing the article should be taken under consideration when the person its doxxing, harrassing, asking people for fights and is using questionable racist slurs)<br /> :* Using hearsay such as &quot;Sweet Baby's employees faced harassment and attempted doxing in response to the backlash,&quot; when there is no evidence of such its a breach of NPOV and V.<br /> :* &quot;Others who faced harassment included Kotaku's reporter who first highlighted the backlash&quot; also hearsay and breach of NPOV and V.<br /> :* &quot;Ash Parrish felt the Discord members were not attempting to &quot;create meaningful change for their cause&quot; but were &quot;simply there for the vibes, rancid though they are&quot; again, should be questioned if its a reliable source when Parrish ha admitted she writes articles based on the own agenda even if its not true, even going against her editors But i guess you will just use BPL to shut that down.<br /> :* &quot;Bryant Francis urged Steam and Discord to clarify their policies to avoid similar incidents and further harassment.&quot; again, no evidence of harrassment.<br /> :* There’s no mention it started with Sweet Baby inc employee Chris Kindred starting an actual online harassment campaign to cancel the Steam Sweet Baby Inc. Detected group to get them shut down and attacking an individual to harm them.<br /> :* There is no mention of Chris Kindreds twitter account getting blocked by Twitter for said harrassment.<br /> :[[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 06:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I can assure you, this noticeboard [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Eyes needed at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.|is]] [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive479#User:TE(æ)A,ea. reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Page protected)|well]] [[WP:ANI#Discriminatory behavior from Mechabot5 at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.|aware]] of the article. The examples you're referring to are not &quot;hearsay&quot;, and they ''do'' have &quot;evidence&quot;: the references. Wikipedia is not a courtroom. We don't need to see [[WP:PRIMARY|examples of harassment]] to determine if someone was actually harassed (that would be [[WP:OR|original research]]); if [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] say they were, then we say they were. The same goes for Kindred's activities: if they are detailed in reliable [[WP:SECONDARY|secondary]] sources, then they will likely be detailed on Wikipedia as well; until then, there is no place for that information here.{{pb}}If you feel the article is unbalanced or incorrect, that's fine, but unless you can point to actionable changes based on policy and guidelines—and especially supported by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]—then there's nothing to be done. Wikipedia is not the place to [[WP:RGW|right great wrongs]]; it is just here to report information as the sources do. If those sources are wrong, it's not our job to correct them. Nor is it our place to [[Special:Diff/1215799757|make]] [[Special:Diff/1215967983|claims]] about [[WP:BLPREMOVE|other people]], no many how strongly [[WT:FACT#Alyssa Mercante|you disagree]] with their tattoos or personal tweets. &lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;– [[User:Rhain|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #008;&quot;&gt;'''''Rhain'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Rhain|☔]] &lt;small&gt;([[he/him]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 07:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Your own page [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] states &quot;editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, '''and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering'''<br /> :::The writer of the Kotaku article is very biased.<br /> :::Questionable sources also says &quot;Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for '''checking the facts''' or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and '''publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist''', that are promotional in nature, or '''that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions'''. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities.<br /> :::Any reliable sources that people try to add are shut down by the same editors of the page that is beeing critisized.<br /> :::When one is added, they want another, moving the goalposts. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 09:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::And where exactly, beyond some forum for drool-covered semi-literate conspiracy theorists, would we find evidence that Kotaku content is &quot;widely acknowledged as extremist&quot;? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Isnt Kotaku supposed be &quot;case by case&quot; and not Kotaku as a whole.<br /> :::::The writer of the article is known for having extremist views.<br /> :::::WOuld like to be clear im not for extremism be it right or left. [[User:Selo007|Selo007]] ([[User talk:Selo007|talk]]) 09:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Please either provide actual verifiable evidence, '''citing published reliable sources''', that either Kotaku, or one of its contributors, is &quot;widely acknowledged as extremist&quot; or withdraw the allegation immediately. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 09:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::I would say saying &quot;you cant be racist against white people&quot; is quite an extreme opinion. [[Special:Contributions/2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F|2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F]] ([[User talk:2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:750A:9167:8BA6:376F|talk]]) 00:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Your opinion is not a &quot;published reliable source&quot;. &lt;span class=&quot;nowrap&quot;&gt;– [[User:Rhain|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #008;&quot;&gt;'''''Rhain'''''&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Rhain|☔]] &lt;small&gt;([[he/him]])&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::As Rhain, says, of course, but substantively, this is actually a known opinion, and often provokes outrage without full understanding. The basic concept is that while people can be racially prejudiced against white people, the lack of a systemic power structure means it is not 'racism.' No one has to agree with that, but I would not describe it as an extreme opinion. A fuller discussion can be found here:[https://www.aclrc.com/myth-of-reverse-racism]. Cheers. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 01:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *What power? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 07:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:With apologies to David Bowie, the power of voodoo! [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 14:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I'm a necromancer myself. And you? '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:default;color:#246BCE;&quot;&gt;Liliana&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;&quot;&gt;UwU&lt;/span&gt;]]''''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])&lt;/sup&gt; 21:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Blocked user spamming their own talk page ==<br /> <br /> <br /> *{{userlinks|YuseraRCL}}<br /> Recently blocked user is spamming their own talk page, despite warnings. —[[User:Bruce1ee|Bruce1ee]][[User talk:Bruce1ee|&lt;sup&gt;''talk''&lt;/sup&gt;]] 09:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :YuseraRCL added advertising spam to their talk page three times after their advertising block. I've removed their Talk page access. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: tahoma;&quot;&gt; — [[User:CactusWriter|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#008000&quot;&gt;Cactus&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#CC5500&quot;&gt;Writer &lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:CactusWriter|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 16:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == MateuszCOMPANY - edit warring, copyvios ==<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|MateuszCOMPANY}}<br /> <br /> This user has taken ownership of [[FSO Polonez]]. While their English is limited that is easily fixed. However, they also insist on uploading a loooong list of how many cars were exported to each country, which I consider [[WP:CRUFT]]. More problematic, they've also uploaded dozens of copyvio images to the Commons and insist on placing them in the article. I started a [[:Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_MateuszCOMPANY|deletion request at Commons]], but it moves slowly and the user also has problems with [[WP:CIVIL]] in my estimation.<br /> <br /> Requests to heed [[WP:BRD]] are ignored, their only response so far was {{tq|Please find something else to do. I spend my time and knowledge to do something good for Wikipedia and people which want draw knowledge. If you have problem with that, report it to administration}} and continuing to restore their edits. So here we are. &lt;span style=&quot;background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;&quot;&gt;[[User:Mr.choppers|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#FDEE00;&quot;&gt;'''&amp;nbsp;Mr.choppers&amp;nbsp;&amp;#124;&amp;nbsp;'''&lt;/span&gt;]][[User talk:Mr.choppers|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#FDEE00;&quot;&gt;✎&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;/span&gt; 12:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ::User continues to edit-war and is immune to reason. [[User:Ybsone|YBSOne]] ([[User talk:Ybsone|talk]]) 21:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::And still edit warring past final warning. Warned by 4 users. [[User:Ybsone|YBSOne]] ([[User talk:Ybsone|talk]]) 21:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 194.66.191.22 vandalising over 20 years, requesting perma-block ==<br /> <br /> <br /> [[User:194.66.191.22|194.66.191.22]] (HOPEFULLY I DON'T MESS UP AND POST ALL OF HIS USER TALK PAGE MESSAGES AGAIN) has been vandalising [[User talk:194.66.191.22|over a 20 year period]], and it even shows the old block notices! I'd like this IP to be perma-blocked. [[User:Waylon111|Waylon]] ([[User talk:Waylon111|was]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Waylon111|here]]) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :We don't permanently block IPs. That IP is registered to a college in the UK, as noted on their talk page. We tend to get intermittent disruptive edits from schools (as well as public libraries, Dunkin Donuts wifi, etc.) and it's not uncommon for elementary and high school IPs to be blocked for long periods of time because of this, but I would be hesitant about placing a lengthy block on a post-secondary institution over occasional vandal edits, as there's a chance that the students might be able to contribute something of value someday. [[User:Spicy|Spicy]] ([[User talk:Spicy|talk]]) 16:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Last edits were from February 1, so there's nothing actionable here at all, and they had already been warned for those edits, so your re-warning was pointless. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Roboto;&quot;&gt;'''[[User:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:royalblue4&quot;&gt;Nate&lt;/span&gt;]]''' &lt;span style=&quot;color:#00008B&quot;&gt;•&lt;/span&gt; &lt;small&gt;''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#B8860B&quot;&gt;chatter&lt;/span&gt;]])''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:SergeWoodzing]] repeated incivility at [[Talk:Where is Kate?]] ==<br /> <br /> I've stopped editing this topic area, but I can't help notice {{u|SergeWoodzing}}'s comments at [[Talk:Where is Kate?]] are breaching [[WP:CIVIL|civility policy]] and have been downright rude and unconstructive. SergeWoodzing has not edited the article once, but has posted several talkpage comments including:<br /> # {{tq|'''Shame on all of you''' who have tried to exert your own prissy importance over the Princess of Wales...'''The article must be deleted''' if you all have a single bone of decency and propriety in your bodies. With this article, English Wikedia descended to the level of the tackiest, sleaziest, most deplorable and digusting tabloid press. '''Shame on you who did that!'''}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhere_is_Kate%3F&amp;diff=1215105957&amp;oldid=1215103490 source], a comment later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2024_March_21&amp;diff=1215170208&amp;oldid=1215161835 repeated] in the DRV discussion)<br /> # {{tq|'''Oppose''' all of this. '''Delete this article!''' One brief paragraph in the article on the princess will suffice, rather than all this shameful disrespectful gossip fanaticism.}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhere_is_Kate%3F&amp;diff=1215354727&amp;oldid=1215346312 source], in reply to a requested move)<br /> # {{tq|<br /> '''The existence of this article is a horrifying embarrassment to Wikipedia!''' The question has been answered. The article title is obsolete and reads like some sort of nasty BLP harrassment, a persecution of the ill woman covered. '''WAKE UP PEOPLE''' and change this '''NOW!'''}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWhere_is_Kate%3F&amp;diff=1215849769&amp;oldid=1215838763 source])<br /> The emphases are in the original. Were it not for the third comment having been posted today, suggesting continued disruption, I would not have felt compelled to file this ANI.<br /> <br /> I respect that SergeWoodzing is a highly experienced editor. Their concerns with the article are not only valid, but have been expressed several times in different venues by a broad cross-section of editors. The article is currently pending deletion review, after which it will most likely return to AfD. Nonetheless, these repeated comments feel unnecessarily uncivil and disruptive to editors working on the article in good faith.<br /> <br /> Insofar as this topic area is concerned, SergeWoodzing is [[WP:NOTHERE]]. Consider, for example, the second comment above: saying 'delete' in an RM discussion is just unhelpful, and also doesn't square with their third comment on the article's title. SergeWoodzing is experienced enough to know that these comments are best expressed at AfD, and general shaming isn't constructive, let alone when it is repeated multiple times. To that effect, I'd like to suggest a topic ban on [[Where is Kate?]] and the article talk page, while encouraging the editor to contribute, in a civil manner, to any future AfD or related process concerning the article. [[User:IgnatiusofLondon|IgnatiusofLondon]] (&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:85%;&quot;&gt;he/him&lt;/span&gt; • [[User talk:IgnatiusofLondon#top|☎️]]) 16:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Kind of hesitant to get on someone for being too vocal about raising valid BLP concerns, but SergeWoodzing's outbursts are becoming unhelpful [[WP:OWN]]ership. That said, I'm not sure a topic ban is super necessary while the deletion discussions are ongoing. Others may disagree with my take here, but I don't get the feeling that the impact of his actions is actually disrupting the process in any significant way other than perhaps being annoying to read. {{yo|SergeWoodzing}} -- you've made your position sufficiently clear. Please tone it down and maintain civility. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 19:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you! I never could have dreamed of experiencing anything so embarrassing and disagreeable and shameful, after all these years of being a proud contributor, as the way English Wikipedia has adopted the same methods and tone as the sleaziest tabloids in dealing - with the utmost disrespect - with the Princess of Wales and continuing intentionally to do so after she disclosed that she is seriously ill. To my knowledge I have never attacked any user by name, having given my opinion about shame to be taken at will by whomever chooses to to feel targeted and ignored by anyone who feels faultless. I believe that any article like [[Where is Kate?]] about a living person, no matter whom, is clearly denigrating and must be deleted without further delay. Aware of stretching text guidelines with capital letters and bold type, in my desparation to get all the many good users to react and act, I am willing to apologize sincerely for that part of it. I feel no need to comment again on those articles beyond these words. Whatever more I might have to say can never have a more constructive effect that what I already have tried to do. If it can be considered disruptive to object as vehemently as possible (i.e. without personal attacks or foul language) to very serious BLP problems, that is beyond my comprehension of one of the Wikimedia Foundation's most important rules. Sincerely, --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 20:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::PS the fact that I have not otherwise participated on these articles or talk pages, not even read most it all, has only been due to my abject fear, if seeing more than I already had, that I would be driven even more crazy than this. --[[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] ([[User talk:SergeWoodzing|talk]]) 20:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Just so that I don't come across as sneaky or underhanded, I wish to put on the record that I thanked [[User:SergeWoodzing|SergeWoodzing]] for edit number 3 above. I am no royalist (my genuine first reaction on seeing this article was to ask, &quot;Kate who?&quot;), but I too am embarrassed to be associated with an encyclopedia that has such an article. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Question''' Is this a pattern or an isolated incident? &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;&quot;&gt;[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]&lt;/span&gt; ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 04:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *[[Talk:Where is Kate?]] has a total of six comments by SergeWoodzing. None of them violate [[WP:CIVIL]] or anything else. I understand that it might be upsetting to know that someone on the internet disagrees with you, but six comments is pretty reasonable by comparison with many cases reported here. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Given that it is beyond reasonable doubt that the 'Where is Kate?' article is both a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy and an unmitigated crock of shite, it would be grossly improper to sanction anyone who points this out. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 10:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&lt;small&gt;Perhaps they should get a Royal barnstar? [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 10:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> *And I really don't get this obsession with British royalty by Americans, which is the only thing I can think of that both led to this article being created and to it being kept at AfD. Surely you/they got rid of kings about 250 years ago, and we Brits should be the only ones bothered about them? [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC) {{small|P. S. I remember visiting America when the dispute between Charles and Diana came to light and those few people who believed me when I said that I didn't know either of them personally thought that I must have an opinion about the issue.}}<br /> *:Yes it's certainly the Americans' fault when your favorite family acts suspiciously and your tabloid culture subsequently makes a spectacle of it. They should really know better than to pay attention to you. The untold death wreaked in the name of that family really was all so long ago, it's just terrible they're now being gossiped about on the internet. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865|2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865]] ([[User talk:2600:1015:B12A:F751:DF64:144E:9CA7:E865|talk]]) 01:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Gossip about them all you like on the Internet, but that doesn't make what you are gossiping about a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. And, as I said above, they are far from my favourite family. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *SergeWoodzing is being vocal but is not being disruptive and no action is needed.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 21:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *The remarks complained about all seem to be fair comment to me. The proper place for an article such as this is in a tabloid newspaper, not an encyclopaedia. All that is displayed by SergeWoodzing is a bit of passion for maintaining some sort of quality standards in Wikipedia{{snd}}which is surely a desirable quality in any editor. [[User:ThoughtIdRetired|ThoughtIdRetired]] ([[User talk:ThoughtIdRetired|talk]]) 22:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Sock/meat-puppetry and COI concerns regarding [[User:Guswen]] ==<br /> <br /> [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guswen|This SPI]] has been open for a couple weeks, and while I'd normally be inclined to let the specialists in such investigations get to it when they get to it, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FGuswen&amp;diff=1215887284&amp;oldid=1215690899 there is a new COI concern] that, I believe, makes the situation more pressing and also suitable for having attention called to it here. [[User:XOR&amp;#39;easter|XOR&amp;#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&amp;#39;easter|talk]]) 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :In addition to sock-puppetry and COI issues, there's also recent edit-warring going on at [[Assembly theory]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Assembly_theory&amp;action=history history]). I second the request for administrator attention! --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:LeeWeathers1986AV]] reported by [[User:Mvcg66b3r]] ==<br /> <br /> Disruptive editing; edit warring; uploading logos with no source or licensing info. Initially reported at [[WP:AIV]] but rebuffed.<br /> <br /> Logo examples:<br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Univision_Washington_DC_2019.png]<br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMDO-CD_(2021).png]<br /> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMDO-CD_(2021)29.png]<br /> <br /> Reversions of my removal of said logos: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WFDC-DT&amp;diff=1215888242&amp;oldid=1215887604] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WFDC-DT&amp;diff=1215890345&amp;oldid=1215889095] [[User:Mvcg66b3r|Mvcg66b3r]] ([[User talk:Mvcg66b3r|talk]]) 19:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :More sourceless logos: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lyla_in_the_loop_logo.webp] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KFRE_2024.webp] And they're refusing to respond to my warnings on their talk page. I think this user's [[WP:NOTHERE]]. [[User:Mvcg66b3r|Mvcg66b3r]] ([[User talk:Mvcg66b3r|talk]]) 03:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :: Most of those logos can be tagged {{tl|PD-textlogo}}. He is overusing the thank function, which is causing friction, so I left him a note about this. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 19:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Thomas B forum-shopping, circumventing page ban, refusing to drop the stick ==<br /> <br /> About a month ago, as an outcome of an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207014593 ANI thread], [[User:Thomas B]] was page-blocked with strong consensus from pages [[Tim Hunt]], [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], [[Online shaming]], [[Talk:Online shaming]] for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]], [[WP:STONEWALL|stonewalling]], [[WP:BLUDGEONING|bludgeoning]], [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground behavior]], and [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING|forum shopping]] over the topic of Tim Hunt's 2015 controversy.<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, after the blocking and a monthly hiatus, the first edit Thomas B made to Wikipedia was the creation of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt yet another thread] about Tim Hunt, for the second time on [[WP:BLPN]] already. The thread resulted in another editor getting [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#NewImpartial_-_BLP_discussion_touching_GENSEX reported to ANI].<br /> <br /> Comments made by Thomas B indicate an intention to continue participation and failure to understand why own behavior is disruptive. Here's two examples: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thomas_B&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214802498] &quot;{{tq|I won't be participating '''too actively''' in any further discussion.}}&quot; and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214880952] &quot;{{tq|I looked it up before doing it. Because I'm blocked (not topic banned), this is actually '''perfectly fine'''.}}&quot; (boldings mine). &lt;!-- Template:Unsigned --&gt;&lt;small class=&quot;autosigned&quot;&gt;—&amp;nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NicolausPrime|contribs]]) 20:04 27 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> :He wasn't ''banned'', he was [[WP:PB|blocked]] from 4 pages. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 20:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :[[Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Article_ban_or_page_ban]] uses the term &quot;page ban&quot;, but I may be missing something so I changed this as you suggested. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You may have missed [[WP:BP|the blocking policy]]. Note that the [[User Talk:Thomas B#February 2024|notice]] on his talk page says &quot;blocked&quot;, not &quot;banned&quot;. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to get around his block. As such, both the quotes supplied seem reasonable to me. How is his participating in the discussion at BLPN disruptive? Has he reverted anyone (or was accusing him of {{tq|edit warring}} a mistake)? Could you elaborate on the forum shopping accusation? <br /> ::I can see an argument for bludgeoning, however; Thomas B had 20 replies out of 60 comments at the time of this post. More to the point, in his opening statement to the BLPN thread, he writes, {{tq|For (somewhat doggedly) insisting on this [change], I have been indefinitely blocked from editing the page myself. I bring it here in the hope that others will take a look.}}. That sounds to me like it's very close to [[WP:PROXYING]]. Combined with their [[WP:IDHT|refusal to listen]] to other editors telling them that what they're doing is bad, I think an argument could be made for their editing being disruptive. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 21:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I'm not sure it's quite that simple. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1207014593#Proposal_for_page_ban The original proposal] was for a &lt;s&gt;topic&lt;/s&gt; ''page'' ban, explicitly, with at my count 9 !votes in support and 3 in opposition. When the discussion was closed, however, it was closed as a &quot;block&quot;, despite the proposal having been for a ban and seemingly gained limited consensus for doing so. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Maybe I'm missing something. The section you linked was for a page ban. {{tq|To avoid spending even more time on this, I propose for Thomas Basboll to be '''page-banned''' from Tim Hunt and Online shaming articles and their talk pages per above evidence.}} (Bolding mine.) Which, granted, means confusing a block and a ban is more understandable, but 1) the only talk of topic bans I see in that discussion is ''opposing'', and 2) even if the close was improper, I hardly think we can sanction an editor for violating a restriction that was never formally imposed, could we? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::That's my mistake -- I said topic, but meant page (edited to fix). Regardless, I agree with your point.[[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thomas B is forum-shopping because: first, after an edit war, there was an [[WP:NPOVN]] discussion started by [[User:LokiTheLiar]]. After this discussion and [[Talk:Tim Hunt]] reached a consensus Thomas B didn't agree with, Thomas B started a new thread on [[WP:BLPN]]. In the meanwhile Thomas B was reported to [[WP:ANI]], which prompted an RfC about the contentious section's content and later also the page ban (or however this should be called, I'm lost). The RfC later concluded. However Thomas B, instead of accepting the now-RfC-backed consensus, created a second [[WP:BLPN]] thread. As far as my knowledge goes, this should constitute forum shopping. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you for elaborating; I appreciate you making things clearer for me. I can see where you're coming from re: Forum Shopping. I still feel like, unless it's been done many times, the better first step is to tell the editor, &quot;Hey, this is Forum Shopping, don't do it.&quot; The solution that allows productive editing with the minimum of administrative intervention is often the best one, after all. If he continues to forum shop, then there's a solid case (with a warning!) to point to. That said, in the context of the other issues in that BLPN thread, it does make a compelling reason for a topic ban. Thanks again for elaborating! [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Thomas B was warned about own behavior multiple times, including [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214873854 after the page ban], and the previous ANI thread should have sent a strong signal that raising the same issue over and over again in multiple threads across multiple pages is sanctionable. The page ban vote was without consensus at first, until it changed because the disruption continued. It was all gradual, there definitely were many occassions for Thomas B to change course. I can try to be more eager to post warnings to user talk pages next time something like this happens, but this comes with its own set of problems. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 23:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Statement by Thomas B ===<br /> <br /> I thought that S Marshall's close of the RfC was sensible. I interpreted it as '''requiring''' (&quot;In practice '''the only way''' that I can see to do this...&quot;) a proportionate expansion of the rest of the article. Since I had by then already been blocked, I could not myself contribute to this work, but watched on the sidelines.<br /> <br /> After about a week, it seemed clear that the editors working on the article were ignoring Marshall's advice and had settled on a version in which the event would occupy over 20% of the article. I then checked whether a page block implies a topic ban, found it did not, and therefore raised the issue on BLPN. Since then, I have posted only in response to other editors, in many cases because they asked questions or wanted sources.<br /> <br /> While I'm happy to grant that this could have happened in any case, the immediate effect of my intervention appears to be to have brought the controversy section down to under 15% of the total word count, at least for the time being, with some editors adding material outside the section and others trimming it a little. It has certainly not led to any disruption of the article or its talk page (i.e., it has not attracted disruptive editors nor stoked up controversy there). While I still think the content decisions are unwise and contrary to BLP policy, work there seems to be proceeding in a calm and orderly manner.<br /> <br /> Editors who simply want to improve the article are entirely free to ignore me. I do not contact them on their talk pages and I have not appealed my block. The only nuisance I'm causing seems to be mediated by actions like this proposal for a topic-ban and (remarkably) a site-ban. Obviously, I would appeal any such action, leading to more time wasted by administrators, perhaps even arbitration. As in the case of the original block, this all seems very over-the-top to me.<br /> <br /> Finally, I want to say that part of the problem is that I've been away from protracted controversies here for a long time, and there appears to have been a change in the way content disputes are resolved now. In particular, I was suprised to be blocked not by '''policy''' but by '''consensus'''.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScottishFinnishRadish&amp;diff=1207382381&amp;oldid=1207380789] Most of the people who contributed to that consensus were also involved in the content dispute. It does really seem like a group of editors showed up on an article to which I have made substantial contributions[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Tim_Hunt] over many years[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Thomas+B&amp;page=Tim_Hunt&amp;server=enwiki&amp;max=], took it over and forced me out, because there was '''one thing''' they wanted to make sure the article said. I don't remember it working that way in the past.<br /> <br /> Anyway, thanks for hearing my side. I hope it is clear that my aim here is, not to be annoying, but to ensure the intergrity of Wikipedia's BLP article on Tim Hunt and, of course, in line with our policy, to prevent its subject any unnecessary pain. Best,--[[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 06:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Proposal: topic ban ===<br /> <br /> I propose for Thomas B to be topic-banned from the subjects of Tim Hunt and Online shaming, broadly construed, replacing the previously mentioned page bans. The purpose of this ban is to prevent any further skirting around the page ban.<br /> <br /> * '''Support''' as proposer. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' per my above comment. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' as my interpretation of the original block was that there was consensus for a &lt;s&gt;topic&lt;/s&gt;page ban before, and there's no indication that anything's changed. Extending that to a topic ban across a narrow set of topics isn't an unreasonable next step [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Support: the interaction [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&amp;diff=1215873249&amp;oldid=1215863476 here] is illustrative of the fact that Thomas B simply does not exhibit the capacity to comprehend that anyone could hold views different from his own on this matter; this is incompatible with constructive discussion and consensus-forming. Moreover, it is clear that Thomas B lacks the self-control necessary to stop bludgeoning discussions on this issue. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' I think Thomas B's concerns regarding the Tim Hunt page are legitimate. That doesn't mean they are the consensus view but I can see how they can make their case in good faith. I would suggest they back away and let others reply and if others don't then they need to accept that they don't have consensus. I think this sanction is counter productive as it tells someone who is concerned about a BLP issue that they should just shut up and not have brought things up. I get that sometimes editors feel like someone is objecting too much. However, editors are also free to not reply. No one is going to think a 3:1 (or what ever it actually is) consensus against Thomas B's proposed changes will magically be closed as &quot;consensus for&quot; if Thomas B is allowed to have the last word. So long as the discussion doesn't leave BLPN (a legitimate place for the concern) and the discussion is civil I don't see why this needs admin action. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:We had extensive discussions on [[WP:NPOVN]], [[WP:BLPN]], [[Talk:Tim Hunt]], [[WP:ANI]], the RfC, and now yet another one on [[WP:BLPN]]. The previous BLPN thread was started by Thomas B after NPOVN reached a consesus against Thomas B's position. The current BLPN thread was created by Thomas B after the RfC concluded also against this user's position. Which is [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. In every case the discussion concerned the same thing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hunt#2015_controversy a single subsubsection] in Tim Hunt's biography, and each time consensus emerged against Thomas B. Which is [[WP:STICK]]. In every discussion Thomas B's made an excessively large amount of posts as compared to others, often reiterating the same arguments. Which is [[WP:BLUDGEONING]].<br /> *:This has been going on for over a month and has been draining a considerable amount of attention from me and other editors. Isn't this disruptive and draining our community resources? Are you sure that this doesn't need admin action, and this typical topic-ban sanction would be as far as ''counter productive''? [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 14:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Speaking of Bludgeoning [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&amp;target=NicolausPrime&amp;namespace=all&amp;tagfilter=&amp;start=2024-03-23&amp;end=2024-03-28&amp;limit=50] Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked. Its almost a single-minded obsession. As regards [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]], this is repeatedly raising the same topic at multiple forums. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&amp;end=&amp;namespace=4&amp;start=&amp;tagfilter=&amp;target=Thomas+B&amp;offset=20240206075305] Reviewing Thomas B's contribution history demonstrates that he raised the issue at [[WP:BLPN]] ''once'' before the ANI thread started that led to his block and that was the sole time he had raised it in any forum outside of trying to discuss the topic on the article talk page. He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at [[WP:BLPN]]. There was in fact no discussion at [[WP:BLPN]] See [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt]]. Your allegation of [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] is demonstrably false. Rather we constantly have the same [[WP:TAG]] team of editors lobbying loudly to have editors blocked but offering no real evidence and what little evidence is offered, when you look closer doesn't support the allegation of misconduct. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 15:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&quot;{{tq|Your entire contribution history from 23 March till today is lobbying to get Thomas B blocked.}}&quot;<br /> ::::This is false, as directly contradicted by the following edits, unrelated to Thomas B, that I made between March 23 and today: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215654047] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NicolausPrime/sandbox&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215762490] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compact_Disc_subcode&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215768058] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hunt&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215654745] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etymological_fallacy&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215747100].<br /> ::::&quot;{{tq|He subsequently raised a second and distinct issue at WP:BLPN. There was in fact no discussion at WP:BLPN See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim Hunt. Your allegation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is demonstrably false.}}&quot;<br /> ::::The very discussion that you link, [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive356#Tim_Hunt]], immediately reaches the conclusion that the filing constituted forum-shopping. We can disagree, maybe, whether the second BLPN thread created one month later constituted forum-shopping or was just beating a dead horse, but it evidently was at least one of that as it had been shortly preceded by extensive discussions that I noted above. And no, the issue is not distinct, it's a yet another, ad nauseam reiteration the same arguments about the article being unfair to Tim Hunt, to address which the RfC was created and have thus resolved.<br /> ::::&quot;{{tq|we constantly have the same WP:TAG team of editors lobbying loudly}}&quot;<br /> ::::This is the third or fourth time I see you making this accusation. I can't say for others, but I'm definitely not a member of any tag team. Except for commenting once in an earlier RfC started by LokiTheLiar, I don't think I've ever interacted with any of the editors involved in the Tim Hunt discussion and its offshoots before the NPOVN thread, where my involvement began. I started the original page-ban vote because I wanted the disruption to end, and I've started this thread because I felt responsible for failing to prevent further disruption due to my choice of a page ban instead of a topic ban. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> *'''Support''' This is clearly what the original consensus intended and Thomas B's behavior since then is a clear example of [[WP:GAMING]]. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 01:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. Seems the only way to prevent this (part of the) disruption continuing. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 09:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose''' Thomas B has raised legitimate concerns about [[WP:BLP]] policy, in the close of the RFC it was noted his concerns were legitimate and could not be ignored. Per Springee he is entitled to raise those concerns at [[WP:BLPN]]. I see someone has suggested he is bludgeoning the discussion and I acknowledge he has made a number of contributions. However, most are replies in a discussion with {{U|Newimpartial}} e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&amp;diff=1215687478&amp;oldid=1215683633]. There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it. It is Kafkaesque to suggest an editor is sanctioned as the result of an [[WP:ANI]] thread raised against another editor who has an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor's excessive posts. {{ping|EducatedRedneck}} I presume your support vote reflects your satisfaction that [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] is an issue, may I draw your attention that the NicolausPrime considers that I have raised an issue in a forum once as forumshopping. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:{{Tq|There is a thread already about this editor above who is breaking an editing restriction by posting so often}} - in the ANI section above, the only evidence presented in support of this assertion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215783375] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215788924] includes (succinct) responses to direct questions as though they could be violations, although such are explicitly excluded by the terms of my restrictions (as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215784194 was noted by SilverSeren] above). <br /> *:No other editor in &quot;my&quot; section, aside from the OP, has suggested any possible violation of my anti-bludgeon restriction, and many editors have participated above. I would therefore appreciate if you would strike your assertion here that I am {{tq|breaking an editing restriction by posting so often and there is a suggestion they receive a sanction for it}} - there is no suggestion that I have broken my anti-bludgeon restriction nor is there a suggestion that I be sanctioned, so I'd rather not see that inaccurate statement left in this other section (where I randomly happened to see it).<br /> *:You also imply (when you refer to {{tq|an WP:ANI thread raised by an editor already under an editing restriction for excessive posting - for responding to said editor}} (1) that I raised a thread at ANI (since no other editor here is under a restriction for number of posts per topic) and (2) that Thomas B. is facing sanctions here for responding to my comments. So far as I can tell, neither of these assertions is accurate, since I didn't bring anything to ANI and sanctions proposed here are about forum shopping and have nothing to do with any interaction between Thomas B. and myself. Perhaps you were confusing me with NicolausPrime, an editor I had never been aware of until the last day or so on this page.<br /> *: Anyway, I'd appreciate you striking the second reference to my editing as well; I'd rather not see spurious statements be made about my conduct even incidentally (and possibly based on mistaken identity). Thanks. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I didn't mistake your identity, I mistakenly pasted the wrong name but that's fixed now. I do believe you have broken your anti-bludgeon restriction but you've obviously missed that I opposed any sanction. I am not the only editor to think that way, so I will respectfully decline that request. I had also noticed it myself but chose not to report it - I usually try to avoid the drama boards until after I try and discuss with editors first. I will revise my wording to make my meaning clearer; Nicholas started this thread as a result of the thread raised about you and that is what I meant. I was also responding to the bludgeoning accusation against Thomas, which is largely responding to posts you made requesting a reply from him. Which is not to accuse anyone of misconduct and I have not sought any action against anyone including you. I trust that clarifies the matter? &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::Your !vote above doesn't refer in any way to my anti-bludgeon restriction, nor do those of any other editors apart from the OP and Silver seren, who corrected the OP's misinterpretation of the restriction (Silver seren quoted the actual text of the restriction, above).<br /> ::::If you still {{tq|do believe [I] have broken [my] anti-bludgeon restriction}}, I'd appreciate you documenting that in the relevant section above, preferably with the evidence you consider relevant, so the question can be addressed by other editors - at the moment, that view seems to have been rejected by all editors contributing to the discussion besides the OP. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 16:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I have already declined to report your violation of your anti-bludgeon restriction, I do so again. If I had felt it needed action I would have already discussed it with you. Now having had to give the same reply effectively twice, may I draw attention to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1141126946&amp;oldid=1141118949&amp;title=User_talk:Newimpartial this]. Please take the hint. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC) <br /> ::::::If you're not going to report it, then ''stop bringing it up''. This is staring to look like [[WP:HOUND]]ing. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::WCM, I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I don't think you're suggesting that someone making a spurious accusation against you therefore determines the legitimacy (one way or the other) of an accusation against Thomas B. Are you saying NicolausPrime fabricated the claims of the five involved fora (talk page consensus, NPOVN, BLPN, RfC, 2nd BLPN)? [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> *'''Oppose'''; {{u|Springee}} put it perfectly. I appreciate the ban is supposed to reflect bludgeoning and failing to drop the stick, but it also looks uncomfortably close to a ban for having the &quot;wrong&quot; opinion, an attempt by one side to undermine the other. The harm done by such a ban - the chilling effect on future debate - greatly exceeds the mild inconvenience of an editor writing a bit too much about their viewpoint, in too many fora. [[User:Elemimele|Elemimele]] ([[User talk:Elemimele|talk]]) 11:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' - Per Springee, Thomas B should back away, but I would suggest the same for the editors interacting with Thomas B. [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 13:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' Run-of-the-mill response to an example of the kind of forum-shopping and stick-grabbing that the project has seen time and time again as the years have rolled by. Any &quot;chilling effect&quot; on editors expressing opinions vaguely aligned with Thomas B's is purely speculative. If we stopped doing topic bans because of such speculation, we'd have to find a whole new way of dealing with a very real problem. [[User:XOR&amp;#39;easter|XOR&amp;#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&amp;#39;easter|talk]]) 14:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' Though i agree with {{U|Springee}} and others about the concerns, i believe that Thomas B has shown/is showing a startling lack of ability to read the room and work within a community. If the several editors above who also agree with his point (though not his methods) are representative of a portion of the community then that point will be discussed and taken into consideration ''without'' Thomas B's disruptive behaviour. Happy days, ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''&lt;sup&gt;'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Support''' Whilst I understand what the opposers are saying, this isn't a proposed ban for having the &quot;wrong&quot; opinion, it's a ban for being ''utterly and completely unable'' to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] even after a previous block. It would have been simple to walk away and edit one of the other 7 million Wikipedia articles, but ... no. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' formal topic ban. This user apparently cannot comprehend the idea that [[First law of holes|he should stop digging]] after the initial page block, and is carrying on the arguments in other locations. A topic ban is the only way we can move forward without Thomas dragging this out across the wiki. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Is the problem my inability to drop the stick or a number of editors inability to ignore a quite tame posting to BLPN? Other than this very strange ANI, what disruption has my post caused? What effect has my post had on the editing of the Tim Hunt article? [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 20:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|a quite tame posting}} You have made approximately 20 comments in the discussion at BLPN; all other editors combined have made about 40. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 21:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::You understand that I have mainly answered their questions, right? I should have &quot;dropped the stick&quot; and ignored their direct questions? [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 21:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::You're still digging... — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 22:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::You understand that your response is evasive, that your original comment is dishonest, and that you are demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to exhibit the self-control necessary to participate in an acceptable way, right? --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 23:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::::I think the accusation of dishonesty is unfair and uncivil, so I'm not responding to this comment. [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 08:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' This is a transparent refusal to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] combined with [[WP:IDHT]]. I am sure that the concerns are genuine, but they have already been discussed and addressed. At this point Thomas needs to leave this to other editors and [[WP:AGF]] (saying things like {{tq|they want to paint Hunt as a sexist}} when someone disagrees about anything is not what I would consider good-faith). In terms of dropping the stick, we can all see the responses at BLPN and they have not been {{tq|mainly answer[ing] their questions}}. See for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215520494] (repeating the same argument from when this all started) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214835462] (continuing to double down) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214823751] (no one asked any question here either) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214976196] (example of [[WP:IDHT]], editors have repeatedly explained that no one is suggesting the article call him sexist, but Thomas is still arguing as if they are) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214981527] (accusing other editors of bad faith unprompted). This whole situation is getting ridiculous. The RFC is closed. The article is being edited productively. Let's all just move on. &lt;small&gt;(also this is my first comment at ANI so please let me know if I messed up formatting somewhere or need to change anything)&lt;/small&gt; [[User:CambrianCrab|CambrianCrab]] ([[User talk:CambrianCrab|talk]]) 22:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' – no harm is being caused to the encyclopedia by raising legitimate and genuine BLP concerns. If you don't want to interact with him, then don't. I believe there are legitimate BLP concerns as well about the Hunt article, but after seeing the way Thomas B has been treated in this whole shameful debacle, I'm afraid to say anything for fear of proposals like this being thrown my way.[[User:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue&quot;&gt; ''Isaidnoway'' &lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|&lt;b style=&quot;font-family:Times New Roman; color:black&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/b&gt;]] 00:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:&quot;I don't think he should be blocked because I agree with him, and his behavioral issues are actually the fault of other people&quot; ok then. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Less sarcastically: Wikipedia operates on a consensus-based discussion model. Consensus models only work if (1) people are generally willing to accept when consensus is against them, and (2) people who refuse to acknowledge this can be prevented from disrupting discussions. The problem with Thomas B is not his views, it's that he's failing (1) and consequently forcing others to rely on (2). &lt;br&gt; Here is a very simple question you could ask yourself: suppose that there were a 60-comment discussion involving 10 or 12 participants; how many comments would you expect each person to be making under normal circumstances, if no one is bludgeoning or arguing just for the sake of arguing or exhibiting [[WP:IDHT]]? Personally, I think any time you see someone making 12 or 15 comments in those circumstances, it's a very bad sign. [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tim_Hunt|Thomas B has made 20.]] --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::I would expect the person who started the discussion to make significantly more comments than anyone else in the discussion. It would not surprise me if they replied at least once to each of the others, sometimes merely to grant a point, clarify a statement, or answer a question. So, in a discussion with 10-12 participants, that 12-15 number seems conservative to me. Your reasoning, however, certainly explains the hostility against me if it has become the general view at WP. Like I say in my statement, things do seem to have changed since I was last involved in a big controversy. I mean, people have taken even my participation in this ANI proposing to ban me as a sign that I can't drop the stick (or shovel, per Hand). It's just peculiar, frankly. [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 08:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::{{tq|if it has become the general view at WP}}<br /> *::::This has been the general view for a long, long time, hence [[WP:BLUDGEON]], which has existed since 2008. Responding to every single comment is the very heart of BLUDGEON. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' By the time the post was made to BLPN {{u|Hemiauchenia}} had already been working on the issue of implementing the RfC result. {{u|Firefangledfeathers}} trimmed the controversy section, tho i'm not sure if this was in response to the posting. {{u|S Marshall}} was providing some valuable comments. {{u|Morbidthoughts}} and {{u|Hemiauchenia}} started a good discussion which probably could have been very useful. Could have been better if more editors would have kept their eyes on the ball, but not the worst WP noticeboard discussion ever. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support''' It's become clear that Thomas B really can't drop this issue. Even if the BLPN thread has resulted in some constructive changes, his responses in the BLPN discussion make it obvious that he just cannot accept that the majority of people don't agree with him on what the section should look like, and that he's just going to keep causing disruption regarding this issue unless he is topic banned. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:It's entirely correct that in my opinion the majority is wrong and that I think the article is currently misleading. I've added an update to this effect at the BLPN post.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard#Tim_Hunt] But expressing this opinion is not in itself a disruption. I've been puzzled at the amount of annoyance (and administration) I've caused simply by posting things that could easily just be ignored, especially since I'm working within the contraints of a block that I have not appealed. [[User:Thomas B|Thomas B]] ([[User talk:Thomas B|talk]]) 11:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Thomas B, you may wish to reread [[WP:IDHT]]. I feel encompasses why this {{tq|amount of annoyance}} is being had from your conduct. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 17:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Support'''. Consensus at this point on the article is clear (and has been for a long time); Thomas B's continued refusal to [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]], his [[WP:IDHT]] response to months of discussion and attempts to [[WP:FORUMSHOP]] the dispute are long past the point of being disruptive. Simply believing that the majority is wrong doesn't allow someone to endlessly raise the same issue in every possible venue available to them forever - we don't write articles or reach consensus via filibuster. The fact that his responses, above, show that he ''still'' doesn't get it even after an article-level block and after numerous people here have explained to him shows that nothing but a topic ban is going to work here. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 05:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> === Proposal: additional two-month ban from English Wikipedia ===<br /> {{atop<br /> | status = <br /> | result = This is unnecessary, against policy and clearly will not achieve consensus. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 15:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> }}<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I propose for Thomas B to be banned from the English Wikipedia for two months, independently and additionally to the above topic ban. The purpose of this ban is to act as a deterrent from any further [[WP:GAMING|gaming]] of the sanctions.<br /> <br /> * '''Support''' as proposer. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' as unnecessary and punitive. With a topic ban in place, escalating blocks may be imposed as necessary. Let's extend more [[WP:ROPE]] so they can contribute helpfully to other areas. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 22:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' premature. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' I haven't seen any indication of disruption outside of this topic area. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 00:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * '''Oppose''' Clearly unnecessary. It also would be easy for editors to presume the motive in suggesting this block was to be punitive. As I said above, if Thomas B's arguments aren't shifting consensus then why worry? If they are shifting consensus then this sort of block looks more like gaming than protective. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 01:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose'''. The issue seems to be contained to the topics proposed to be banned for the accused, and this proposal goes beyond reasonable prevention. If the topic ban above becomes enforced, a block can be imposed if it gets contravened. —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 05:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose'''. Not necessary or warranted. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 09:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *'''Oppose''' Seems punitive. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 13:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> === Comment ===<br /> <br /> I note there are now 3 threads related to issues surrounding the [[Tim Hunt]] article, making 4 in less than a month. I like {{ping|Elemimele}} and {{ping|Fiveby}} are concerned about the toxic nature of the discussion surrounding that article. I am no longer editing there like those two editors and don't intend to return. I suggest {{ping|Thomas B}} stops as well, not because he is wrong but for his own well being and mental health. Rather than being guided by sources, looking at what the prevailing views are in the literature, the discussions have descended into editors looking for sources to validate their own opinions. ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents in the discussion rather than addressing urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Notably, accusations of disruptive behaviour are unsupported by evidence, scratch the surface of what little is offered as evidence and it crumples. I haven't called for any sanctions, I opposed a proposal yesterday and still urge that as {{U|S Marshall}} suggested that an intervention by an uninvolved SySop may be required to stave off an arbcom case. &lt;span style=&quot;border:1px solid black;padding:1px;&quot;&gt;[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]&lt;/sub&gt; 10:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :{{tq|ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents}} You have moaned about this in two or three places now, but oddly you have not noted that ''you'' started one of the threads, nor have you apologized to me for doing so; odd, that. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Do you intend to do anything about these accusations that {{tq|ANI is being weaponised to remove what are seen as opponents}}, or are you going to keep posting this in some vague [[WP:FORUM]] manner? — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 19:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Note that I am not involved in the Tim Hunt article, BLPN discussion, or this issue anywhere that I can tell. I don't think it's productive at this time to cast this as an &quot;us vs them&quot; situation. Rather, this should be looked at on its own merits. To me, the question is: Does Thomas B's conduct help or hurt the encyclopedia? In my mind, it hurts it by draining the other editors' time and energy over an issue that seems to have already reached a consensus. I believe he's acting in good faith (honestly trying so solve what he views as a BLP issue), but we all need to accept that consensus is sometimes against us and move on. You may disagree that the harm outweighs the good, and that's also completely valid; answering that question is a judgement call, not a matter of fact.<br /> :I'd also posit that those editors not engaging on BLPN does not remove the problem; if nobody dissents to Thomas B there, it seems to me that a new consensus could be formed there which is not truly representative of the community's opinions. Maybe it wouldn't happen, but the fear of having to go back and sort out the two opposing consenses makes doing nothing less palatable. [[User:EducatedRedneck|EducatedRedneck]] ([[User talk:EducatedRedneck|talk]]) 23:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 158.223.0.0/16 and 2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64 ==<br /> <br /> <br /> *{{userlinks|158.223.0.0/16}}<br /> *{{userlinks|2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64}}<br /> <br /> I previously raised concerns on [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#158.223.0.0/16_and_2A00:23C5:348D:4301::/64|18 March 2024]], and the [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]] editing is continuing. <br /> <br /> The very latest example is yet another modification of a direct quotation ([[Special:Diff/1215894901]].) I tried pointing that out the last time it happened (see [[User_talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct#HGV20]]) but whether the editor just ignored it or just flat out doesn't understand is difficult to say. Their English comprehension seems limited; a number of haphazard edits (like [[Special:Diff/1213373005]], [[Special:Diff/1215867316]], [[Special:Diff/1215727741]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shi_%28rank%29&amp;diff=1215693311&amp;oldid=1215637799]) make it look like that they don't understand what was written before or the effects of their own changes.<br /> <br /> Combined with their talk page interactions (including on [[User_talk:158.223.122.211]]) my impression is that they tend to miss the point a whole lot and are quite oblivious to it. - [[User:RovingPersonalityConstruct|RovingPersonalityConstruct]] ([[User talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/RovingPersonalityConstruct|contribs]]) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == user:Zack097 adding unsupported categories ==<br /> <br /> {{userlinks|Zack097}}<br /> <br /> Noticed a few additions of categories which were not supported by article contents. User has a history of adding poorly or unsourced content, with numerous level 4 warnings. Some examples include [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spies_in_Disguise&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215901686], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rio_2&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215901539], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eternals_(film)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215901826].--[[User:Loriendrew|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #005000;&quot;&gt;☾Loriendrew☽&lt;/span&gt;]] [[User talk:Loriendrew|&lt;span style=&quot;color: #000080;&quot;&gt;☏''(ring-ring)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 22:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :This user has done almost nothing constructive in the many years since they created the account. Indefinitely blocked.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == IP Repeatedly Disrupting Table Formatting ==<br /> <br /> *{{vandal|2804:14C:128:270D:0:0:0:475}} &amp;ndash; On {{No redirect|:Kingsman (franchise)}} ({{diff|Kingsman (franchise)|1215922664|1214567618|diff}}): vandalism after final warning. Repeated disruptive changes to content and removal of formatting across a variety of articles. Majority of edits have been reverted. The IP has also repeatedly performed such disruptive behaviors on the [[Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One]] and [[Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Two]] articles, among many other franchise-related tables. This is getting quite annoying to revert each time they return and they ignore any warnings given, and have edited as such through different IPs. The reach of their edits is problematic, though individual page protection for every article may be too extreme. I previously took this issue to AIV though they recommend I bring it here instead. [[User:Trailblazer101|Trailblazer101]] ([[User talk:Trailblazer101|talk]]) 01:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Improper close ==<br /> {{atop|Reported editor blocked indefinitely by {{noping|Dennis Brown}} per [[WP:NOTHERE]]. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 17:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC) {{nac}}}}<br /> * {{Userlinks|Candied Taters}}<br /> I reverted this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&amp;oldid=prev&amp;diff=1215965720 close]. Can someone review the account which made the close. [[User:IOHANNVSVERVS|IOHANNVSVERVS]] ([[User talk:IOHANNVSVERVS|talk]]) 06:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I also notice that Candied Tater's userpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Candied_Taters&amp;redirect=no redirects to an admin's user page] (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACandied_Taters&amp;diff=1215965100&amp;oldid=1215959997 here] is the diff where they created that redirect). Seems like the user picked out the longest thread, or saw it [[Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Administrative_discussions|at WP:CR]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests&amp;oldid=1215947052#Administrative_discussions permanent link]). Whatever the user was trying to do, it seems disruptive. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 06:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *I blocked him under [[WP:NOTHERE]]. The user page (now deleted) sealed the fate, redirecting to an admin's page ([[User:Red-tailed hawk]]) after that admin changed it so they don't redirect their user page to a Guideline. Troll like behavior, obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. [[User:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;Dennis Brown&lt;/b&gt;]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|&lt;b&gt;2&amp;cent;&lt;/b&gt;]] 06:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I went ahead and deleted their 2 !votes on this page. If someone objects feel free to restore. But seems like [[WP:DENY]] is the best approach here. –[[User:Novem Linguae|&lt;span style=&quot;color:blue&quot;&gt;'''Novem Linguae'''&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])&lt;/small&gt; 06:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == [[User:99.209.199.62]] Keep vandelzing Wikipedia ==<br /> <br /> Hi I just saw a ip keep vandelzing the page [[Final Fantasy XVI]] can you please block the ip since he continued after the final warning [[User:Fixer332|Fixer332]] ([[User talk:Fixer332|talk]]) 16:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Fixer332|Fixer332]] The IP has now been blocked for a week. Next time, a better place to report this would be [[WP:AIV|AIV]]. [[User:Kline|Kline]] • [[User talk:Kline|talk to me!]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kline|contribs]] 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:8diq]] and disruptive editing ==<br /> <br /> {{User2|8diq}} has <br /> * repeatedly inserted a large amount of inline images (which is basically the only type of edits they did) despite [[MOS:IRELEV]] and other editors' warnings on their talk page<br /> ** first warned on December 2023, around ~25 edits afterwards<br /> * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delhi_Republic_Day_parade&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1189195027 posted copyrighted materials] on articles and cross-wiki-[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/8diq uploaded] copyrighted images to Commons tagged as &quot;own work&quot;<br /> * not even one edit that is not reverted<br /> [[User:Northern Moonlight|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,Inter,-apple-system,Twitter Color Emoji,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap&quot;&gt;Northern Moonlight&lt;/span&gt;]] 00:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Barr Theo]] and bot-like mass creation of articles ==<br /> <br /> [[User:Barr Theo]]'s only contributions have been to create many new articles in batches, often several in less than one minute, and always at timestamps ending in :59 or :00. This pattern of mass-creation, as well as the total unresponsiveness on their talk page regarding their behavior, makes me believe they might be running an unauthorized bot creating these articles for them. [[User:Chaotic Enby|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#8a7500&quot;&gt;Chaotıċ &lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:#9e5cb1&quot;&gt;Enby&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 01:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :*'''Blocked''' until he explains this bot-like activity. [[Manuel María Smith]], [[Manuel Rodríguez Arzuaga]], [[Manuel de la Sota]], [[Manuel del Castillo]] and [[Manuel Gallego]] were all created within the exact same minute. There's no way those were done manually (or is it [[WP:ASSPERSIANS|Manuelly]]?) &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 02:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:{{tq|(or is it [[WP:ASSPERSIANS|Manuelly]]?)}} Boooooo. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:default;color:#246BCE;&quot;&gt;Liliana&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;&quot;&gt;UwU&lt;/span&gt;]]''''' &lt;sup&gt;([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])&lt;/sup&gt; 04:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::Bot-like? Or butt-like? [[User:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:red;&quot;&gt;E&lt;/b&gt;]][[User talk:EEng#s|&lt;b style=&quot;color:blue;&quot;&gt;Eng&lt;/b&gt;]] 06:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:Hi, I am [[User:Barr Theo|Barr Theo]]. I am currently unlogged because I do not want to break my &quot;insane streak of creations for March&quot;, which is also the reason why I did not answer [[User:Chaotic Enby|Chaotic Enby]]. (The last time I used an IP address was in 2022 by the way, and this occasion is an exception that I do not want to repeat).<br /> :*:Regarding these wild accusations of bot usage, I must say that I am very disappointed with your conclusions... No, I do not use &quot;unauthorized bots&quot;, I simply create the articles that I have scheduled for the day and then wait for :59 to click on publish, usually at 23:59. Why do I do it? Because I am obsessed with details (grouping individuals by name, such as Luises and Manuels) and with symmetry (I always edit in pairs, and very often two or four pages per day), and also because I am a perhaps slightly stupid and crazy. But one thing that I am not is a criminal and I have never used &quot;unauthorized bots&quot;; in fact, I do not even know how to do that and I am not even sure if there is any kind of bot that can do what I have been doing. <br /> :*:Perhaps my insane levels of consistency and tiredness lead some of you to believe that I am being aided by machines, or that I am machine myself, but I ain't. I am just a human being, a very relentless and determined one. Sorry, Chaotic Enby, but there are no shortcuts for greatness.<br /> :*:Now that this miserdustanding has been clarified and now that I have explained by &quot;bot-like activity&quot;, I need to be unblocked as soon as possible because my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today (two of which are already done since 21 March, but that I will only publish at :59 of today).<br /> :*:Kind regards (waiting for 14:59 to upload this). [[Special:Contributions/2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D]] ([[User talk:2001:8A0:7E53:DF00:454:DF3B:EAA5:BA5D|talk]]) 14:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Block evasion, isn't going to help, in fact that makes the situation worse. {{tq|my schedule tells me that I have SIX new pages to create today}} what schedule? [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{ping|The Wordsmith}}, self admitted block evasion above. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 15:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::I see it, thanks. I've responded at [[User talk:Barr Theo]] and blocked the /64. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barr_Theo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216190435 {{tq|I really didn't wanna break my streak nor use IP addresses due to my previous problems with multi-accounts}}] doesn't fill me with enthusiasm. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I'd guess they are referring to their previous unblock conditions: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABarr_Theo&amp;diff=1160765567&amp;oldid=1160703744]. &amp;ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8093:5F01:91C5:7125:1875:DAC1|2804:F1...75:DAC1]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:8093:5F01:91C5:7125:1875:DAC1|talk]]) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *As much as {{u|Barr Theo}}'s explanation here and on their talk might be unusual, I don't see reason not to believe it. Unless there are any substantive issues with the pages that would warrant administrative intervention (and nobody has raised any), I don't think we should be keeping them blocked, and I don't think we should be weighing their evasion against them, since all they've been doing is appealing, albeit in the wrong place. {{u|The Wordsmith}}, are you okay with an unblock? --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I mean, they admit they're just creating/posting these articles rapid fire to meet some sort of self-imposed schedule. And then failing to respond to inquiries on their Talk page when people asked what they were doing. If nothing else, they need to acknowledge that this is a collaborative editing environment and just ignoring concerns is a bad idea.<br /> *:More concerning, this isn't the first time they've resorted to sockpuppetry. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::{{tq|I mean, they admit they're just creating/posting these articles rapid fire to meet some sort of self-imposed schedule.}}<br /> *::I don't think people's &quot;internal schedules&quot; are something we should be concerned with (or concerned by), provided that their scheduling doesn't lead to problematic ''behaviour''. The problematic behaviour raised here so far is them not responding to [[User talk:Barr Theo#Mass creation of articles|a single query]]. I agree that's something they need to change in the future, but it's not a what I'd consider a major offence, and neither is their logging out to respond here. If they had done (or were to do) anything other than trying to engage with community concerns while logged out, it'd be a very different story, but they haven't. This is what I'd essentially consider a &quot;good faith&quot; SOCK violation, as opposed to &quot;proper&quot; socking. <br /> *::All that said, I'm a bit concerned by the &quot;line-pulling&quot; referred to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barr_Theo&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216209252 in response to The Wordsmith's query], and concur that this should probably be cleared up before proceeding. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 23:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:I don't really care about the block evasion, since it clearly wasn't intended to actually be ''evasive''. I see we've had an explanation about what this project is for, and I find it unusual but plausible. I'm satisfied that there's no unauthorized botting happening. I've asked one more question, about whether the text for these articles is original or translated/copied from somewhere (which might require attribution or checking for copyvio). If that's answered, and {{u|Barr Theo}} agrees to be reasonably responsive to the questions/concerns of other editors in the future, I'm fine with any admin unblocking if I don't get to it first. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 18:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Personal attack by {{u|ජපස}} ==<br /> <br /> I believe that I should be able to discuss the reliability of sources without being called an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216111388 ideologically-driven antiwokist]. Please do something about it. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 03:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :That seems to be the upshot of your argument. I look at impact of your rhetoric and cannot judge the intent. I have no way to judge what your mindset is. Shall I add something to that effect? [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 03:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I shall! [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216113708]. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 03:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::That's scarcely any better. Frankly, any accusation related to &quot;[[woke]]ness&quot; (supposedly for or against) is inappropriate and poisons a topic. On any culture war-adjacent topic where it might be invoked, it could be hurled against any participant (again, supposedly for or against). As [[WP:NPA#WHATIS]] says, {{tq|Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden.}} &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Palatino&quot;&gt;[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]&lt;/sup&gt; 04:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> : So jps decided to double down on his attack. Jps argues against the reliability of an academic journal mostly based on his own opinion of what he thinks is the ideology of the journal. This includes sweeping assertions about 60 academics: &quot;the members of this editorial board really are proponents of fringe theories&quot;, BLP be damned. My argument is that the reliability of a journal doesn't depend on whether jps or myself like what it publishes. I should be able to take that position without being accused of being a supporter of the ideology that jps abhors. I would take the same position if the ideology of the journal was the opposite. The fact is that jps doesn't have a clue what my ideological position is and I shouldn't have to take his ignorant insults. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 04:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@jps: There are times to go hard and pour buckets on opponents, but this is not one of them. The entire [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Journal of Controversial Ideas]] discussion is a waste of space because there is no actionable proposal. Is someone saying that journal can ''never'' be used as a source? Surely people know that explicit examples must be discussed before assessing whether something is reliable. Zero0000 is not playing a [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] game—it's actually you who are missing what Zero0000 has written. I am sympathetic to the view that some philosophers struggle to find interesting topics to discuss and they offer opinions on topics outside their expertise. We could chat about that but again it would be a waste of space. Please stop arguing there and wait until something actionable arises (should a particular claim in a particular article be sourced to the ''[[Journal of Controversial Ideas]]''?). And stop insulting valid comments. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I've blocked {{u|ජපස}} 1 week (as an Arbitration Enforcement action) for violating [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:NPA]]. There's a long history of warnings, sanctions and blocks for incivility in pseudoscience-related matters, dating back to at least 2006 with an Arbcom &quot;Caution&quot; at [[WP:ARBPSCI#ScienceApologist is uncivil]] up through a 2023 Arbitration Enforcement report [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive319#ජපස|where he was reminded]] to report pro-fringe disruption to administrators rather than being uncivil to them. Most recently, he was [[User talk:ජපස#Uncivil behavior|asked]] just a week ago to tone down the language and informed about [[WP:BRIE]]. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 05:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Although I consider myself a wikifriend of jps, and I tend to agree with his views on content matters, The Wordsmith accurately points to my warning about BRIE as part of that recent discussion at jps' talk page, and I endorse what The Wordsmith did. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::'''Good block'''. I encountered JPS here at ANI and through the Ammonihah page linked below. I'll add that JPS's behavior extends beyond the above thread. In this past month, he has [[WP:CIVIL|repeatedly chosen to express himself uncivilly]] on multiple pages (diffs provided below). As The Wordsmith points out, editors [[User talk:ජපස#Uncivil behavior|encouraged JPS to be more civil at his talk page]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;oldid=1216122139#Uncivil_behavior permanent link]) preceding the behavior at [[WP:FTN]]. JPS's acknowledgment that the thread had presented [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214739500 {{tq|a fair critique}}] apparently wasn't an indicator he would change his behavior.{{pb}}On user talk pages:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AViriditas&amp;diff=1214128433&amp;oldid=1213922579 {{tq|are you being petty? I don't see any substantive argument, just sour grapes}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214523384 {{Tq|profoundly weird sources you are demanding}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}In tags for Second Nephi<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Nephi&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214148955 {{tq|What in the actual fuck does THAT mean?}}; {{tq|You kidding me? Who wrote this? They need to be stopped.}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}At Talk:Massacre of the Innocents:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214212860&amp;oldid=1214211214# {{tq|that's just nonsense.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214213832&amp;oldid=1214213492 {{tq|::rolleyes:: This isn't serious}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214214550&amp;oldid=1214213931 {{tq|His bullshit needs to go too.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214214814&amp;oldid=1214214638 {{tq|Lol.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214217933&amp;oldid=1214216833 {{tq|Grow a thicker skin,}} and {{tq|If that offends a believer, then they need to leave this project.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1215521407&amp;oldid=1215520011 {{tq|Are you kidding?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214220315&amp;oldid=1214220053 {{tq|a charlatan. A hack. A biblical literalist who wants to play with the real scholars but can't because his faith requires him to believe absolute absurdities.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMassacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1216096055&amp;oldid=1216031705 {{tq|It looks like you are WP:POVPUSHing for your religious beliefs at this point.}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}In edit summaries for Massacre of the Innocents:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214194312&amp;oldid=1213785701 {{tq|This is not Sunday School. Take your biblical literalist whining elsewhere.}}] (Supposing editors are either not aware this is Wikipedia and not Sunday School (seems to be an implication of stupidity) or that they're acting in bad faith)<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214195168&amp;oldid=1214194881 {{tq|bullshit}}]<br /> ::* Stating that other editors are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1214196547&amp;oldid=1214196395 {{tq|promoting lies in the encyclopedia}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massacre_of_the_Innocents&amp;diff=1215406387&amp;oldid=1214982462 {{tq|ideology that is quite bizarre}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}At Talk:Ammonihah<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213721999 {{tq|why the hell did Joseph Smith bother to make up this silly story? Y'know?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213810626 {{tq|these &lt;s&gt;three&lt;/s&gt;two-and-a-half Mormons}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213906438 {{tq|They seem to say that, yes. That makes them Mormon apologists. Yep!}}] (said of [https://rap.wustl.edu/people/laurie-f-maffly-kipp/ Laurie Maffly-Kipp] and [[Penguin Books]])<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213909094 {{tq|LOL, WP:NOR isn't a suicide pact.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213912920 {{tq|This is Wikipedia. We don't play stupid games like this.}}]<br /> ::* When I asked if he meant to say that {{tq|Scholarship published in academic venues constitutes &quot;stupid games}}, referring in large part to [https://muse.jhu.edu/article/522405 an article from a secular academic journal published by the University of Pennsylvania Press that I was linking on the talk page], JPS answered, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213913325 {{tq|In most cases, absolutely}}].<br /> ::* When I asked if JPS meant to imply {{tq|&quot;Lunatic charlatans&quot; like professors of literature? Is that the implication?}} (literature professors like [https://www.uvm.edu/cas/english/profiles/elizabeth_fenton Elizabeth Fenton], whose research was cited for explanatory purposes on the talk page, a living person), JPS answered, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213917026 {{tq|Well, we had about a big long discussion about blacklisting those words, but it came up &quot;no consensus&quot;. Whachagonnado?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213940114 {{tq|Does it hurt your feelings or something?}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214007074 {{tq|A bit sloppy there, old Joey S.}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}In edit summaries, body text, and tags for Ammonihah:<br /> ::* Inserted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1213941828 {{tq|???}}] into the body text<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214001273 {{tq|This isn't Sunday School}}] (Supposing editors are either not aware this is Wikipedia and not Sunday School (seems to be an implication of stupidity) or that they're acting in bad faith)<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214003860 {{tq|Removing this section. It's a flight of fancy}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214003935 {{tq|some nonsensical readings}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ammonihah&amp;diff=next&amp;oldid=1214004257 {{tq|Removing this paragraph. I really hate it.}}] (a human editor wrote that paragraph; we can criticize with less hostile language)<br /> ::{{pb}}Here at ANI:<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213600134&amp;oldid=1213599753# {{tq|This is an editor who can't follow a hypothetical}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213696119&amp;oldid=1213696098# {{tq|a complete clusterfuck.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1213871517&amp;oldid=1213871371 {{tq|I think people like you are to blame}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214030158&amp;oldid=1214029645 {{tq|cult-like behaviors.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214095402&amp;oldid=1214093441 {{tq|absolutely atrocious edits}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1214340841&amp;oldid=1214340684 {{tq|Forget it. At this point, you're running interference.}}]<br /> ::* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&amp;diff=1215421882&amp;oldid=1215418186 {{tq|I will not apologize for being a disruptive force in those places}}]<br /> ::{{pb}}I understand there's been a lot of ferment about articles in Mormon studies topic areas. I can accept if how I or others have contributed isn't what the community wants; I can accept articles like Ammonihah being revised, even drastically. But I'm unconvinced that JPS's behavior is necessary to accomplish that (to use the Ammonihah page as an example, other editors have been able to talk about revising the article without similar behavior; Ghosts of Europa, Steve Quinn). As Zero0000 said, editors shouldn't have to take JPS's insults. And this behavior is not limited to Mormon studies (as FTN and Massacre of the Innocents demonstrate). Maybe a one-week block will be enough to remind JPS of the ArbCom caution. But when this has apparently been going on for so long, and when JPS seems to react to concerns about his behavior with relative indifference (even when he invites discussion on his talk page about his behavior, he says, {{tq|You can even request that I reword things, if you like. I'm not saying I necessarily will agree to reword things}}), I'm left wondering whether this will stick and if some other sanction will be necessary to prevent more uncivil behavior in the future. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 08:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::: For record, I actually agree with much of jps's effort in keeping bible literalism out of the encyclopedia. He could do it with a lot less incivility though, as some but not all of these examples illustrate. Also, these examples don't sufficiently distinguish between robust discussion of sources (which is allowed and necessary within BLP limits) and insults and insinuations against editors which are not allowed. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;small&gt;[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 11:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yes, discussion of sources is allowed within BLP limits. The diffs pertaining to source discussion that I chose to include affect discussion and other editors in a way that I think is well characterized by this quote from the talk thread page that The Wordsmith linked above ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83&amp;diff=1214739500&amp;oldid=1214681976 diff]): {{tq|I'm}} [Tryptofish] {{tq|not worried that you}} [JPS] {{tq|hurt the sources' feelings. But when you say these things about sources in a way that causes bad feelings among other editors, it's not necessarily those other editors' fault that they feel bad. If you think it's a source of pride to hurt other editors' feelings, well, that's both bullshit and baloney.}} [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 11:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :*I think this is a good example of &quot;it's not what you say, it's how you say it&quot;. I don't like to see jps blocked as I feel he's a tremendous resource when it comes to astronomy, astrophysics, and matters related to skepticism and paranormal nonsense. But when it comes to some topics, particularly religious topics, jps can get into a kind of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation, and his demeanor rapidly changes and he can get nasty. I can completely understand his approach because I have myself been there (as my block log can attest), particularly when it comes to political topics. I think what helped me loosen up and calm down a little bit was to remember two things: try to remember the human on the other side, and to acknowledge the ''coincidentia oppositorum''—that we can't have the black without the white, the light without the dark, and the religious without the non-religious. My goal is to try and remain civil within that tension of the opposites. I hope jps can do the same in the future as he's a valuable contributor. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 22:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*: If JPS's pattern of incivility crops up in certain topic areas, would focusing JPS's editorial efforts on other topic areas be a reasonable preventative measure to take going forward, in light of the long duration of this recurring behavior? Focusing on astrophysics and astronomy, for example, and avoiding religious studies. (Or, so as to also encompass the topic area of the thread at FTN—apparently about a philosophy periodical—avoiding the humanities?) [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 01:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*::I was merely providing an example, but my guess is that the intersection between fringe theories, scientific skepticism, and other topics is quite large, so it can’t really be reduced to a single topic area. The best thing jps can do is to limit their replies (avoid bludgeoning) and allow their opponents to have the last word. This is something I’ve tried to bring to the table with my own contributions, and while I haven’t always been successful, it has personally helped me become more civil in my approach. In the relevant example, jps already had his say and didn’t need to keep replying to Zero. I think we have to try to avoid protracted discussions that have a tendency to become personal. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 02:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :*:::That's good advice for all of us and could be a good thing for JPS to do. I do wonder, with this behavior having such a long history (nearly 18 years), wide breadth (multiple topic areas), and vitriolic depth (visible in multiple examples), whether as a community we should consider applying further formal measures designed to help JPS to do so and to avoid incivility and personal attacks. As much as [[WP:AGF|his goal is to help the project]], JPS has received warnings, cautions, advice, and blocks about this for more than a decade and a half, and he has evidently nevertheless kept resuming this pattern of behavior. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &amp;#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &amp;#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 07:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{admin note}} ජපස has asked that the his statement be copied over here, so I've done that below &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus, Courier New&quot;&gt;[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 13:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC):<br /> :Please copy my statement to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. I do apologize for personal attack offense. I tried to redact and am always amenable to discussion. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස#top|talk]]) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස#top|talk]]) 10:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Emrahthehistorist17]] ==<br /> <br /> This emerges from [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#Emrahthehistorist17 mass edits to infoboxes]]. While the discussion was active on AN, the mass edits to infoboxes stopped albeit with no response of any sort from Emrah. Mere days after it was archived, the mass edits described there promptly started up again. The exact same issues I noted previously which deal with [[MOS:INFOBOXFLAG]] and use of the {{parameter|result}} in {{t|infobox military conflict}} immediately recurred.<br /> <br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhus%27_invasion_of_the_Peloponnese&amp;oldid=1128963126&amp;diff=cur (inserting anachronistic infobox flags)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Sparta&amp;diff=1215622745&amp;oldid=1092629126 (inserting fictional and anachronistic infobox flags)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215737268&amp;oldid=1208663331&amp;title=Byzantine%E2%80%93Norman_wars (misunderstanding the article; inserting more flags)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&amp;diff=1216054692&amp;oldid=1213019550 (restoring partially [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&amp;diff=1211101487&amp;oldid=1193607582 previously reverted] edits that misunderstand the article – noting that Asiagenes and '''not''' Africanus was the main Roman commander – are inconsistent with use of {{parameter|result}})<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Ecbatana&amp;oldid=1199556869&amp;diff=cur (misusing {{parameter|result}})<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_campaigns_in_Germania_(12_BC_%E2%80%93_AD_16)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215919875 (misusing {{parameter|result}})<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_Actium&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216062151 (misusing {{parameter|result}} along with unsourced additions)<br /> <br /> There have been multiple attempts to discuss this. I noted five previous attempts in my AN report:<br /> <br /> {{tq2|This behaviour has been consistent, with a long series of warnings from January 2024 to that effect on the user's talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#January_2024 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#February_2024 2], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Mass_edits_to_infoboxes 3], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#March_2024 4], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Warning 5]. I see no indication that the Emrahthehistorist17 has learnt anything from these discussions when replies therefrom can be generously characterised as emerging from a prosecutorial complex: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Mass_edits_to_infoboxes {{!tq|As long as you delete my edits like this, your website will never improve. It's done.}}], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mithridatic_Wars#Revert,_March_2024 {{!tq|I don't even have an idea about what are you talking about. But you seem like someone with authority on Wikipedia, and restricting me just because of your authority is a sign of injustice}}].}}<br /> <br /> There was absolutely no response to the notification of AN discussion. The only response I am aware of to anything since then was on [[User talk:Emrahthehistorist17#Roman–Seleucid war|Emrah's talk page]] yesterday where he simply responded with a curt {{!tq|Okay, I changed Hannibal and Ligustinus, but don't delete my other additions}} when factual errors were found. These edits to infoboxes are highly disruptive, especially when Emrah does not seem to understand that infoboxes are supplementary summaries of articles that reflect the contents therein and then misunderstands what is being summarised (as at [[Roman–Seleucid war]]). This has been made clear multiple times; to pause these edits while the behaviour was under discussion at AN, be entirely silent contra [[WP:COMMUNICATE]], and then restart them immediately after that discussion at AN was archived, feels akin to a sort of bad-faith gaming and at minimum a [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]]. [[User:Ifly6|Ifly6]] ([[User talk:Ifly6|talk]]) 05:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Its the same behavior of refusing to read what [[WP:MOS]] says and trying to push his views at whatever cost. When some points out that he has introduced an error its either [[WP:ICANTHEARYOU]] or making minor modifications that do not solve the underlying problem and then saying: &quot;I changed it, it fine now.&quot;.--[[User:Catlemur|Catlemur]] ([[User talk:Catlemur|talk]]) 18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Nonsensical edit summaries ==<br /> {{atop|Dealt with. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> {{User4|Polavarapu Mokshith Sai}}: over 200+ nonsensical edit summaries like &quot;cv bnbv hftzgrzdcrfdcgert drfycjg h&quot; and &quot;yjtttttttt&quot;. They were warned 2 days ago and proceeded with 30+ more edit summaries with keyboard smashes. Bonus: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narayana_Group_of_Educational_Institutions&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215692360 promotional] edits. [[User:Northern Moonlight|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:system-ui,BlinkMacSystemFont,Inter,-apple-system,Twitter Color Emoji,sans-serif;background-color:#f3f3fe;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:3px;white-space:nowrap&quot;&gt;Northern Moonlight&lt;/span&gt;]] 07:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have indefinitely blocked Polavarapu Mokshith Sai as not here to build an encyclopedia for overtly non-neutral promotional editing, and hundreds of instances of gibberish in edit summaries. A toxic combination. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 08:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == Legal threats at Talk:Richard Huckle ==<br /> {{la|Richard Huckle}}&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> 2600:1700:3EC7:4150:CDF5:ECBA:20AF:BA6F making legal threats against the site. [[User:Gene Stanley1|Gene Stanley1]] ([[User talk:Gene Stanley1|talk]]) 08:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Yes. And I can't say I'm particularly surprised, when you see that someone had vandalised the article repeatedly to change the name of the article subject (a convicted serial child abuser) to the name of another individual - quite possibly the IPs. It is entirely unreasonable to expect anyone in that situation to engage in deep research into Wikipedia policy on what is or isn't permitted on article talk pages before responding. See [[Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats]]. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 09:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :: Following this, is there any real benefit to letting IP users edit this article? [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 09:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Not particularly, though one could say the same about the many other biographical articles that see similar vandalism. The problem needs fixing properly: i.e. pending changes for all BLPs at minimum. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 10:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The benefit to letting IP users edit this article was demonstrated here. An IP user removed the serious [[WP:BLP]] violation. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I don't think that there's much more that we can reasonably do about this specific threat, given what [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] says and that this is an unregistered user. I get the impression that the editor simply wanted to correct an egregious fault on Wikipedia. I have left them a note explaining [[WP:NLT]] in case they come back. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Blocked two weeks.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 12:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:Why? We have absolutely no reason not to assume that the contributor had a legitimate complaint about the content. Do you really expect individuals in such a situation to read through the entire corpus of Wikipedia guidelines and policies before responding? [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Yes, that does seem a little thoughtless and heavy-handed. Surely some information about legal threats would have been better than a block in the circumstances. The originator of the threat, who seemed to be acting in good faith and for the good of Wikipedia, did not have a chance to retract it.[[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 18:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *The legal threat has been retracted. I hope that this editor is unblocked now. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I've just unblocked them a few minutes ago. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> The block was a good block -- it does not matter whether the issuer of a legal threat is [[WP:BRIE|in the right or not]]. The threat itself is [[WP:NLT|against policy]]; it creates a chilling effect on editors; and prevents the assumption of good faith. That's not an opinion -- that's [[Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Rationale|explicitly what our policy states]]. And the policy describes exactly how to handle this situation -- block them for the duration of the legal threat, and [[Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Conclusion_of_legal_threat|unblock them without prejudice or ill-will once they rescind it]]. We should also, if it hasn't been done, sanction the editor who made the offending statement in the first place. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Personal attacks at [[User talk:Anant-morgan]] ==<br /> [[User:Anant-morgan]] continues making personal attacks following a block [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anant-morgan&amp;curid=76144123&amp;diff=1216149802&amp;oldid=1216058086]. Please remove talk page access. [[User:JimRenge|JimRenge]] ([[User talk:JimRenge|talk]]) 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I heavily agree. They literally flipped Doug off after he blocked them. I honestly feel pretty bad for him. [[User:NoobThreePointOh|NoobThreePointOh]] ([[User talk:NoobThreePointOh|talk]]) 13:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Well, Ingenuity resolved our problems. [[User:NoobThreePointOh|NoobThreePointOh]] ([[User talk:NoobThreePointOh|talk]]) 15:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I have a strong suspicion that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anant-morgan&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214217589 {{tq|Are you restarted or something?}}] isn't what A-m meant. [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 15:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == MisteOsoTruth and Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. ==<br /> <br /> <br /> * {{userlinks|MisteOsoTruth}}<br /> <br /> MisteOsoTruth is a single purpose account dedicated to the recent controversy surrounding Sweet Baby Inc, an area covered under contentions topics restrictions. They [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMisteOsoTruth&amp;diff=1215603055&amp;oldid=1215602860 have received notices about this]. They have been filling the talk page there with personal attacks on other editors and BLP violations (by accusing named individuals of committing harassment). Personal attacks: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Codename_Noreste&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1213691434][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215673592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216160102] and BLP violations: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215674592][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215675312][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215676001][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215850309][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215602536]. Here's a personal attack (against someone else) repeated on my user talk in response to a warning I placed about personal attacks: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215677916]. And here is the response to my efforts to warn them about this on their user talk page, repeating the accusations: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MisteOsoTruth&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216162074].<br /> <br /> This has gone on long enough, I would suggest a block as this user is clearly not going to stop and is clearly [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to build an encyclopedia.]] - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 13:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :They have been given more than sufficient rope. I concur [[WP:NOTHERE]] applies. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :'''Support''' a NOTHERE block, the repeated BLP violations make it clear they're not going to adhere to our rules. — &lt;b&gt;[[User:HandThatFeeds|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help&quot;&gt;The Hand That Feeds You&lt;/span&gt;]]:&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt; 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :They have contacted me though email to also discuss the same points they argue for in the talk page. I have emailed them back advising them to focus on getting RSs instead of tweets, youtube videos and screenshots while trying to explain why those are disallowed. I hoped that as someone who hadn't been very involved in the talk page (having only made one comment) I could advice them without any feelings of hostility. Seeing them continue their old ways without taking my advise saddens me but does reinforce my feeling that they simply refuse to learn the policies of wikipedia, instead of simply being ignorant of it.<br /> :[[User:Speederzzz|Speeder''zzz'']] ([[User_talk:Speederzzz|Talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Speederzzz|Stalk me]]) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Based on this user being an SPA, creating a significant amount of heat and not much light around a contentious topic page that's been immensely disrupted over the past several weeks, and the demonstrated lack of [[WP:CIR|competency]] and [[WP:NOTHERE]] concerns, I'm going to partial block MisteOsoTruth from the SBI article and talk page for 2 months. Because of the way the CTOPS appeals process works, and the fact that I'm editing on a laptop from out-of-town, I'm proactively giving my approval in advance for any uninvolved admin to modify or remove that block without needing to consult with me first. [[User:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;⇒&lt;/span&gt;]][[User_talk:Swatjester|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Serif&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:black&quot;&gt;SWAT&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:goldenrod&quot;&gt;Jester&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;]] &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt; 01:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> * Although I'm a bit late with this, I would also point out that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1213691434&amp;oldid=1213542170&amp;title=User_talk:Codename_Noreste this] edit (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215677916&amp;oldid=1215652642&amp;title=User_talk:MrOllie this] one from above) targets [[User:Ryulong]], who was blocked almost a decade ago as part of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate]]. It is simply implausible that a new editor could randomly decide to bear a grudge against someone who was indefinitely blocked nearly a decade ago. Their focus on him strongly suggests that this editor is either a sockpuppet or arrived here via one of the gamergate blogs or forums that still (to this day) regard Ryulong as something of a [[Bête noire]]; the nature of that focus suggests possible [[WP:MEAT]] / [[WP:CANVASS]] issues. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 05:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Molarinoye09 ==<br /> <br /> <br /> {{userlinks|Molarinoye09}}<br /> <br /> Since September 2023, Molarinoye09 has been disrupting [[Take That]] related articles by introducing unsourced material, or creating articles and using sources from Instagram, which aren't enough to go about on. When the article gets redirected due to [[WP:NSONG]], or if a link is removed due to said article being redirected like these articles [[You and Me (Take That song)|here]], and [[New Day (Take That song)|here]], they revert back and sometimes respond with &quot;{{tq|Don't do something bad.}}&quot; or &quot;{{tq|leave this article alone!}}&quot; and has even got to even posting those on the article talk pages of those redirects, as well as stating &quot;{{tq|This is an article, not a redirect.}}&quot; which also suggests [[WP:OWN]] issues. They have been previously warned multiple times, but they have [[WP:LISTEN|continued to ignore them]] as if the policies of Wikipedia do not apply to them, though they did state that they &quot;{{tq|would not be blocked}}&quot; when they were warned about missing copyright and/or source information for images they upload. [[User:HorrorLover555|HorrorLover555]] ([[User talk:HorrorLover555|talk]]) 14:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Their behavior to date unsuitable on multiple grounds--uploading fair use images without appropriate justifications, poor quality articles, bad sourcing. [[Special:Diff/1216135204|This]], created today, is obviously unsuited for mainspace. If this continues they're getting blocked, but I'd like to hear from them first. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 14:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::...aaand within 35 minutes of {{-r|You and Me (Take That single)}} being redirected to the band (09:26), they're back again with [[Draft:You and Me (Take That song)]] (09:59). [[User:Narky Blert|Narky Blert]] ([[User talk:Narky Blert|talk]]) 15:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Definitely no response to the ANI notice either. I think they are refusing to communicate. [[User:HorrorLover555|HorrorLover555]] ([[User talk:HorrorLover555|talk]]) 16:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Double check me on this, but based on the timestamps I don't believe they've edited since this discussion opened. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 16:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I created the page for the band's new album back in September, and I've been chasing after them and trying to fix their, to be frank, pretty poor edits. They are constantly trying to make new pages for singles which might not need them, and even when they're in draft form, add links to them on the actual wiki. You can see this on some of the edits they did to the page for ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wonderland_(Take_That_album)&amp;oldid=1192829324 Wonderland]''. I've helped out a little with these pages to make them a little more justifiable to exist, but even then they are purely stubs which are just on the cusp of notability.<br /> :Another thing I've had to deal with them (which I find particularly annoying) is they stole the description on my profile page, changed &quot;The Beatles&quot; to &quot;One Direction&quot;, replaced my name with their own and did nothing else. It does make it funny therefore that their profile page claims they are interested in 90/00s electronic music, and have been writing for a wiki about aviation accidents since 2020, when they certainly haven't. But still, it's annoying.<br /> :As to whether or not I think they should be banned, I think so, but only for a week at most. This person clearly doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and just telling them doesn't seem to be fixing it, as you mentioned. I think banning them temporarily will show them that they need to listen to us. [[User:Tedster41|Tedster41]] ([[User talk:Tedster41|talk]]) 17:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Based on their edits, I would say it would be a longer temporary block than just a week. I don't think a week is going to get them to hear us out, as they'll likely jump back to doing the same edits as before once it expires. [[User:HorrorLover555|HorrorLover555]] ([[User talk:HorrorLover555|talk]]) 17:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Block request ==<br /> {{atop|Dealt with. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> Can somebody please block this IP? [[Special:Contributions/170.231.85.132]] Petty vandalism adding fake death dates to BLPs. Thanks [[User:Jkaharper|Jkaharper]] ([[User talk:Jkaharper|talk]]) 14:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :There's someone in Brazil who does this frequently, using various IPs. Just revert/warn, revert/warn, report to [[WP:AIV]]. [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 14:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::And they're blocked. Thanks, {{ping|Jauerback}}! [[User:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#066293;&quot;&gt;'''Schazjmd'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#738276;&quot;&gt;''(talk)''&lt;/span&gt;]] 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == S201050066 once more ==<br /> {{previous discussion|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive357#S201050066 again}}<br /> <br /> Could we get a block on IP 64.229.35.200 ([[Special:Contributions/64.229.35.200|contributions]]) and {{U|S201050066 number 43.3}}, who posted [[Special:Diff/1216199096|some angry rant on my talk page]]? It looks like this user is being disruptive in COVID-19 articles again. —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Tenryuu all the rest of the Timeline Of The COVID-19 pandemics articles on our list to [[User:S201050066 number 43.3|S201050066 number 43.3]] ([[User talk:S201050066 number 43.3|talk]]) 18:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Indeffed by Spicy. [[User:Lynch44|Lynch44]] ([[User talk:Lynch44|talk]]) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{Non-admin comment}} And the IP's been blocked for 7 days by Nthep. [[User talk:Relativity|&lt;b style=&quot;border-radius:3em;padding:6px;background:#e82c52;color:white;&quot;&gt;‍ Relativity &lt;/b&gt;]]&lt;span style=&quot;display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt; 00:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I give thanks to all the admins involved. I don't suppose this is enough to merit semi-protection on COVID-19 timeline articles that S201050066 has edited? —[[User:Tenryuu|&lt;span style=&quot;color:#556B2F&quot;&gt;Tenryuu&amp;nbsp;🐲&lt;/span&gt;]]&amp;nbsp;(&amp;nbsp;[[User talk:Tenryuu|💬]]&amp;nbsp;•&amp;nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Tenryuu|📝]]&amp;nbsp;) 00:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Sak7340 ==<br /> <br /> {{User|User:Sak7340}} has been edit-warring on [[Mohammed Zubair (journalist)]] and is on their 8th revert so far. There is a [[WP:EWN]] report but it hasn't been reviewed yet. They've now created a couple of retaliatory and incomplete reports there on DaxServer [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216202193] and myself [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216202864]. There is a discussion on the article talk page, but it's going nowhere fast. I'm hoping this will get some faster attention as they've continued the disruptive editing after all of the warnings and the original EWN report. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|&lt;span style=&quot;color: darkred;&quot;&gt;Ravensfire&lt;/span&gt;]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :The edits are a blatant violation of WP:BLP policy. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Sak7340 has been blocked by ToBeFree for two weeks and the article ECP'd for a while. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|&lt;span style=&quot;color: darkred;&quot;&gt;Ravensfire&lt;/span&gt;]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 18:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Needs extending to indefinite, and talk page access removing, in my opinion: see this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sak7340&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216231118] [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 21:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I've increased to indefinite. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[User:Vauban Books]] ==<br /> <br /> From [[WP:BLPN]]. {{uls|Vauban Books}}: {{tq|This page, and particularly its first paragraph, is gross libel [...] Failing to properly edit may well invite legal action.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1216229796]. Does this post violate or come close enough to violating [[WP:NLT]]? Does the OP's username violate our [[WP:CORPNAME]], [[WP:COI]] or other policies? I'll note, this is apparently a publisher of the subject, [[Renaud Camus]]. See [https://www.vaubanbooks.com here] for the identically named publisher promoting the subject for commercial purposes. Cheers! [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 22:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :No, [[WP:NLT]] is not appropriate here. It's just someone wanting to correct what they regard as inappropriate wording in [[Renaud Camus]] and, as is typical for someone new to Wikipedia, they have no idea about how to phrase their thoughts. They need guidance. The user name is a problem but please let's not get hung up about that either. Their thoughts should be considered at [[Talk:Renaud Camus]] if they respond there. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 22:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> == [[User:Graywalls]] reported by [[User:72.83.72.31]]==<br /> <br /> '''Pages:''' See below &lt;br /&gt;<br /> '''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Graywalls}}<br /> <br /> A few days ago, [[User:Graywalls]] started on a personal mission to attack a number of scouting related articles:<br /> <br /> *{{la|White Stag Leadership Development Program}} - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Stag Leadership Development Program]]<br /> *{{la|Béla H. Bánáthy}} - unilaterally removing large swaths of content<br /> *{{la|Boy Scouts of America}} - removing content repeatedly, and after being challenged ignoring the discussion started on the talk page<br /> *{{la|COPE (Boy Scouts of America)}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion<br /> *{{la|Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America)}} - unilaterally removing large swaths of content with no discussion<br /> *{{la|National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion<br /> *{{la|Philmont Training Center}} - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion<br /> *{{la|Scouting}} - unhelpful editing<br /> <br /> Graywalls ignored the discussion started on this page, [[Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America#Meeting_of_the_minds]], and moved the discussion to: [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Quotes_based_on_primary_sources_on_Boy_Scouts_of_America]]. <br /> <br /> It seems that whenever the discuss is not going their way they escalate the disagreement to another fourm. In the last day, this has happened:<br /> <br /> *[[American Heritage Girls]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[COPE (Boy Scouts of America)]] - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COPE (Boy Scouts of America)|Nominated for deletion]]<br /> *[[Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America)]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[Philmont Training Center]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> *[[Philmont Scout Ranch]] - tagging the article with multiple tags<br /> <br /> It's somewhat bewildering. On top of all that is Graywalls personal attacks against btphelps. You can find it here:[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Big Sur, California area touristy contents]], here [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User: btphelps with regard to Bél H. Bánáthy]], and then there is this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leadership_training_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215215397 personal attack in the edit summary]. I submitted the last item to the administrators to be removed.<br /> <br /> '''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215082335]<br /> <br /> '''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Graywalls&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1215438291]<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;'''Comments:'''&lt;/u&gt; &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The following users may be able to help:{{ping|evrik|Jergen|btphelps|North8000|erp}}<br /> See: [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive480#User:Graywalls%20reported%20by%20User:Evrik%20(Result:%20Declined)]]<br /> Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/72.83.72.31|72.83.72.31]] ([[User talk:72.83.72.31|talk]]) 02:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Long story short IMO definitely an &quot;axe to grind&quot; situation. Painful for several people and many articles. I wish this situation could get made better or fixed somehow. Maybe just a warning or something. Sincerely, &lt;b style=&quot;color: #0000cc;&quot;&gt;''North8000''&lt;/b&gt; ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 02:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == New attack account harassing GuardianH ==<br /> {{atop|Account blocked with promise of required SPI paperwork being completed shortly. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> [[:Special:Contributions/Iamguardiansguardian]] is a new attack account harassing {{ping|GuardianH}}. They have made 4 posts so far.&lt;sup&gt;[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGuardianH&amp;diff=1216279273&amp;oldid=1215257056 diff]&lt;/sup&gt; [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#Single-purpose account devoted to attacking GuardianH]] identified similar accounts as socks of [[:Special:Contributions/Korensho|Korensho]].&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000&quot;&gt;--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]&lt;/span&gt; 06:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{abot}}<br /> <br /> == [[Altay S.K.]] and [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] battleground behaviour ==<br /> <br /> <br /> Can I get a second (or more) set of eyes on the above.<br /> <br /> We've got an ongoing dispute between {{userlinks|Delbatros}} and various IP user(s). The crux of the matter appears to be of all things a logo/jersey design.<br /> Neither the IP(s) nor the registered editor is behaving particularly well and has resorted to edit warring and personal attacks towards each other, to add to the mix theres (potential) copyright concerns which dont appear valid false accusations of vandalism and definite ownership problems.<br /> <br /> Delbatros was blocked for edit-warring already and the Karşıyaka S.K. page semi-protected to try to resolve the dispute, the issue now appears to have migrated to Altay S.K. with similar behaviours from all involved, to prevent more damage at this point i've partially blocked Delbatros from the page and semi-protected it to prevent either user from further disruption.<br /> <br /> We do need a long term solution to this though and given the amount of action I've already done I'd appreciate wider opinions/assistance. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :As an aside the IP's appear to be too variable to realistically target/notify a single page so I haven't notified any of the IP editors but they seem to be quite good at locating posts related to Delbatros. If anyone can think of a good way of notifying them please let me know for future reference. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I am trying to edit the pages of Turkish clubs in other languages ​​as well. I'm not making any wrong changes, I'm not vandalizing, I'm not a malicious user, I'm just annoyed that the anonymous user (I know he has an existing wikipedia account) is following me with a different IP because he is wrong interfering with all my positive contributions. I started a new project to keep the jerseys of various branches of Turkish sports clubs up to date on other Wikipedias. With the support of the relevant participants, we will update the Wikipedia pages in other languages ​​of the relevant participants and branches of our sports clubs. (I will update most of the pages) [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]] ([[User talk:Delbatros|talk]]) 08:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amortias&diff=1216299806 2024-03-30T08:19:43Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Please help */</p> <hr /> <div>{{User:MiszaBot/config<br /> | algo=old(10d)<br /> | archive=User talk:Amortias/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s<br /> | minthreadsleft=4<br /> | minthreadstoarchive=1<br /> }}<br /> {{DISPLAYTITLE:&lt;span style=&quot;position:absolute; top: -9999px&quot;&gt;User talk:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Calibri;font-size:30px&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#4682B4&quot;&gt;Amortias&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;}}<br /> {{User:Amortias/Top icons}}<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;background: #d0e5f5; padding: 10px; border-top: 3px solid #4682B4; border-left: 3px solid #4682B4; border-right: 3px solid #4682B4; border-bottom: 3px solid #4682B4; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 100%; font-family:calibri; text-align: left;&quot;&gt;<br /> {{User:Amortias/Navbar}}<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;boilerplate metadata plainlinks&quot; style=&quot;background-color: #B0E0E6; border: 2px solid #4682B4; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;&gt; '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amortias&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Calibri;font-size:15px&quot;&gt;Click here to leave me a message&lt;/span&gt;].'''&lt;/div&gt;<br /> {{Talk header}}<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> ==Merry Christmas !!!==<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:#fff; border-width:3px; text-align:left; padding:2px;&quot;&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:6px;&quot; class=&quot;plainlinks&quot;&gt;[[File:Xmas colors, 2013 (photo by David J).jpg|x80px|left]]<br /> <br /> [[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Bradley Hand ITC;&quot;&gt;'''CAPTAIN RAJU'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|(T)]]&lt;/sup&gt; is wishing you a [[Mary Poppins|Merry]] [[Christmas]]! This greeting (and season) promotes [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a [[Christmas|Merry Christmas]], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! &lt;br /&gt; <br /> <br /> ''Spread the cheer by adding {{tls|Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''<br /> &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> == New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022 ==<br /> <br /> Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br /> [[File:New page reviewer of the year cup.svg|thumb|right|120px]]<br /> Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter|open letter]] finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-09-30/In focus|current issue of ''The Signpost'']]. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.<br /> <br /> '''Awards''': Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to {{Noping|MPGuy2824}}), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to {{no ping|John B123}} for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new &quot;Iron&quot; level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles (&quot;one-a-day&quot;), and 100 reviews earns the &quot;Standard&quot; NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Awards|Awards page]]. Check out the new [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Awards#NPP_Hall_of_Fame|Hall of Fame]] also.<br /> <br /> '''Software news''': {{Noping|Novem Linguae}} and {{Noping|MPGuy2824}} have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently [[Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements/Phab_tickets#Closed_tickets|here]]. The [[Wikipedia:Database_reports/Top_new_article_reviewers|reviewer report]] has also been improved.<br /> [[File:2022-10-16 NPP backlog chart.jpg|thumb|450px|right|NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022]]<br /> '''Suggestions''':<br /> *There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the &quot;quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed&quot;.<br /> *Reminder: ''an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more.'' (from the [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Care|NPP tutorial]])<br /> *Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.<br /> *This [[User:Lourdes/PageCuration|user script]] puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.<br /> <br /> '''Backlog''':[[File:Everlasting Fireworks looped.gif|80px|left]] Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022|October backlog drive]] to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!<br /> {{-}}<br /> {{refbegin}}<br /> ;Reminders<br /> *Newsletter feedback - please take this [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Newsletter|short poll]] about the newsletter. <br /> *If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the [https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu New Page Patrol Discord], where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.<br /> *Please add [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers|the project discussion page]] to your watchlist.<br /> *If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions|PERM]].<br /> *To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here]].<br /> {{refend}} <br /> &lt;!-- Drafted by User:MB --&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:MB@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&amp;oldid=1114894896 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023 ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px&quot;&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; border: 1px solid #BBB; background: #FFFFFF;<br /> |}<br /> Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; <br /> |- style=&quot;font-size: 86%;&quot;<br /> |}<br /> [[File:Npp backlog 2022-Dec.jpg|thumb|400px|New Page Review queue December 2022]]<br /> ;Backlog<br /> The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to {{noping|WaddlesJP13}} who led with 2084 points. See [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022|this page]] for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if &lt;2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.<br /> ;2022 Awards<br /> [[File:New page reviewer of the year cup.svg|74px|left]]<br /> {{no ping|Onel5969}} won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. {{no ping|Rosguill}} led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Awards|Awards page]] and the [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Awards#NPP_Hall_of_Fame|Hall of Fame]]. Congratulations everyone!<br /> <br /> '''Minimum deletion time''': The previous [[WP:NPP]] guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and [[WP:BLAR]]). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the [[Special:NewPagesFeed|feed]] are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.) <br /> <br /> '''New draftify script''': In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly [[Help:Unreviewed new page|explanation page]]. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your [[Special:MyPage/common.js|common.js]] or vector.js file from '''&lt;code&gt;User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js&lt;/code&gt; to &lt;code&gt;User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js&lt;/code&gt;'''<br /> <br /> '''Redirects''': Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirects|this guide]], [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Redirect_checklist|this checklist]], and spend some time at [[WP:RFD]].<br /> <br /> '''Discussions with the WMF''' The [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter|PageTriage open letter]] signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted [[gerrit:q/repo:mediawiki/extensions/PageTriage+is:merged+NOT+author:Libraryupgrader+NOT+author:L10n-bot+before:2022-12-31|dozens of patches]] in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as {{noping|Novem Linguae}} and {{noping|MPGuy2824}} have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also [[Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features#Meeting details|had a video conference]] with the NPP coordinators to discuss [[User:Novem Linguae/Drafts/New landing page proposal|revamping the landing pages]] that new users see.<br /> <br /> {{refbegin}}<br /> ;Reminders<br /> *Newsletter feedback - please take this [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Newsletter|short poll]] about the newsletter. <br /> *There is live chat with patrollers on the [https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu New Page Patrol Discord].<br /> *Please add [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers|the project discussion page]] to your watchlist.<br /> *If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions|PERM]].<br /> *To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here]].<br /> {{refend}} <br /> &lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- Drafted by User:MB, Reviewed by Novem Linguae, Kudpung --&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:MB@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&amp;oldid=1130464022 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023 ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- do not use ;Header to make bold headers per [[H:DL]], causes errors for screen readers --&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; border: 1px solid #BBB; background: #FFFFFF;<br /> |}<br /> Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; <br /> |- style=&quot;font-size: 86%;&quot;<br /> |}<br /> [[File:NPP April-June 2023 backlog.svg|thumb|400px|New Page Review queue April to June 2023]]<br /> '''Backlog'''<br /> <br /> '''Redirect drive''': In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with '''23851''' reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to '''0''' (momentarily). Congratulations to {{Noping|Hey man im josh}} who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by {{noping|Meena}} and {{noping|Greyzxq}} with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023|this page]] for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.<br /> <br /> '''Redirect autopatrol''': All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list#Requests|here]].<br /> <br /> '''WMF work on PageTriage''': The [[mw:Moderator Tools|WMF Moderator Tools team]], consisting of {{noping|Samwalton9 (WMF)|label1=Sam|JSherman (WMF)|label2=Jason|SCardenas (WMF)|label3=Susana}}, and also some patches from {{noping|Jon (WMF)|label1=Jon}}, has been hard at work [[Wikipedia:Page Curation/2023 Moderator Tools project|updating PageTriage]]. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in [[beta test]] where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of [[Special:NewPagesFeed]], to help find bugs. We will post more details at [[WT:NPPR]] when we are ready for beta testers.<br /> <br /> '''Articles for Creation (AFC)''': All new page reviewers are now '''automatically approved''' for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at [[WT:AFCP]] like was required previously). To install the [[WP:AFCH|AFC helper script]], visit [[Special:Preferences]], visit the Gadgets tab, tick &quot;Yet Another AFC Helper Script&quot;, then click &quot;Save&quot;. To find drafts to review, visit [[Special:NewPagesFeed]], and at the top left, tick &quot;Articles for Creation&quot;. To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the &quot;More&quot; menu, then click &quot;Review (AFCH)&quot;. You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.<br /> <br /> You can review the AFC workflow at [[WP:AFCR]]. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that [[WP:DRAFTOBJECT|draftspace is optional]], so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.<br /> <br /> '''Pro tip''': Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own [[WP:SNG|SNG]]? The most common part of this &quot;creative professionals&quot; criteria that applies to artists is [[WP:ARTIST]] 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).<br /> <br /> {{refbegin}}<br /> '''Reminders'''<br /> *Newsletter feedback - please take this [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Newsletter|short poll]] about the newsletter. <br /> *There is live chat with patrollers on the [https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu New Page Patrol Discord] and {{IRC|wikimedia-npp}} on IRC.<br /> *Please add [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers|the project discussion page]] to your watchlist.<br /> *To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here]].<br /> {{refend}}<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Drafted by Novem Linguae, MPGuy2824 and Zippybonzo. Sent by Zippybonzo. --&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:Zippybonzo@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&amp;oldid=1160196052 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == Re-instanciation of legitimate warnings just posted to user talk pages ==<br /> <br /> Hi,<br /> <br /> I aware users are allowed to remove content to their talk page, and I'm aware that talk pages are not meant to be used to shame users. However, I think it is not appropriate for users to just remove warning messages immediately after they get poster to their pages, and I think such warnings can legitimately be reinstated when this happens.<br /> <br /> In the case of [[User_talk:Justdoinsomeedtits|Justdoinsomeedtits]], I respectfully think your time would have been better invested investigating the recent behavior of this multi-recidivist vandal, who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. See e.g<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThaddeusSholto&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214584463 (bogus warning)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThaddeusSholto&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214584292 (...)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThaddeusSholto&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214583988 (personal attacks)<br /> Best,<br /> [[User:Malparti|Malparti]] ([[User talk:Malparti|talk]]) 21:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Ethics Workshop Participation Request ==<br /> <br /> Hi! We're conducting a series of participatory workshops with Wikipedia editors, administrators, researchers, and Wikimedia employees to discuss, and hopefully improve, Wikipedia's structures for online research (see [[:meta:Research:Beyond the Individual: Community-Engaged Design and Implementation of a Framework for Ethical Online Communities Research|meta research page]]). In an effort to get the right people in the room to discuss these topics, I'm reaching out here to see if you are interested in participating as an active administrator. We'd work with you to ensure this workshop can fit into your schedule, but are targeting end of April/early May. I'm happy to discuss any of these topics further here or on our [[:meta:Research_talk:Beyond_the_Individual:_Community-Engaged_Design_and_Implementation_of_a_Framework_for_Ethical_Online_Communities_Research|talk page]]. [[User:Zentavious|Zentavious]] ([[User talk:Zentavious|talk]]) 16:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == ''The Signpost'': 29 March 2024 ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div lang=&quot;en&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot; class=&quot;mw-content-ltr&quot;&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;column-count:2;&quot;&gt; {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-29}} &lt;/div&gt;&lt;!--Volume 20, Issue 5--&gt; &lt;div class=&quot;hlist&quot; style=&quot;margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;&quot;&gt; * '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-03-29|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;!-- Sent via script ([[User:JPxG/SPS]]) --&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&amp;oldid=1216007342 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == Please help ==<br /> <br /> Please help me. I am being blocked from contributing by an anonymous user who keeps taking me back instead of communicating. I told him that I was working on the jersey design and that the jersey would remain on the [[Altay S.K.|page]] temporarily, but he did not pay any attention to me. I shouldn't need an administrator to provide positive input, I would consider it harassment for an anonymous user to revert revisions. If you explain that there is no harm in having the club jersey on the page temporarily and that this jersey is available on many wikis, maybe they will accept your words. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :{{u|Amortias}}, Are you serious? Why did you block me? I didn't do anything wrong, I added the jersey that is on all Wikipedia pages to the page, and why did you block me even though I gave you the necessary explanation? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amortias&diff=1216299757 2024-03-30T08:19:21Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Please help */ Reply</p> <hr /> <div>{{User:MiszaBot/config<br /> | algo=old(10d)<br /> | archive=User talk:Amortias/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s<br /> | minthreadsleft=4<br /> | minthreadstoarchive=1<br /> }}<br /> {{DISPLAYTITLE:&lt;span style=&quot;position:absolute; top: -9999px&quot;&gt;User talk:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Calibri;font-size:30px&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#4682B4&quot;&gt;Amortias&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;}}<br /> {{User:Amortias/Top icons}}<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;background: #d0e5f5; padding: 10px; border-top: 3px solid #4682B4; border-left: 3px solid #4682B4; border-right: 3px solid #4682B4; border-bottom: 3px solid #4682B4; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 100%; font-family:calibri; text-align: left;&quot;&gt;<br /> {{User:Amortias/Navbar}}<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;boilerplate metadata plainlinks&quot; style=&quot;background-color: #B0E0E6; border: 2px solid #4682B4; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;&gt; '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amortias&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Calibri;font-size:15px&quot;&gt;Click here to leave me a message&lt;/span&gt;].'''&lt;/div&gt;<br /> {{Talk header}}<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> ==Merry Christmas !!!==<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:#fff; border-width:3px; text-align:left; padding:2px;&quot;&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:6px;&quot; class=&quot;plainlinks&quot;&gt;[[File:Xmas colors, 2013 (photo by David J).jpg|x80px|left]]<br /> <br /> [[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Bradley Hand ITC;&quot;&gt;'''CAPTAIN RAJU'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|(T)]]&lt;/sup&gt; is wishing you a [[Mary Poppins|Merry]] [[Christmas]]! This greeting (and season) promotes [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a [[Christmas|Merry Christmas]], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! &lt;br /&gt; <br /> <br /> ''Spread the cheer by adding {{tls|Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''<br /> &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> == New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022 ==<br /> <br /> Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br /> [[File:New page reviewer of the year cup.svg|thumb|right|120px]]<br /> Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter|open letter]] finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-09-30/In focus|current issue of ''The Signpost'']]. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.<br /> <br /> '''Awards''': Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to {{Noping|MPGuy2824}}), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to {{no ping|John B123}} for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new &quot;Iron&quot; level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles (&quot;one-a-day&quot;), and 100 reviews earns the &quot;Standard&quot; NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Awards|Awards page]]. Check out the new [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Awards#NPP_Hall_of_Fame|Hall of Fame]] also.<br /> <br /> '''Software news''': {{Noping|Novem Linguae}} and {{Noping|MPGuy2824}} have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently [[Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements/Phab_tickets#Closed_tickets|here]]. The [[Wikipedia:Database_reports/Top_new_article_reviewers|reviewer report]] has also been improved.<br /> [[File:2022-10-16 NPP backlog chart.jpg|thumb|450px|right|NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022]]<br /> '''Suggestions''':<br /> *There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the &quot;quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed&quot;.<br /> *Reminder: ''an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more.'' (from the [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Care|NPP tutorial]])<br /> *Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.<br /> *This [[User:Lourdes/PageCuration|user script]] puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.<br /> <br /> '''Backlog''':[[File:Everlasting Fireworks looped.gif|80px|left]] Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022|October backlog drive]] to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!<br /> {{-}}<br /> {{refbegin}}<br /> ;Reminders<br /> *Newsletter feedback - please take this [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Newsletter|short poll]] about the newsletter. <br /> *If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the [https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu New Page Patrol Discord], where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.<br /> *Please add [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers|the project discussion page]] to your watchlist.<br /> *If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions|PERM]].<br /> *To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here]].<br /> {{refend}} <br /> &lt;!-- Drafted by User:MB --&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:MB@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&amp;oldid=1114894896 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023 ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px&quot;&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; border: 1px solid #BBB; background: #FFFFFF;<br /> |}<br /> Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; <br /> |- style=&quot;font-size: 86%;&quot;<br /> |}<br /> [[File:Npp backlog 2022-Dec.jpg|thumb|400px|New Page Review queue December 2022]]<br /> ;Backlog<br /> The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to {{noping|WaddlesJP13}} who led with 2084 points. See [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022|this page]] for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if &lt;2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.<br /> ;2022 Awards<br /> [[File:New page reviewer of the year cup.svg|74px|left]]<br /> {{no ping|Onel5969}} won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. {{no ping|Rosguill}} led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Awards|Awards page]] and the [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Awards#NPP_Hall_of_Fame|Hall of Fame]]. Congratulations everyone!<br /> <br /> '''Minimum deletion time''': The previous [[WP:NPP]] guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and [[WP:BLAR]]). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the [[Special:NewPagesFeed|feed]] are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.) <br /> <br /> '''New draftify script''': In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly [[Help:Unreviewed new page|explanation page]]. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your [[Special:MyPage/common.js|common.js]] or vector.js file from '''&lt;code&gt;User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js&lt;/code&gt; to &lt;code&gt;User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js&lt;/code&gt;'''<br /> <br /> '''Redirects''': Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirects|this guide]], [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Redirect_checklist|this checklist]], and spend some time at [[WP:RFD]].<br /> <br /> '''Discussions with the WMF''' The [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter|PageTriage open letter]] signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted [[gerrit:q/repo:mediawiki/extensions/PageTriage+is:merged+NOT+author:Libraryupgrader+NOT+author:L10n-bot+before:2022-12-31|dozens of patches]] in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as {{noping|Novem Linguae}} and {{noping|MPGuy2824}} have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also [[Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features#Meeting details|had a video conference]] with the NPP coordinators to discuss [[User:Novem Linguae/Drafts/New landing page proposal|revamping the landing pages]] that new users see.<br /> <br /> {{refbegin}}<br /> ;Reminders<br /> *Newsletter feedback - please take this [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Newsletter|short poll]] about the newsletter. <br /> *There is live chat with patrollers on the [https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu New Page Patrol Discord].<br /> *Please add [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers|the project discussion page]] to your watchlist.<br /> *If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions|PERM]].<br /> *To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here]].<br /> {{refend}} <br /> &lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- Drafted by User:MB, Reviewed by Novem Linguae, Kudpung --&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:MB@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&amp;oldid=1130464022 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023 ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- do not use ;Header to make bold headers per [[H:DL]], causes errors for screen readers --&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; border: 1px solid #BBB; background: #FFFFFF;<br /> |}<br /> Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; <br /> |- style=&quot;font-size: 86%;&quot;<br /> |}<br /> [[File:NPP April-June 2023 backlog.svg|thumb|400px|New Page Review queue April to June 2023]]<br /> '''Backlog'''<br /> <br /> '''Redirect drive''': In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with '''23851''' reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to '''0''' (momentarily). Congratulations to {{Noping|Hey man im josh}} who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by {{noping|Meena}} and {{noping|Greyzxq}} with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023|this page]] for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.<br /> <br /> '''Redirect autopatrol''': All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list#Requests|here]].<br /> <br /> '''WMF work on PageTriage''': The [[mw:Moderator Tools|WMF Moderator Tools team]], consisting of {{noping|Samwalton9 (WMF)|label1=Sam|JSherman (WMF)|label2=Jason|SCardenas (WMF)|label3=Susana}}, and also some patches from {{noping|Jon (WMF)|label1=Jon}}, has been hard at work [[Wikipedia:Page Curation/2023 Moderator Tools project|updating PageTriage]]. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in [[beta test]] where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of [[Special:NewPagesFeed]], to help find bugs. We will post more details at [[WT:NPPR]] when we are ready for beta testers.<br /> <br /> '''Articles for Creation (AFC)''': All new page reviewers are now '''automatically approved''' for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at [[WT:AFCP]] like was required previously). To install the [[WP:AFCH|AFC helper script]], visit [[Special:Preferences]], visit the Gadgets tab, tick &quot;Yet Another AFC Helper Script&quot;, then click &quot;Save&quot;. To find drafts to review, visit [[Special:NewPagesFeed]], and at the top left, tick &quot;Articles for Creation&quot;. To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the &quot;More&quot; menu, then click &quot;Review (AFCH)&quot;. You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.<br /> <br /> You can review the AFC workflow at [[WP:AFCR]]. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that [[WP:DRAFTOBJECT|draftspace is optional]], so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.<br /> <br /> '''Pro tip''': Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own [[WP:SNG|SNG]]? The most common part of this &quot;creative professionals&quot; criteria that applies to artists is [[WP:ARTIST]] 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).<br /> <br /> {{refbegin}}<br /> '''Reminders'''<br /> *Newsletter feedback - please take this [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Newsletter|short poll]] about the newsletter. <br /> *There is live chat with patrollers on the [https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu New Page Patrol Discord] and {{IRC|wikimedia-npp}} on IRC.<br /> *Please add [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers|the project discussion page]] to your watchlist.<br /> *To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here]].<br /> {{refend}}<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Drafted by Novem Linguae, MPGuy2824 and Zippybonzo. Sent by Zippybonzo. --&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:Zippybonzo@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&amp;oldid=1160196052 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == Re-instanciation of legitimate warnings just posted to user talk pages ==<br /> <br /> Hi,<br /> <br /> I aware users are allowed to remove content to their talk page, and I'm aware that talk pages are not meant to be used to shame users. However, I think it is not appropriate for users to just remove warning messages immediately after they get poster to their pages, and I think such warnings can legitimately be reinstated when this happens.<br /> <br /> In the case of [[User_talk:Justdoinsomeedtits|Justdoinsomeedtits]], I respectfully think your time would have been better invested investigating the recent behavior of this multi-recidivist vandal, who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. See e.g<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThaddeusSholto&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214584463 (bogus warning)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThaddeusSholto&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214584292 (...)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThaddeusSholto&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214583988 (personal attacks)<br /> Best,<br /> [[User:Malparti|Malparti]] ([[User talk:Malparti|talk]]) 21:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Ethics Workshop Participation Request ==<br /> <br /> Hi! We're conducting a series of participatory workshops with Wikipedia editors, administrators, researchers, and Wikimedia employees to discuss, and hopefully improve, Wikipedia's structures for online research (see [[:meta:Research:Beyond the Individual: Community-Engaged Design and Implementation of a Framework for Ethical Online Communities Research|meta research page]]). In an effort to get the right people in the room to discuss these topics, I'm reaching out here to see if you are interested in participating as an active administrator. We'd work with you to ensure this workshop can fit into your schedule, but are targeting end of April/early May. I'm happy to discuss any of these topics further here or on our [[:meta:Research_talk:Beyond_the_Individual:_Community-Engaged_Design_and_Implementation_of_a_Framework_for_Ethical_Online_Communities_Research|talk page]]. [[User:Zentavious|Zentavious]] ([[User talk:Zentavious|talk]]) 16:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == ''The Signpost'': 29 March 2024 ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div lang=&quot;en&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot; class=&quot;mw-content-ltr&quot;&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;column-count:2;&quot;&gt; {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-29}} &lt;/div&gt;&lt;!--Volume 20, Issue 5--&gt; &lt;div class=&quot;hlist&quot; style=&quot;margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;&quot;&gt; * '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-03-29|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;!-- Sent via script ([[User:JPxG/SPS]]) --&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&amp;oldid=1216007342 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == Please help ==<br /> <br /> Please help me. I am being blocked from contributing by an anonymous user who keeps taking me back instead of communicating. I told him that I was working on the jersey design and that the jersey would remain on the [[Altay S.K.|page]] temporarily, but he did not pay any attention to me. I shouldn't need an administrator to provide positive input, I would consider it harassment for an anonymous user to revert revisions. If you explain that there is no harm in having the club jersey on the page temporarily and that this jersey is available on many wikis, maybe they will accept your words. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :{{u|Amortias}}, Are you serious? Why did you block me? I didn't do anything wrong, I added the jersey that is on all Wikipedia pages to the page, and why did you block me even though I gave you the necessary explanation? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]] ([[User talk:Delbatros|talk]]) 08:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altay_S.K.&diff=1216297477 2024-03-30T08:04:47Z

<p>Delbatros: not faulty content!</p> <hr /> <div>{{short description|Turkish football club}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=October 2021}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Altay<br /> | image = Altay SK logo.png<br /> | image_size = 170px<br /> | caption = <br /> | fullname = Altay Spor Kulübü<br /> | nickname = ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay)<br /> | founded = {{Start date and years ago|df=yes|1914|1|16}}<br /> | formernames =<br /> | dissolved = <br /> | ground = [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]]<br /> | capacity = 15,000<br /> | owntitle = <br /> | owner = <br /> | chrtitle = President<br /> | chairman = Süleyman Özkaral<br /> | mgrtitle = Manager<br /> | manager = Cüneyt Biçer<br /> | league = {{Turkish football updater|Altay}}<br /> | season = {{Turkish football updater|Altay2}}<br /> | position = {{Turkish football updater|Altay3}}<br /> | website = http://www.altay.org.tr/<br /> | current = 2023–24 Altay S.K. season<br /> |pattern_la1 = _black_stripes_thin1<br /> |pattern_b1 = _nikestripeddiv4wb<br /> |pattern_ra1 = _black_stripes_thin1<br /> |leftarm1 = FFFFFF<br /> |body1 = FFFFFF<br /> |rightarm1 = FFFFFF<br /> |shorts1 = FFFFFF<br /> |socks1 = FFFFFF<br /> |pattern_la2 = _nikestrike3w<br /> |pattern_ra2 = _nikestrike3w<br /> |pattern_b2 = _altay2122a<br /> |leftarm2 = FFFFFF<br /> |body2 = FFFFFF<br /> |rightarm2 = FFFFFF<br /> |shorts2 = FFFFFF<br /> |socks2 = FFFFFF<br /> |pattern_la3 = <br /> |pattern_b3 = _altay2122t<br /> |pattern_ra3 = <br /> |leftarm3 = 000000<br /> |body3 = 000000<br /> |rightarm3 = 000000<br /> |shorts3 = 000000<br /> |socks3 = 000000<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Altay Spor Kulübü''' is a Turkish professional [[Association football|football]] club based in the city of [[İzmir]]. <br /> <br /> Formed in 1914, Altay are nicknamed ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay). The club colors are black and white, and they play their home matches at the [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]].<br /> <br /> Domestically, the club has finished third place for the [[Süper Lig]] three times and have won the [[Turkish Cup]] twice. They hold the record for most [[İzmir Football League]] titles with 14. They are the most successful İzmir-based club with 16 championships in various competitions.<br /> <br /> Collecting 24 points in the first half of the [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70 season]] in undefeated 15 games with 9 wins and 6 draws, Altay SK is one of three non-champion clubs that topped the first half of [[Süper Lig|1. Lig]] table, along with [[Kocaelispor]] in [[1992–93 1.Lig|1992–93]], and [[Sivasspor]] in [[2007–08 Süper Lig|2007–08]], [[2008–09 Süper Lig|2008–09]] and [[2019–20 Süper Lig|2019–20]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite news|title=Futbolda İlk Yarı Liderleri ve Şampiyonlar|url=http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|publisher=[]|date=5 January 2014|access-date=27 December 2016|language=tr|archive-date=27 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161227210040/http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> Altay was founded in 1914 in İzmir as İstiklal. The initial aim of the club was to unite Turkish youth under sporting activities and to encourage them, because in the 1910s minorities dominated sporting activities in İzmir. Under Ottoman rule, Turkish footballers were unable to compete. Altay was supported by many prominent Turkish politicians of the era. Former Turkish President [[Celal Bayar]] worked very hard in founding the club and gave his full support.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}}<br /> <br /> Altay has an important place in Turkey's football history. The club had a key role in uniting the Turkish community during the [[Turkish War of Independence]].{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} Many players and supporters of Altay SK lost their lives in the Turkish War.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} After the [[Surname Law]] was adopted, [[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] gave General [[Fahrettin Altay|Fahreddin Pasha]] the surname of &quot;Altay&quot;. Altay plays in the [[İzmir Alsancak Stadium]] first built in 1929 and was rebuilt in 2021.<br /> <br /> ==Honours==<br /> ===National Championships===<br /> * '''[[Süper Lig]]'''<br /> ** ''Third place (3):'' [[1956–57 Federation Cup|1956–57]], [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70]], [[1976–77 1.Lig|1976–77]]<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Championship]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1934 Turkish Football Championship|1934]], [[1951 Turkish Football Championship|1951]]<br /> * '''[[TFF First League]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2001–02<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1983–84, 1990–91<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Federation Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2006–07<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1963–64<br /> <br /> ===National Cups===<br /> * '''[[Turkish Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1966–67, 1979–80<br /> ** ''Runners-up (5):'' 1963–64, 1967–68, 1971–72, 1978–79, 1985–86<br /> * '''[[Turkish Super Cup|Super Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1967 Presidential Cup|1967]], 1980<br /> * '''[[Prime Minister's Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1972, 1979, 1986<br /> * '''[[Organ Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (18):'' 1936, 1937, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1958, 1961, 1968, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1984, 2004, 2005, 2021<br /> * '''[[Ayçilek Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1973, 1978<br /> * '''[[Tore Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1976<br /> * '''[[Aydin Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1963, 1964, 1986<br /> <br /> ===Regional competitions===<br /> * '''İzmir Professional League'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> * '''[[İzmir Football League]]''' <br /> ** '''Winners (14) (record):''' 1923–24, 1924–25, 1927–28, 1928–29, 1930–31, 1933–34, 1936–37, 1940–41, 1945–46, 1947–48, 1950–51, 1953–54, 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Altay won the championship as &quot;Üçok&quot; (Three arrows), an alliance between Altay, [[Altınordu F.K.|Altınordu]], and [[Bucaspor]].&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==League participations==<br /> * [[Süper Lig|Super League]]: 1958–83, 1984–90, 1991–2000, 2002–03, 2021–2022<br /> * [[TFF First League]]: 1983–84, 1990–91, 2000–02, 2003–11, 2018–21, 2022-2023<br /> * [[TFF Second League]]: 2011–15, 2017–18<br /> * [[TFF Third League]]: 2015–17<br /> <br /> ==European record==<br /> {{updated|25 July 1998}}<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> ! Competition<br /> ! Pld<br /> ! W<br /> ! D<br /> ! L<br /> ! GF<br /> ! GA<br /> ! GD<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 3<br /> | 6<br /> | 12<br /> | –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]<br /> | 2<br /> | 1<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 5<br /> | 6<br /> | –1<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 3<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 10<br /> | 9<br /> | +1<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 14<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 3<br /> ! 6<br /> ! 21<br /> ! 27<br /> ! –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]<br /> | 4<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 3<br /> | 14<br /> | –11<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup|Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 2<br /> | 6<br /> | 9<br /> | –3<br /> |-<br /> | [[Balkans Cup]]<br /> | 8<br /> | 1<br /> | 1<br /> | 6<br /> | 6<br /> | 23<br /> | –17<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''Non-UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 18<br /> ! 2<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 11<br /> ! 15<br /> ! 46<br /> ! –31<br /> |-<br /> ! Overall Total<br /> ! 32<br /> ! 7<br /> ! 8<br /> ! 17<br /> ! 36<br /> ! 73<br /> ! –37<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; non-UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1967-68 European Cup Winners' Cup|1967–68]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|BEL}} [[Standard Liège]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–3'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1968-69 European Cup Winners' Cup|1968–69]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|NOR}} [[Lyn Fotball|Lyn]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''4–5'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1980-81 European Cup Winners' Cup|1980–81]]<br /> |Preliminary Round<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[S.L. Benfica|Benfica]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–4'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1977–78 UEFA Cup|1977–78]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|4–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–5<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–6'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1974 Intertoto Cup|1974]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group 10)<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[G.D. Fabril|CUF]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Landskrona BoIS|Landskrona]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Hammarby Fotboll|Hammarby]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|[[1998 UEFA Intertoto Cup|1998]]<br /> |First Round<br /> |{{flagicon|IRL}} [[Shamrock Rovers F.C.|Shamrock Rovers]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–4'''<br /> |-<br /> |Second Round<br /> |{{flagicon|HUN}} [[Diósgyőri VTK|Diósgyőr]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–1'''<br /> |-<br /> |'''Third Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|FRA}} [[SC Bastia|Bastia]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–2 (aet)<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–4'''<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The tournament was founded in 1961–62, but was only taken over by UEFA in 1995.<br /> <br /> '''[[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1962–63 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1962–63]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|ITA}} [[A.S. Roma|Roma]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–10<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–13'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1969–70 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1969–70]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–1'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[Balkans Cup]]:'''<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Season<br /> !Round<br /> !Club<br /> !Home<br /> !Away<br /> !Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1971 Balkans Cup|1971]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group B)<br /> |{{flagicon|GRE|1970}} [[Panionios F.C.|Panionios]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–1<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Brașov (1936)|Steagul Roșu Brașov]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#ffd;&quot;| 0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1977 Balkans Cup|1977]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group A)<br /> |{{flagicon|BUL|1971}} [[PFC Slavia Sofia|Slavia Sofia]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–6<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Politehnica Timișoara|Politehnica Timișoara]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–5<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''UEFA Ranking history:'''<br /> {{see also|UEFA coefficient}}<br /> {{updated|1982}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable plainrowheaders sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Season !! Rank !! Points !! Ref.<br /> |-<br /> |1968||168 {{increase}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1968 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163544/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1969||103 {{increase}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1969 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920171251/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1970||89 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1970 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163551/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1971||86 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1971 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163715/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1972||87 {{decrease}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1972 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163902/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1973||112 {{decrease}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1973 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170622/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1974||203 {{decrease}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1974 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163132/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1978||157 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1978 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1979||155 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1979 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=28 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231228105207/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1980||155 {{same position}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1980 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163520/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1981||153 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1981 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=9 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220909184532/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1982||149 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1982 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Players==<br /> ===Current squad===<br /> {{updated|3 February 2024}}&lt;ref name=&quot;Current squad&quot;&gt;{{cite web|title=A TAKIM|url=https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|publisher=Altay|access-date=12 September 2020|archive-date=9 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809045156/https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;section begin=squad /&gt;<br /> {{Fs start|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 1|nat=TUR|name=[[Ozan Evrim Özenç]]|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 3|nat=TUR|name=Yusuf Tekin|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 4|nat=TUR|name=Hikmet Çolak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 5|nat=TUR|name=Sefa Özdemir|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 6|nat=TUR|name=[[Ceyhun Gülselam]]|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 7|nat=TUR|name=[[Eren Erdoğan]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=11|nat=TUR|name=Murat Uluç|pos=FW}} {{Captain}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=13|nat=TUR|name=Ulaş Hasan Özçelik|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=17|nat=TUR|name=Salih Sarıkaya|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=20|nat=TUR|name=Enes Yetkin|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=21|nat=TUR|name=Ali Kızılkuyu|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=23|nat=TUR|name=Murat Demir|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=24|nat=TUR|name=Erdem Özcan|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs mid|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=25|nat=TUR|name=Tugay Gündem|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=26|nat=TUR|name=Ege Parmaksiz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=28|nat=TUR|name=Mehmet Gündüz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=30|nat=TUR|name=Caner Baycan|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=32|nat=TUR|name=Arda Gezer|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=34|nat=TUR|name=Enes Öğrüce|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=44|nat=TUR|name=Kuban Altunbudak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=45|nat=TUR|name=Mustafa Çalışkan|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=63|nat=TUR|name=[[Deniz Kadah]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=77|nat=TUR|name=Onur Efe|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=88|nat=TUR|name=[[Özgür Özkaya]]|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=99|nat=TUR|name=Nurettin Küçükdeniz|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs end}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[List of Turkish sports clubs by foundation dates]]<br /> *[[Altay–Göztepe derby]]<br /> * [[Altay S.K. (women's football)]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *{{oweb|http://www.altay.org.tr/}}<br /> *[http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3591 Altay] on TFF.org<br /> <br /> {{Altay S.K.}}<br /> {{Süper Lig}}<br /> {{TFF First League}}<br /> {{Turkish Cup}}<br /> {{Turkish clubs in European football}}<br /> {{Turkish Women's First Football League}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Altay S.K.| ]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1914]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1914 establishments in the Ottoman Empire]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delbatros&diff=1216297183 2024-03-30T08:00:27Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Copyright? */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --&gt;<br /> ==Welcome!==<br /> [[File:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|[[Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''']]]]<br /> Hello, Delbatros, and '''''[[Help:Getting started|welcome to Wikipedia]]'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:<br /> * [[Help:Introduction|Introduction]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]<br /> * [[Help:Editing|How to edit a page]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]]<br /> * [[Help:Your first article|Your first article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community]]<br /> * Feel free to [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|make test edits in the sandbox]]<br /> * and check out the [[Wikipedia:Task Center|Task Center]], for ideas about what to work on.<br /> <br /> I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]] using four [[tilde]]s (&lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our [[Help:Contents|'''help pages''']], and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on [[User talk:Randykitty|my talk page]] or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!&lt;!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --&gt; [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 12:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Excuse me, I want to create an article, but it has been saved as a draft. Can you help me?<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == About [[Mersin İdman Yurdu]] ==<br /> <br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hi, and thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Delbatros|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Mersin İdman Yurdu]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into [[:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]. This is known as a &quot;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves|cut-and-paste move]]&quot;, and it is undesirable because it splits the [[Help:Page history|page history]], which is [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|legally required for attribution]]. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.<br /> <br /> In most cases for registered users, once your account is [[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed|four days old and has ten edits]], you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|&quot;Move&quot; tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at [[Wikipedia:Requests for history merge]]. Thank you. &lt;!-- Template:uw-c&amp;pmove --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Storchy|Storchy]] ([[User talk:Storchy|talk]]) 05:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. Since the page belongs to the Turkish football club, I am doing this according to the information in Turkish Wikipedia. Can you help me? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == esenlikler ==<br /> <br /> tr viki'de son değişikliklerde dolaşırken bazı olmamış maddelere denk geldim. sizi de [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metehan_%C3%96LMEZ&amp;diff=28770562&amp;oldid=28770548 şurda] gördüğüm için yazayım diye düşündüm.<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_K%C3%BCr%C5%9Fad_YILMAZ<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahit_Ergene_Ortaokulu<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkan_a%C5%9Fireti<br /> <br /> bunlara hızlı sil etiketi koyar mısınız? ----[[User:Modern primat|modern_primat]] [[Special:Contributions/Modern_primat|ඞඞඞ]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Modern primat|TALK]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)<br /> ==Concern regarding [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, Delbatros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months [[WP:G13|may be deleted]], so if you wish to retain the page, please [[Special:EditPage/Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit it]] again&amp;#32;or [[WP:USERFY|request]] that it be moved to your userspace.<br /> <br /> If the page has already been deleted, you can [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13|request it be undeleted]] so you can continue working on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. [[User:FireflyBot|FireflyBot]] ([[User talk:FireflyBot|talk]]) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)<br /> ==Your draft article, [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]<br /> <br /> Hello, Delbatros. It has been over six months since you last edited the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] submission or [[WP:Drafts|draft]] page you started, &quot;[[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|Mersin Talim Yurdu]]&quot;. <br /> <br /> In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]], the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code. <br /> <br /> If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at [[WP:REFUND/G13|this link]]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! &lt;!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <br /> <br /> '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&amp;mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&amp;mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&amp;mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.&lt;!-- Template:uw-3rr --&gt; [[Special:Contributions/105.8.2.55|105.8.2.55]] ([[User talk:105.8.2.55|talk]]) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please stop now! The revision you reverted contains copyright, why do you still insist on adding it back to the article? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{U|Hey man im josh}}, Please help me, There is a persistent copyright violation in the [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] article, please intervene. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, thank you so much. Please do not allow copyrighted images to be added to articles. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You have not answered the questions below. Please answer below. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Copyright?==<br /> OK, what's the problem?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214013229] [[:File:KSK logo.png]] and [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]], what's the difference? What is your copyright problem? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The problem is he's an idiot and he has no idea (if he can say &quot;son of a bitch&quot; without repercussion, I can say idiot). And if you're protecting the article, at least revert it to stable. [[Special:Contributions/102.182.46.145|102.182.46.145]] ([[User talk:102.182.46.145|talk]]) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If anyone calls anyone else an idiot or son of a bitch they're going to get blocked without any further warning, so we're clear. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You call me idiot and make me angry. Anyway, instead of causing a war, why didn't you send a message and tell me that you were trying to bring back the copyright violating image? Why do you continue to vandalize with different IP numbers? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is not allowed to upload copyrighted visual materials on Commons and there is already a logo available here. It is not nice to try to upload it in a way that will damage the article by violating the copyright rule. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The copyright rules allow something called [[:c:Commons:Licensing#Simple_design]], and we could always claim fair use, so the logo is allowed, but the thing I don't understand is why are you inserting an almost identical image? There has been a logo on that page for years. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I cannot write in the article, can you write please? The club's president has recently changed. Name of the new president: İlker Mehmet Ergüllü<br /> :Reference: [https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953], [https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598] [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You're on the verge of being blocked for [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], and abuse, and you don't seem to get it. You really need to stick to the point. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] You won't get good answers to any of your questions. I told you, he has no idea. Battleground mentality and lack of competence is all he is. And you're giving him the impression that he won a war here right now and he's having an orgasm over it. He thinks he's the best warrior in the wikiworld, and he defeated his enemy with 22 reverts and he got no repercussions for it, and it's even protected with his desired version, so warring like crazy with 20+ edits for 2 hours must be the correct thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/197.184.161.74|197.184.161.74]] ([[User talk:197.184.161.74|talk]]) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Please answer the question I asked and stop causing tension. You're the one who caused the war, not me. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Look, I have been trying to bring back the logo that has been around for years, in accordance with the rules. An anonymous user tried to vandalize add an image uploaded to commons that causes copyright violation to the article. I am doing the right thing.<br /> :::This is the logo I'm trying to bring back:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_Spor_Kul%C3%BCb%C3%BC_(logo).png<br /> :::An anonymous vandal user tried to add: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSK_logo.png<br /> :::Now I ask you: Is the revision that I have been trying to bring back to the article for years more accurate? Or is the revision that includes the copyrighted image that the anonymous user tried to add by vandalism more accurate?<br /> :::In fact, the logo was uploaded to en:wiki in accordance with the rules in 2021, and there is no copyright problem, but why would the image uploaded to commons be added to the article in a way that would cause a copyright problem?<br /> :::It was deleted again from commons in the past due to copyright reasons. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Someone tried to update the logo to the current one the club uses. There's no copyright difference between the two, and it's not removed from Commons, instead of edit warring here, try to remove it from Commons first if you can. You have no idea what you're doing, and nothing justifies 22 reverts and all the things you've done in just a few hours. You just need to &quot;win a war&quot;, that's all you think about. [[Special:Contributions/41.150.252.84|41.150.252.84]] ([[User talk:41.150.252.84|talk]]) 14:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm going to agree with the IP user. There's no meaningful differences between these logos in terms of copyright, which makes the copyright claim spurious. You should resolve the deletion process at commons first. Edit-warring like that is out of order, and will get you blocked. Even after the protection expires, even if you're reverted. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, The nomination for deletion in the Commons will be concluded on the same grounds. The anonymous user's incessant vandalism is completely damaging to the article and a waste of users' time. I'm trying to prevent and stop vandalism. I made a long statement, I think I did the right thing. I think that I will not be blocked or victimized because I am trying to stop and prevent vandalism. Because according to the rules, the necessary intervention against vandalism does not require any obstacle, and since I am trying to stop the vandalism, logically I should not be blocked. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::You have failed to demonstrate how this was vandalism. If it was a doctored image, or the wrong image, or even if there was a meaningful difference for the purposes of copyright, then you could argue that. But this is not vandalism. It's edit-warring, and that's you've been doing. Going forward you need to not do that. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In the past, it was deleted from commons due to copyright reasons and it was re-uploaded in the same way. There is no explanation for the vandalism you did. You are the one who started a war by vandalizing instead of talking about the issue. Do not think that you can escape the damage you caused with different IP numbers. I told you to stop and you didn't stop, even though I replied to you in the message thread above, you did not respond. First, explain the damage you caused, and I made my comment on the subject with a long explanation. You are just trying to create tension and cover up your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Updating an image is not vandalism. Updating an image is usually considered a good thing. Where is the evidence it was previously deleted due to copyright? And I ask again, why is the image you restored so different that it follows different rules? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Please review the revisions here.<br /> :::::::An attempt was made to add visual here: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20827359]<br /> :::::::Here, the revision was removed for the same reason: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20837090]<br /> :::::::I have been interested in this article for a long time and I have patrol rights on tr:wiki. It has been withdrawn due to copyright reasons. Wait, I will bring you 2 users and let them make the necessary explanation. I'm not doing anything wrong, you can confirm that. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::You will need to explain why you think [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]] is so different, when it is more or less identical. Either both of these are public domain due to their simplicity, or neither of them are public domain. If both are available then we could use either of the images. If neither is free then we could use a fair use rationale, and retain the apparently updated [[:File:KSK logo.png]] through a local upload. However arguing that one is a copyright violation and the other isn't doesn't make any sense. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please stop this anonymous vandalism, this is getting very annoying. &gt;:(<br /> :::::::::Considering that my long explanation is now more understandable, I expect you not to allow the copyrighted image added during the deletion candidacy period in the commons to be included in the article. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] he continues to edit war, you see the failure to get the point and the competence and disruption issues here? If someone gets away with 20+ reverts in an hour, they will think they are on the right path and continue doing it, just like what is happening here. [[Special:Contributions/102.141.68.251|102.141.68.251]] ([[User talk:102.141.68.251|talk]]) 21:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::The president of the club has changed and what is your aim? While I, who follow this club closely, have added a reference to the fact that the club president has changed, you have no right to take back this correctly added revision. There is no war. I just added a reference information and you still continue your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Delbatros is in a war of change everywhere, including trwiki. For this reason, it was also blocked on trwiki. The ban period should be extended and the message page should be closed. This idiot is tarnishing the name of us Turks. Such people should be blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] The ban needs to be extended, you know this idiot got into World War II. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Referring to anyone as an idiot is unlikely to get me to side with you in any discussion. I'm unwilling to modify the block once its been placed without the need to do so. Show me conclusive proof of block evasion or other negative behaviours after the block and well review. They'll either learn or they wont and will review it from there. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Hello {{u|Amortias}} good morning, first of all, thank you for bringing back the correct revision. An anonymous vandal is trying to cause damage by removing information I added with reference, first he violated the copyright infringement rule and then he started a war. I managed to save the article from the copyright issue, although it was difficult, but hours later the anonymous user started vandalizing again. Now he is insistently trying to remove the information I added as a reference, and the reason why I was blocked was to prevent the damage he had caused to the article. Attempting to remove any information added by reference in a damaging way is considered vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::@[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] @[[User:331dot|331dot]] @[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] he's addicted to edit warring, still does it. [[Special:Contributions/85.148.48.112|85.148.48.112]] ([[User talk:85.148.48.112|talk]]) 07:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I am working on a club jersey design and I said that the jersey I added to the page should remain on the page temporarily. What is your problem? Why do you always follow me? Because of you, I constantly have to rely on a manager for every positive contribution. Please stop following me and whoever you are, you should continue your contributions through your own Wikipedia account. I couldn't find any point in being anonymous to avoid an obstacle. Because you know this, you will be blocked every time you make a wrong intervention on your own account. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == March 2024 ==<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;user-block uw-block&quot; style=&quot;padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px&quot;&gt;[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''36 hours''' for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]], as you did at [[:Karşıyaka S.K.]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: &lt;!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --&gt;&lt;code&gt;&lt;nowiki&gt;{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/code&gt;. &amp;nbsp;[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 21:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- Template:uw-ewblock --&gt;<br /> {{unblock reviewed|reason=Hello {{u|Amortias}} good morning, first of all, thank you for bringing back the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=1214090512 correct revision]. An anonymous vandal is trying to cause damage by removing information I added with reference, first he violated the copyright infringement rule and then he started a war. I managed to save the article from the copyright issue, although it was difficult, but hours later the anonymous user started vandalizing again. Now he is insistently trying to remove the information I added as a reference, and the reason why I was blocked was to prevent the damage he had caused to the article. Attempting to remove any information added by reference in a damaging way is considered vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)|decline=You addressed this comment to the blocking admin, but unblock requests are to ask for a third party to review the block. If you wish to discuss this with the blocking admin, you don't need to make an unblock request. That being said, the edits at issue do not seem to be vandalism, which would mean that edit warring is not acceptable. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> <br /> == [[Draft:Nazillispor|Nazillispor]] moved to draftspace ==<br /> <br /> Thanks for your contributions to [[Draft:Nazillispor|Nazillispor]]. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because '''it has no sources'''.<br /> I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.<br /> <br /> Please see more information at [[Help:Unreviewed new page]].<br /> When the article is ready for publication, please click on the &quot;Submit your draft for review!&quot; button at the top of the page OR move the page back. [[User:Boleyn|Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Boleyn|talk]]) 16:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Excuse me, the club closed 49 years ago. It doesn't have much history and there are no references about it so I can't add it. There is no source on tr:wiki either, I tried to create the page here as it is, but I don't think the page can be in draft form. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Your submission at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]]: [[Draft:Nazillispor|Nazillispor]] (March 18) ==<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;&quot;&gt; [[File:AFC-Logo_Decline.svg|50px|left]]Your recent article submission to [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for Creation]] has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.&lt;nowiki&gt; &lt;/nowiki&gt;The reason left by KylieTastic was:<br /> <br /> {{divbox|gray|3=This draft's references do not show that the subject [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)|qualifies for a Wikipedia article]]. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: &lt;br /&gt;<br /> * [[WP:ORGDEPTH|''in-depth'']] (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|''reliable'']]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:No original research#Secondary|''secondary'']]<br /> * [[WP:ORGIND|''strictly independent'']] of the subject &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Make sure you add references that meet ''all four'' of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about [[Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability)|mistakes to avoid]] when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.|}}&lt;!--<br /> --<br /> --&gt; Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit ''after they have been resolved''.<br /> {{clear}}<br /> * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to [[Draft:Nazillispor]] and click on the &quot;Edit&quot; tab at the top of the window.<br /> * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13. Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions|may be deleted]].<br /> * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning|untoward behavior]] associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the &lt;span class=&quot;plainlinks&quot;&gt;[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&amp;withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&amp;page=Draft:Nazillispor '''Articles for creation help desk''']&lt;/span&gt;, on the &lt;span class=&quot;plainlinks&quot;&gt;[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new&amp;nosummary=1&amp;preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&amp;preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Nazillispor '''reviewer's talk page''']&lt;/span&gt; or use [[Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer|Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors]].<br /> <br /> [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 20:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!--Template:AfC decline--&gt;<br /> <br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 0.4em 2em;&quot;<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align: top;&quot;<br /> | [[File:WP teahouse logo 2.png|alt=Teahouse logo]]<br /> | &lt;div style=&quot;background-color:#e1e6db; color: #393D38; padding: 1em; font-size: 1.1em; border-radius:10px;box-shadow:-2px -2px 1px #8e8a78;&quot;&gt;Hello, '''Delbatros'''!<br /> Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk|Articles for creation help desk]]'''. If you have any ''other'' questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the '''[[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]]''', a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 20:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;<br /> |}&lt;!-- Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation --&gt;<br /> [[Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC]]<br /> <br /> == Reply to your [[WP:AFCHD|Articles for Creation Help Desk]] question ==<br /> <br /> [[File:AFC-Logo.svg|50px]] Hello, Delbatros! I'm [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]]. I have replied to your question about a submission at the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#18:59, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Delbatros|WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk]]. [[User:Cremastra|🌺 Cremastra ]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 23:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;!-- Template:AFCHD/u --&gt;</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delbatros&diff=1216297141 2024-03-30T07:59:46Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Copyright? */ Reply</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --&gt;<br /> ==Welcome!==<br /> [[File:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|[[Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''']]]]<br /> Hello, Delbatros, and '''''[[Help:Getting started|welcome to Wikipedia]]'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:<br /> * [[Help:Introduction|Introduction]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]<br /> * [[Help:Editing|How to edit a page]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]]<br /> * [[Help:Your first article|Your first article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community]]<br /> * Feel free to [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|make test edits in the sandbox]]<br /> * and check out the [[Wikipedia:Task Center|Task Center]], for ideas about what to work on.<br /> <br /> I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]] using four [[tilde]]s (&lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our [[Help:Contents|'''help pages''']], and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on [[User talk:Randykitty|my talk page]] or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!&lt;!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --&gt; [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 12:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Excuse me, I want to create an article, but it has been saved as a draft. Can you help me?<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == About [[Mersin İdman Yurdu]] ==<br /> <br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hi, and thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Delbatros|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Mersin İdman Yurdu]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into [[:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]. This is known as a &quot;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves|cut-and-paste move]]&quot;, and it is undesirable because it splits the [[Help:Page history|page history]], which is [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|legally required for attribution]]. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.<br /> <br /> In most cases for registered users, once your account is [[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed|four days old and has ten edits]], you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|&quot;Move&quot; tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at [[Wikipedia:Requests for history merge]]. Thank you. &lt;!-- Template:uw-c&amp;pmove --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Storchy|Storchy]] ([[User talk:Storchy|talk]]) 05:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. Since the page belongs to the Turkish football club, I am doing this according to the information in Turkish Wikipedia. Can you help me? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == esenlikler ==<br /> <br /> tr viki'de son değişikliklerde dolaşırken bazı olmamış maddelere denk geldim. sizi de [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metehan_%C3%96LMEZ&amp;diff=28770562&amp;oldid=28770548 şurda] gördüğüm için yazayım diye düşündüm.<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_K%C3%BCr%C5%9Fad_YILMAZ<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahit_Ergene_Ortaokulu<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkan_a%C5%9Fireti<br /> <br /> bunlara hızlı sil etiketi koyar mısınız? ----[[User:Modern primat|modern_primat]] [[Special:Contributions/Modern_primat|ඞඞඞ]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Modern primat|TALK]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)<br /> ==Concern regarding [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, Delbatros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months [[WP:G13|may be deleted]], so if you wish to retain the page, please [[Special:EditPage/Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit it]] again&amp;#32;or [[WP:USERFY|request]] that it be moved to your userspace.<br /> <br /> If the page has already been deleted, you can [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13|request it be undeleted]] so you can continue working on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. [[User:FireflyBot|FireflyBot]] ([[User talk:FireflyBot|talk]]) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)<br /> ==Your draft article, [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]<br /> <br /> Hello, Delbatros. It has been over six months since you last edited the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] submission or [[WP:Drafts|draft]] page you started, &quot;[[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|Mersin Talim Yurdu]]&quot;. <br /> <br /> In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]], the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code. <br /> <br /> If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at [[WP:REFUND/G13|this link]]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! &lt;!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <br /> <br /> '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&amp;mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&amp;mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&amp;mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.&lt;!-- Template:uw-3rr --&gt; [[Special:Contributions/105.8.2.55|105.8.2.55]] ([[User talk:105.8.2.55|talk]]) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please stop now! The revision you reverted contains copyright, why do you still insist on adding it back to the article? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{U|Hey man im josh}}, Please help me, There is a persistent copyright violation in the [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] article, please intervene. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, thank you so much. Please do not allow copyrighted images to be added to articles. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You have not answered the questions below. Please answer below. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Copyright?==<br /> OK, what's the problem?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214013229] [[:File:KSK logo.png]] and [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]], what's the difference? What is your copyright problem? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The problem is he's an idiot and he has no idea (if he can say &quot;son of a bitch&quot; without repercussion, I can say idiot). And if you're protecting the article, at least revert it to stable. [[Special:Contributions/102.182.46.145|102.182.46.145]] ([[User talk:102.182.46.145|talk]]) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If anyone calls anyone else an idiot or son of a bitch they're going to get blocked without any further warning, so we're clear. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You call me idiot and make me angry. Anyway, instead of causing a war, why didn't you send a message and tell me that you were trying to bring back the copyright violating image? Why do you continue to vandalize with different IP numbers? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is not allowed to upload copyrighted visual materials on Commons and there is already a logo available here. It is not nice to try to upload it in a way that will damage the article by violating the copyright rule. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The copyright rules allow something called [[:c:Commons:Licensing#Simple_design]], and we could always claim fair use, so the logo is allowed, but the thing I don't understand is why are you inserting an almost identical image? There has been a logo on that page for years. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I cannot write in the article, can you write please? The club's president has recently changed. Name of the new president: İlker Mehmet Ergüllü<br /> :Reference: [https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953], [https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598] [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You're on the verge of being blocked for [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], and abuse, and you don't seem to get it. You really need to stick to the point. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] You won't get good answers to any of your questions. I told you, he has no idea. Battleground mentality and lack of competence is all he is. And you're giving him the impression that he won a war here right now and he's having an orgasm over it. He thinks he's the best warrior in the wikiworld, and he defeated his enemy with 22 reverts and he got no repercussions for it, and it's even protected with his desired version, so warring like crazy with 20+ edits for 2 hours must be the correct thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/197.184.161.74|197.184.161.74]] ([[User talk:197.184.161.74|talk]]) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Please answer the question I asked and stop causing tension. You're the one who caused the war, not me. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Look, I have been trying to bring back the logo that has been around for years, in accordance with the rules. An anonymous user tried to vandalize add an image uploaded to commons that causes copyright violation to the article. I am doing the right thing.<br /> :::This is the logo I'm trying to bring back:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_Spor_Kul%C3%BCb%C3%BC_(logo).png<br /> :::An anonymous vandal user tried to add: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSK_logo.png<br /> :::Now I ask you: Is the revision that I have been trying to bring back to the article for years more accurate? Or is the revision that includes the copyrighted image that the anonymous user tried to add by vandalism more accurate?<br /> :::In fact, the logo was uploaded to en:wiki in accordance with the rules in 2021, and there is no copyright problem, but why would the image uploaded to commons be added to the article in a way that would cause a copyright problem?<br /> :::It was deleted again from commons in the past due to copyright reasons. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Someone tried to update the logo to the current one the club uses. There's no copyright difference between the two, and it's not removed from Commons, instead of edit warring here, try to remove it from Commons first if you can. You have no idea what you're doing, and nothing justifies 22 reverts and all the things you've done in just a few hours. You just need to &quot;win a war&quot;, that's all you think about. [[Special:Contributions/41.150.252.84|41.150.252.84]] ([[User talk:41.150.252.84|talk]]) 14:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm going to agree with the IP user. There's no meaningful differences between these logos in terms of copyright, which makes the copyright claim spurious. You should resolve the deletion process at commons first. Edit-warring like that is out of order, and will get you blocked. Even after the protection expires, even if you're reverted. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, The nomination for deletion in the Commons will be concluded on the same grounds. The anonymous user's incessant vandalism is completely damaging to the article and a waste of users' time. I'm trying to prevent and stop vandalism. I made a long statement, I think I did the right thing. I think that I will not be blocked or victimized because I am trying to stop and prevent vandalism. Because according to the rules, the necessary intervention against vandalism does not require any obstacle, and since I am trying to stop the vandalism, logically I should not be blocked. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::You have failed to demonstrate how this was vandalism. If it was a doctored image, or the wrong image, or even if there was a meaningful difference for the purposes of copyright, then you could argue that. But this is not vandalism. It's edit-warring, and that's you've been doing. Going forward you need to not do that. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In the past, it was deleted from commons due to copyright reasons and it was re-uploaded in the same way. There is no explanation for the vandalism you did. You are the one who started a war by vandalizing instead of talking about the issue. Do not think that you can escape the damage you caused with different IP numbers. I told you to stop and you didn't stop, even though I replied to you in the message thread above, you did not respond. First, explain the damage you caused, and I made my comment on the subject with a long explanation. You are just trying to create tension and cover up your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Updating an image is not vandalism. Updating an image is usually considered a good thing. Where is the evidence it was previously deleted due to copyright? And I ask again, why is the image you restored so different that it follows different rules? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Please review the revisions here.<br /> :::::::An attempt was made to add visual here: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20827359]<br /> :::::::Here, the revision was removed for the same reason: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20837090]<br /> :::::::I have been interested in this article for a long time and I have patrol rights on tr:wiki. It has been withdrawn due to copyright reasons. Wait, I will bring you 2 users and let them make the necessary explanation. I'm not doing anything wrong, you can confirm that. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::You will need to explain why you think [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]] is so different, when it is more or less identical. Either both of these are public domain due to their simplicity, or neither of them are public domain. If both are available then we could use either of the images. If neither is free then we could use a fair use rationale, and retain the apparently updated [[:File:KSK logo.png]] through a local upload. However arguing that one is a copyright violation and the other isn't doesn't make any sense. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please stop this anonymous vandalism, this is getting very annoying. &gt;:(<br /> :::::::::Considering that my long explanation is now more understandable, I expect you not to allow the copyrighted image added during the deletion candidacy period in the commons to be included in the article. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] he continues to edit war, you see the failure to get the point and the competence and disruption issues here? If someone gets away with 20+ reverts in an hour, they will think they are on the right path and continue doing it, just like what is happening here. [[Special:Contributions/102.141.68.251|102.141.68.251]] ([[User talk:102.141.68.251|talk]]) 21:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::The president of the club has changed and what is your aim? While I, who follow this club closely, have added a reference to the fact that the club president has changed, you have no right to take back this correctly added revision. There is no war. I just added a reference information and you still continue your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Delbatros is in a war of change everywhere, including trwiki. For this reason, it was also blocked on trwiki. The ban period should be extended and the message page should be closed. This idiot is tarnishing the name of us Turks. Such people should be blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] The ban needs to be extended, you know this idiot got into World War II. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Referring to anyone as an idiot is unlikely to get me to side with you in any discussion. I'm unwilling to modify the block once its been placed without the need to do so. Show me conclusive proof of block evasion or other negative behaviours after the block and well review. They'll either learn or they wont and will review it from there. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Hello {{u|Amortias}} good morning, first of all, thank you for bringing back the correct revision. An anonymous vandal is trying to cause damage by removing information I added with reference, first he violated the copyright infringement rule and then he started a war. I managed to save the article from the copyright issue, although it was difficult, but hours later the anonymous user started vandalizing again. Now he is insistently trying to remove the information I added as a reference, and the reason why I was blocked was to prevent the damage he had caused to the article. Attempting to remove any information added by reference in a damaging way is considered vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::@[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] @[[User:331dot|331dot]] @[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] he's addicted to edit warring, still does it. [[Special:Contributions/85.148.48.112|85.148.48.112]] ([[User talk:85.148.48.112|talk]]) 07:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::::I am working on a club jersey design and I said that the jersey I added to the page should remain on the page temporarily. What is your problem? Why do you always follow me? Because of you, I constantly have to rely on a manager for every positive contribution. Please stop following me and whoever you are, you should continue your contributions through your own Wikipedia account. I couldn't find any point in being anonymous to avoid an obstacle. Because you know this, you will be blocked every time you make a wrong intervention on your own account. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]] ([[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]) 07:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == March 2024 ==<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;user-block uw-block&quot; style=&quot;padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px&quot;&gt;[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''36 hours''' for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]], as you did at [[:Karşıyaka S.K.]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: &lt;!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --&gt;&lt;code&gt;&lt;nowiki&gt;{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/code&gt;. &amp;nbsp;[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 21:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- Template:uw-ewblock --&gt;<br /> {{unblock reviewed|reason=Hello {{u|Amortias}} good morning, first of all, thank you for bringing back the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=1214090512 correct revision]. An anonymous vandal is trying to cause damage by removing information I added with reference, first he violated the copyright infringement rule and then he started a war. I managed to save the article from the copyright issue, although it was difficult, but hours later the anonymous user started vandalizing again. Now he is insistently trying to remove the information I added as a reference, and the reason why I was blocked was to prevent the damage he had caused to the article. Attempting to remove any information added by reference in a damaging way is considered vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)|decline=You addressed this comment to the blocking admin, but unblock requests are to ask for a third party to review the block. If you wish to discuss this with the blocking admin, you don't need to make an unblock request. That being said, the edits at issue do not seem to be vandalism, which would mean that edit warring is not acceptable. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> <br /> == [[Draft:Nazillispor|Nazillispor]] moved to draftspace ==<br /> <br /> Thanks for your contributions to [[Draft:Nazillispor|Nazillispor]]. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because '''it has no sources'''.<br /> I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.<br /> <br /> Please see more information at [[Help:Unreviewed new page]].<br /> When the article is ready for publication, please click on the &quot;Submit your draft for review!&quot; button at the top of the page OR move the page back. [[User:Boleyn|Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Boleyn|talk]]) 16:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Excuse me, the club closed 49 years ago. It doesn't have much history and there are no references about it so I can't add it. There is no source on tr:wiki either, I tried to create the page here as it is, but I don't think the page can be in draft form. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Your submission at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]]: [[Draft:Nazillispor|Nazillispor]] (March 18) ==<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;&quot;&gt; [[File:AFC-Logo_Decline.svg|50px|left]]Your recent article submission to [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for Creation]] has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.&lt;nowiki&gt; &lt;/nowiki&gt;The reason left by KylieTastic was:<br /> <br /> {{divbox|gray|3=This draft's references do not show that the subject [[Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)|qualifies for a Wikipedia article]]. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: &lt;br /&gt;<br /> * [[WP:ORGDEPTH|''in-depth'']] (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|''reliable'']]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:No original research#Secondary|''secondary'']]<br /> * [[WP:ORGIND|''strictly independent'']] of the subject &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Make sure you add references that meet ''all four'' of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about [[Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability)|mistakes to avoid]] when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.|}}&lt;!--<br /> --<br /> --&gt; Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit ''after they have been resolved''.<br /> {{clear}}<br /> * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to [[Draft:Nazillispor]] and click on the &quot;Edit&quot; tab at the top of the window.<br /> * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13. Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions|may be deleted]].<br /> * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning|untoward behavior]] associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the &lt;span class=&quot;plainlinks&quot;&gt;[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&amp;withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&amp;page=Draft:Nazillispor '''Articles for creation help desk''']&lt;/span&gt;, on the &lt;span class=&quot;plainlinks&quot;&gt;[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new&amp;nosummary=1&amp;preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&amp;preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Nazillispor '''reviewer's talk page''']&lt;/span&gt; or use [[Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer|Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors]].<br /> <br /> [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 20:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!--Template:AfC decline--&gt;<br /> <br /> {| style=&quot;margin: 0.4em 2em;&quot;<br /> |- style=&quot;vertical-align: top;&quot;<br /> | [[File:WP teahouse logo 2.png|alt=Teahouse logo]]<br /> | &lt;div style=&quot;background-color:#e1e6db; color: #393D38; padding: 1em; font-size: 1.1em; border-radius:10px;box-shadow:-2px -2px 1px #8e8a78;&quot;&gt;Hello, '''Delbatros'''!<br /> Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk|Articles for creation help desk]]'''. If you have any ''other'' questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the '''[[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]]''', a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 20:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;<br /> |}&lt;!-- Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation --&gt;<br /> [[Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC]]<br /> <br /> == Reply to your [[WP:AFCHD|Articles for Creation Help Desk]] question ==<br /> <br /> [[File:AFC-Logo.svg|50px]] Hello, Delbatros! I'm [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]]. I have replied to your question about a submission at the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#18:59, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Delbatros|WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk]]. [[User:Cremastra|🌺 Cremastra ]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]]) 23:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;!-- Template:AFCHD/u --&gt;</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altay_S.K.&diff=1216296565 2024-03-30T07:51:08Z

<p>Delbatros: I said temporarily!</p> <hr /> <div>{{short description|Turkish football club}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=October 2021}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Altay<br /> | image = Altay SK logo.png<br /> | image_size = 170px<br /> | caption = <br /> | fullname = Altay Spor Kulübü<br /> | nickname = ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay)<br /> | founded = {{Start date and years ago|df=yes|1914|1|16}}<br /> | formernames =<br /> | dissolved = <br /> | ground = [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]]<br /> | capacity = 15,000<br /> | owntitle = <br /> | owner = <br /> | chrtitle = President<br /> | chairman = Süleyman Özkaral<br /> | mgrtitle = Manager<br /> | manager = Cüneyt Biçer<br /> | league = {{Turkish football updater|Altay}}<br /> | season = {{Turkish football updater|Altay2}}<br /> | position = {{Turkish football updater|Altay3}}<br /> | website = http://www.altay.org.tr/<br /> | current = 2023–24 Altay S.K. season<br /> |pattern_la1 = _black_stripes_thin1<br /> |pattern_b1 = _nikestripeddiv4wb<br /> |pattern_ra1 = _black_stripes_thin1<br /> |leftarm1 = FFFFFF<br /> |body1 = FFFFFF<br /> |rightarm1 = FFFFFF<br /> |shorts1 = FFFFFF<br /> |socks1 = FFFFFF<br /> |pattern_la2 = _nikestrike3w<br /> |pattern_ra2 = _nikestrike3w<br /> |pattern_b2 = _altay2122a<br /> |leftarm2 = FFFFFF<br /> |body2 = FFFFFF<br /> |rightarm2 = FFFFFF<br /> |shorts2 = FFFFFF<br /> |socks2 = FFFFFF<br /> |pattern_la3 = <br /> |pattern_b3 = _altay2122t<br /> |pattern_ra3 = <br /> |leftarm3 = 000000<br /> |body3 = 000000<br /> |rightarm3 = 000000<br /> |shorts3 = 000000<br /> |socks3 = 000000<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Altay Spor Kulübü''' is a Turkish professional [[Association football|football]] club based in the city of [[İzmir]]. <br /> <br /> Formed in 1914, Altay are nicknamed ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay). The club colors are black and white, and they play their home matches at the [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]].<br /> <br /> Domestically, the club has finished third place for the [[Süper Lig]] three times and have won the [[Turkish Cup]] twice. They hold the record for most [[İzmir Football League]] titles with 14. They are the most successful İzmir-based club with 16 championships in various competitions.<br /> <br /> Collecting 24 points in the first half of the [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70 season]] in undefeated 15 games with 9 wins and 6 draws, Altay SK is one of three non-champion clubs that topped the first half of [[Süper Lig|1. Lig]] table, along with [[Kocaelispor]] in [[1992–93 1.Lig|1992–93]], and [[Sivasspor]] in [[2007–08 Süper Lig|2007–08]], [[2008–09 Süper Lig|2008–09]] and [[2019–20 Süper Lig|2019–20]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite news|title=Futbolda İlk Yarı Liderleri ve Şampiyonlar|url=http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|publisher=[]|date=5 January 2014|access-date=27 December 2016|language=tr|archive-date=27 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161227210040/http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> Altay was founded in 1914 in İzmir as İstiklal. The initial aim of the club was to unite Turkish youth under sporting activities and to encourage them, because in the 1910s minorities dominated sporting activities in İzmir. Under Ottoman rule, Turkish footballers were unable to compete. Altay was supported by many prominent Turkish politicians of the era. Former Turkish President [[Celal Bayar]] worked very hard in founding the club and gave his full support.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}}<br /> <br /> Altay has an important place in Turkey's football history. The club had a key role in uniting the Turkish community during the [[Turkish War of Independence]].{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} Many players and supporters of Altay SK lost their lives in the Turkish War.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} After the [[Surname Law]] was adopted, [[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] gave General [[Fahrettin Altay|Fahreddin Pasha]] the surname of &quot;Altay&quot;. Altay plays in the [[İzmir Alsancak Stadium]] first built in 1929 and was rebuilt in 2021.<br /> <br /> ==Honours==<br /> ===National Championships===<br /> * '''[[Süper Lig]]'''<br /> ** ''Third place (3):'' [[1956–57 Federation Cup|1956–57]], [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70]], [[1976–77 1.Lig|1976–77]]<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Championship]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1934 Turkish Football Championship|1934]], [[1951 Turkish Football Championship|1951]]<br /> * '''[[TFF First League]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2001–02<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1983–84, 1990–91<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Federation Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2006–07<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1963–64<br /> <br /> ===National Cups===<br /> * '''[[Turkish Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1966–67, 1979–80<br /> ** ''Runners-up (5):'' 1963–64, 1967–68, 1971–72, 1978–79, 1985–86<br /> * '''[[Turkish Super Cup|Super Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1967 Presidential Cup|1967]], 1980<br /> * '''[[Prime Minister's Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1972, 1979, 1986<br /> * '''[[Organ Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (18):'' 1936, 1937, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1958, 1961, 1968, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1984, 2004, 2005, 2021<br /> * '''[[Ayçilek Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1973, 1978<br /> * '''[[Tore Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1976<br /> * '''[[Aydin Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1963, 1964, 1986<br /> <br /> ===Regional competitions===<br /> * '''İzmir Professional League'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> * '''[[İzmir Football League]]''' <br /> ** '''Winners (14) (record):''' 1923–24, 1924–25, 1927–28, 1928–29, 1930–31, 1933–34, 1936–37, 1940–41, 1945–46, 1947–48, 1950–51, 1953–54, 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Altay won the championship as &quot;Üçok&quot; (Three arrows), an alliance between Altay, [[Altınordu F.K.|Altınordu]], and [[Bucaspor]].&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==League participations==<br /> * [[Süper Lig|Super League]]: 1958–83, 1984–90, 1991–2000, 2002–03, 2021–2022<br /> * [[TFF First League]]: 1983–84, 1990–91, 2000–02, 2003–11, 2018–21, 2022-2023<br /> * [[TFF Second League]]: 2011–15, 2017–18<br /> * [[TFF Third League]]: 2015–17<br /> <br /> ==European record==<br /> {{updated|25 July 1998}}<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> ! Competition<br /> ! Pld<br /> ! W<br /> ! D<br /> ! L<br /> ! GF<br /> ! GA<br /> ! GD<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 3<br /> | 6<br /> | 12<br /> | –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]<br /> | 2<br /> | 1<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 5<br /> | 6<br /> | –1<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 3<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 10<br /> | 9<br /> | +1<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 14<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 3<br /> ! 6<br /> ! 21<br /> ! 27<br /> ! –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]<br /> | 4<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 3<br /> | 14<br /> | –11<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup|Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 2<br /> | 6<br /> | 9<br /> | –3<br /> |-<br /> | [[Balkans Cup]]<br /> | 8<br /> | 1<br /> | 1<br /> | 6<br /> | 6<br /> | 23<br /> | –17<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''Non-UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 18<br /> ! 2<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 11<br /> ! 15<br /> ! 46<br /> ! –31<br /> |-<br /> ! Overall Total<br /> ! 32<br /> ! 7<br /> ! 8<br /> ! 17<br /> ! 36<br /> ! 73<br /> ! –37<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; non-UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1967-68 European Cup Winners' Cup|1967–68]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|BEL}} [[Standard Liège]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–3'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1968-69 European Cup Winners' Cup|1968–69]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|NOR}} [[Lyn Fotball|Lyn]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''4–5'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1980-81 European Cup Winners' Cup|1980–81]]<br /> |Preliminary Round<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[S.L. Benfica|Benfica]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–4'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1977–78 UEFA Cup|1977–78]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|4–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–5<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–6'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1974 Intertoto Cup|1974]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group 10)<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[G.D. Fabril|CUF]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Landskrona BoIS|Landskrona]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Hammarby Fotboll|Hammarby]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|[[1998 UEFA Intertoto Cup|1998]]<br /> |First Round<br /> |{{flagicon|IRL}} [[Shamrock Rovers F.C.|Shamrock Rovers]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–4'''<br /> |-<br /> |Second Round<br /> |{{flagicon|HUN}} [[Diósgyőri VTK|Diósgyőr]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–1'''<br /> |-<br /> |'''Third Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|FRA}} [[SC Bastia|Bastia]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–2 (aet)<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–4'''<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The tournament was founded in 1961–62, but was only taken over by UEFA in 1995.<br /> <br /> '''[[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1962–63 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1962–63]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|ITA}} [[A.S. Roma|Roma]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–10<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–13'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1969–70 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1969–70]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–1'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[Balkans Cup]]:'''<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Season<br /> !Round<br /> !Club<br /> !Home<br /> !Away<br /> !Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1971 Balkans Cup|1971]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group B)<br /> |{{flagicon|GRE|1970}} [[Panionios F.C.|Panionios]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–1<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Brașov (1936)|Steagul Roșu Brașov]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#ffd;&quot;| 0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1977 Balkans Cup|1977]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group A)<br /> |{{flagicon|BUL|1971}} [[PFC Slavia Sofia|Slavia Sofia]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–6<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Politehnica Timișoara|Politehnica Timișoara]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–5<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''UEFA Ranking history:'''<br /> {{see also|UEFA coefficient}}<br /> {{updated|1982}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable plainrowheaders sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Season !! Rank !! Points !! Ref.<br /> |-<br /> |1968||168 {{increase}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1968 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163544/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1969||103 {{increase}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1969 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920171251/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1970||89 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1970 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163551/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1971||86 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1971 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163715/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1972||87 {{decrease}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1972 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163902/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1973||112 {{decrease}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1973 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170622/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1974||203 {{decrease}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1974 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163132/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1978||157 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1978 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1979||155 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1979 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=28 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231228105207/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1980||155 {{same position}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1980 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163520/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1981||153 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1981 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=9 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220909184532/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1982||149 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1982 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Players==<br /> ===Current squad===<br /> {{updated|3 February 2024}}&lt;ref name=&quot;Current squad&quot;&gt;{{cite web|title=A TAKIM|url=https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|publisher=Altay|access-date=12 September 2020|archive-date=9 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809045156/https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;section begin=squad /&gt;<br /> {{Fs start|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 1|nat=TUR|name=[[Ozan Evrim Özenç]]|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 3|nat=TUR|name=Yusuf Tekin|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 4|nat=TUR|name=Hikmet Çolak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 5|nat=TUR|name=Sefa Özdemir|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 6|nat=TUR|name=[[Ceyhun Gülselam]]|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 7|nat=TUR|name=[[Eren Erdoğan]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=11|nat=TUR|name=Murat Uluç|pos=FW}} {{Captain}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=13|nat=TUR|name=Ulaş Hasan Özçelik|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=17|nat=TUR|name=Salih Sarıkaya|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=20|nat=TUR|name=Enes Yetkin|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=21|nat=TUR|name=Ali Kızılkuyu|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=23|nat=TUR|name=Murat Demir|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=24|nat=TUR|name=Erdem Özcan|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs mid|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=25|nat=TUR|name=Tugay Gündem|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=26|nat=TUR|name=Ege Parmaksiz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=28|nat=TUR|name=Mehmet Gündüz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=30|nat=TUR|name=Caner Baycan|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=32|nat=TUR|name=Arda Gezer|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=34|nat=TUR|name=Enes Öğrüce|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=44|nat=TUR|name=Kuban Altunbudak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=45|nat=TUR|name=Mustafa Çalışkan|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=63|nat=TUR|name=[[Deniz Kadah]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=77|nat=TUR|name=Onur Efe|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=88|nat=TUR|name=[[Özgür Özkaya]]|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=99|nat=TUR|name=Nurettin Küçükdeniz|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs end}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[List of Turkish sports clubs by foundation dates]]<br /> *[[Altay–Göztepe derby]]<br /> * [[Altay S.K. (women's football)]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *{{oweb|http://www.altay.org.tr/}}<br /> *[http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3591 Altay] on TFF.org<br /> <br /> {{Altay S.K.}}<br /> {{Süper Lig}}<br /> {{TFF First League}}<br /> {{Turkish Cup}}<br /> {{Turkish clubs in European football}}<br /> {{Turkish Women's First Football League}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Altay S.K.| ]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1914]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1914 establishments in the Ottoman Empire]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amortias&diff=1216296472 2024-03-30T07:49:56Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Please help */</p> <hr /> <div>{{User:MiszaBot/config<br /> | algo=old(10d)<br /> | archive=User talk:Amortias/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s<br /> | minthreadsleft=4<br /> | minthreadstoarchive=1<br /> }}<br /> {{DISPLAYTITLE:&lt;span style=&quot;position:absolute; top: -9999px&quot;&gt;User talk:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Calibri;font-size:30px&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#4682B4&quot;&gt;Amortias&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;}}<br /> {{User:Amortias/Top icons}}<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;background: #d0e5f5; padding: 10px; border-top: 3px solid #4682B4; border-left: 3px solid #4682B4; border-right: 3px solid #4682B4; border-bottom: 3px solid #4682B4; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 100%; font-family:calibri; text-align: left;&quot;&gt;<br /> {{User:Amortias/Navbar}}<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;boilerplate metadata plainlinks&quot; style=&quot;background-color: #B0E0E6; border: 2px solid #4682B4; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;&gt; '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amortias&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Calibri;font-size:15px&quot;&gt;Click here to leave me a message&lt;/span&gt;].'''&lt;/div&gt;<br /> {{Talk header}}<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> ==Merry Christmas !!!==<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:#fff; border-width:3px; text-align:left; padding:2px;&quot;&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:6px;&quot; class=&quot;plainlinks&quot;&gt;[[File:Xmas colors, 2013 (photo by David J).jpg|x80px|left]]<br /> <br /> [[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Bradley Hand ITC;&quot;&gt;'''CAPTAIN RAJU'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|(T)]]&lt;/sup&gt; is wishing you a [[Mary Poppins|Merry]] [[Christmas]]! This greeting (and season) promotes [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a [[Christmas|Merry Christmas]], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! &lt;br /&gt; <br /> <br /> ''Spread the cheer by adding {{tls|Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''<br /> &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> == New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022 ==<br /> <br /> Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br /> [[File:New page reviewer of the year cup.svg|thumb|right|120px]]<br /> Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter|open letter]] finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-09-30/In focus|current issue of ''The Signpost'']]. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.<br /> <br /> '''Awards''': Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to {{Noping|MPGuy2824}}), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to {{no ping|John B123}} for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new &quot;Iron&quot; level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles (&quot;one-a-day&quot;), and 100 reviews earns the &quot;Standard&quot; NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Awards|Awards page]]. Check out the new [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Awards#NPP_Hall_of_Fame|Hall of Fame]] also.<br /> <br /> '''Software news''': {{Noping|Novem Linguae}} and {{Noping|MPGuy2824}} have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently [[Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements/Phab_tickets#Closed_tickets|here]]. The [[Wikipedia:Database_reports/Top_new_article_reviewers|reviewer report]] has also been improved.<br /> [[File:2022-10-16 NPP backlog chart.jpg|thumb|450px|right|NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022]]<br /> '''Suggestions''':<br /> *There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the &quot;quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed&quot;.<br /> *Reminder: ''an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more.'' (from the [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Care|NPP tutorial]])<br /> *Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.<br /> *This [[User:Lourdes/PageCuration|user script]] puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.<br /> <br /> '''Backlog''':[[File:Everlasting Fireworks looped.gif|80px|left]] Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022|October backlog drive]] to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!<br /> {{-}}<br /> {{refbegin}}<br /> ;Reminders<br /> *Newsletter feedback - please take this [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Newsletter|short poll]] about the newsletter. <br /> *If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the [https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu New Page Patrol Discord], where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.<br /> *Please add [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers|the project discussion page]] to your watchlist.<br /> *If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions|PERM]].<br /> *To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here]].<br /> {{refend}} <br /> &lt;!-- Drafted by User:MB --&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:MB@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&amp;oldid=1114894896 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023 ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px&quot;&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; border: 1px solid #BBB; background: #FFFFFF;<br /> |}<br /> Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; <br /> |- style=&quot;font-size: 86%;&quot;<br /> |}<br /> [[File:Npp backlog 2022-Dec.jpg|thumb|400px|New Page Review queue December 2022]]<br /> ;Backlog<br /> The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to {{noping|WaddlesJP13}} who led with 2084 points. See [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022|this page]] for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if &lt;2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.<br /> ;2022 Awards<br /> [[File:New page reviewer of the year cup.svg|74px|left]]<br /> {{no ping|Onel5969}} won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. {{no ping|Rosguill}} led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Awards|Awards page]] and the [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Awards#NPP_Hall_of_Fame|Hall of Fame]]. Congratulations everyone!<br /> <br /> '''Minimum deletion time''': The previous [[WP:NPP]] guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and [[WP:BLAR]]). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the [[Special:NewPagesFeed|feed]] are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.) <br /> <br /> '''New draftify script''': In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly [[Help:Unreviewed new page|explanation page]]. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your [[Special:MyPage/common.js|common.js]] or vector.js file from '''&lt;code&gt;User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js&lt;/code&gt; to &lt;code&gt;User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js&lt;/code&gt;'''<br /> <br /> '''Redirects''': Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirects|this guide]], [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Redirect_checklist|this checklist]], and spend some time at [[WP:RFD]].<br /> <br /> '''Discussions with the WMF''' The [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter|PageTriage open letter]] signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted [[gerrit:q/repo:mediawiki/extensions/PageTriage+is:merged+NOT+author:Libraryupgrader+NOT+author:L10n-bot+before:2022-12-31|dozens of patches]] in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as {{noping|Novem Linguae}} and {{noping|MPGuy2824}} have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also [[Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features#Meeting details|had a video conference]] with the NPP coordinators to discuss [[User:Novem Linguae/Drafts/New landing page proposal|revamping the landing pages]] that new users see.<br /> <br /> {{refbegin}}<br /> ;Reminders<br /> *Newsletter feedback - please take this [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Newsletter|short poll]] about the newsletter. <br /> *There is live chat with patrollers on the [https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu New Page Patrol Discord].<br /> *Please add [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers|the project discussion page]] to your watchlist.<br /> *If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions|PERM]].<br /> *To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here]].<br /> {{refend}} <br /> &lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- Drafted by User:MB, Reviewed by Novem Linguae, Kudpung --&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:MB@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&amp;oldid=1130464022 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023 ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- do not use ;Header to make bold headers per [[H:DL]], causes errors for screen readers --&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; border: 1px solid #BBB; background: #FFFFFF;<br /> |}<br /> Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; <br /> |- style=&quot;font-size: 86%;&quot;<br /> |}<br /> [[File:NPP April-June 2023 backlog.svg|thumb|400px|New Page Review queue April to June 2023]]<br /> '''Backlog'''<br /> <br /> '''Redirect drive''': In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with '''23851''' reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to '''0''' (momentarily). Congratulations to {{Noping|Hey man im josh}} who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by {{noping|Meena}} and {{noping|Greyzxq}} with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023|this page]] for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.<br /> <br /> '''Redirect autopatrol''': All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list#Requests|here]].<br /> <br /> '''WMF work on PageTriage''': The [[mw:Moderator Tools|WMF Moderator Tools team]], consisting of {{noping|Samwalton9 (WMF)|label1=Sam|JSherman (WMF)|label2=Jason|SCardenas (WMF)|label3=Susana}}, and also some patches from {{noping|Jon (WMF)|label1=Jon}}, has been hard at work [[Wikipedia:Page Curation/2023 Moderator Tools project|updating PageTriage]]. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in [[beta test]] where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of [[Special:NewPagesFeed]], to help find bugs. We will post more details at [[WT:NPPR]] when we are ready for beta testers.<br /> <br /> '''Articles for Creation (AFC)''': All new page reviewers are now '''automatically approved''' for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at [[WT:AFCP]] like was required previously). To install the [[WP:AFCH|AFC helper script]], visit [[Special:Preferences]], visit the Gadgets tab, tick &quot;Yet Another AFC Helper Script&quot;, then click &quot;Save&quot;. To find drafts to review, visit [[Special:NewPagesFeed]], and at the top left, tick &quot;Articles for Creation&quot;. To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the &quot;More&quot; menu, then click &quot;Review (AFCH)&quot;. You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.<br /> <br /> You can review the AFC workflow at [[WP:AFCR]]. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that [[WP:DRAFTOBJECT|draftspace is optional]], so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.<br /> <br /> '''Pro tip''': Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own [[WP:SNG|SNG]]? The most common part of this &quot;creative professionals&quot; criteria that applies to artists is [[WP:ARTIST]] 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).<br /> <br /> {{refbegin}}<br /> '''Reminders'''<br /> *Newsletter feedback - please take this [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Newsletter|short poll]] about the newsletter. <br /> *There is live chat with patrollers on the [https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu New Page Patrol Discord] and {{IRC|wikimedia-npp}} on IRC.<br /> *Please add [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers|the project discussion page]] to your watchlist.<br /> *To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here]].<br /> {{refend}}<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Drafted by Novem Linguae, MPGuy2824 and Zippybonzo. Sent by Zippybonzo. --&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:Zippybonzo@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&amp;oldid=1160196052 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == Re-instanciation of legitimate warnings just posted to user talk pages ==<br /> <br /> Hi,<br /> <br /> I aware users are allowed to remove content to their talk page, and I'm aware that talk pages are not meant to be used to shame users. However, I think it is not appropriate for users to just remove warning messages immediately after they get poster to their pages, and I think such warnings can legitimately be reinstated when this happens.<br /> <br /> In the case of [[User_talk:Justdoinsomeedtits|Justdoinsomeedtits]], I respectfully think your time would have been better invested investigating the recent behavior of this multi-recidivist vandal, who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. See e.g<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThaddeusSholto&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214584463 (bogus warning)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThaddeusSholto&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214584292 (...)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThaddeusSholto&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214583988 (personal attacks)<br /> Best,<br /> [[User:Malparti|Malparti]] ([[User talk:Malparti|talk]]) 21:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Ethics Workshop Participation Request ==<br /> <br /> Hi! We're conducting a series of participatory workshops with Wikipedia editors, administrators, researchers, and Wikimedia employees to discuss, and hopefully improve, Wikipedia's structures for online research (see [[:meta:Research:Beyond the Individual: Community-Engaged Design and Implementation of a Framework for Ethical Online Communities Research|meta research page]]). In an effort to get the right people in the room to discuss these topics, I'm reaching out here to see if you are interested in participating as an active administrator. We'd work with you to ensure this workshop can fit into your schedule, but are targeting end of April/early May. I'm happy to discuss any of these topics further here or on our [[:meta:Research_talk:Beyond_the_Individual:_Community-Engaged_Design_and_Implementation_of_a_Framework_for_Ethical_Online_Communities_Research|talk page]]. [[User:Zentavious|Zentavious]] ([[User talk:Zentavious|talk]]) 16:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == ''The Signpost'': 29 March 2024 ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div lang=&quot;en&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot; class=&quot;mw-content-ltr&quot;&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;column-count:2;&quot;&gt; {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-29}} &lt;/div&gt;&lt;!--Volume 20, Issue 5--&gt; &lt;div class=&quot;hlist&quot; style=&quot;margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;&quot;&gt; * '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-03-29|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;!-- Sent via script ([[User:JPxG/SPS]]) --&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&amp;oldid=1216007342 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == Please help ==<br /> <br /> Please help me. I am being blocked from contributing by an anonymous user who keeps taking me back instead of communicating. I told him that I was working on the jersey design and that the jersey would remain on the [[Altay S.K.|page]] temporarily, but he did not pay any attention to me. I shouldn't need an administrator to provide positive input, I would consider it harassment for an anonymous user to revert revisions. If you explain that there is no harm in having the club jersey on the page temporarily and that this jersey is available on many wikis, maybe they will accept your words. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amortias&diff=1216296428 2024-03-30T07:49:26Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Please help */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>{{User:MiszaBot/config<br /> | algo=old(10d)<br /> | archive=User talk:Amortias/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s<br /> | minthreadsleft=4<br /> | minthreadstoarchive=1<br /> }}<br /> {{DISPLAYTITLE:&lt;span style=&quot;position:absolute; top: -9999px&quot;&gt;User talk:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Calibri;font-size:30px&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#4682B4&quot;&gt;Amortias&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;}}<br /> {{User:Amortias/Top icons}}<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;background: #d0e5f5; padding: 10px; border-top: 3px solid #4682B4; border-left: 3px solid #4682B4; border-right: 3px solid #4682B4; border-bottom: 3px solid #4682B4; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 100%; font-family:calibri; text-align: left;&quot;&gt;<br /> {{User:Amortias/Navbar}}<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;boilerplate metadata plainlinks&quot; style=&quot;background-color: #B0E0E6; border: 2px solid #4682B4; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em&quot; align=&quot;center&quot;&gt; '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amortias&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Calibri;font-size:15px&quot;&gt;Click here to leave me a message&lt;/span&gt;].'''&lt;/div&gt;<br /> {{Talk header}}<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> ==Merry Christmas !!!==<br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:#fff; border-width:3px; text-align:left; padding:2px;&quot;&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:6px;&quot; class=&quot;plainlinks&quot;&gt;[[File:Xmas colors, 2013 (photo by David J).jpg|x80px|left]]<br /> <br /> [[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: Bradley Hand ITC;&quot;&gt;'''CAPTAIN RAJU'''&lt;/span&gt;]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:CAPTAIN RAJU|(T)]]&lt;/sup&gt; is wishing you a [[Mary Poppins|Merry]] [[Christmas]]! This greeting (and season) promotes [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a [[Christmas|Merry Christmas]], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! &lt;br /&gt; <br /> <br /> ''Spread the cheer by adding {{tls|Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''<br /> &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> <br /> == New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022 ==<br /> <br /> Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br /> [[File:New page reviewer of the year cup.svg|thumb|right|120px]]<br /> Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter|open letter]] finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-09-30/In focus|current issue of ''The Signpost'']]. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.<br /> <br /> '''Awards''': Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to {{Noping|MPGuy2824}}), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to {{no ping|John B123}} for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new &quot;Iron&quot; level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles (&quot;one-a-day&quot;), and 100 reviews earns the &quot;Standard&quot; NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Awards|Awards page]]. Check out the new [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Awards#NPP_Hall_of_Fame|Hall of Fame]] also.<br /> <br /> '''Software news''': {{Noping|Novem Linguae}} and {{Noping|MPGuy2824}} have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently [[Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements/Phab_tickets#Closed_tickets|here]]. The [[Wikipedia:Database_reports/Top_new_article_reviewers|reviewer report]] has also been improved.<br /> [[File:2022-10-16 NPP backlog chart.jpg|thumb|450px|right|NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022]]<br /> '''Suggestions''':<br /> *There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the &quot;quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed&quot;.<br /> *Reminder: ''an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more.'' (from the [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Care|NPP tutorial]])<br /> *Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.<br /> *This [[User:Lourdes/PageCuration|user script]] puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.<br /> <br /> '''Backlog''':[[File:Everlasting Fireworks looped.gif|80px|left]] Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022|October backlog drive]] to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!<br /> {{-}}<br /> {{refbegin}}<br /> ;Reminders<br /> *Newsletter feedback - please take this [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Newsletter|short poll]] about the newsletter. <br /> *If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the [https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu New Page Patrol Discord], where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.<br /> *Please add [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers|the project discussion page]] to your watchlist.<br /> *If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions|PERM]].<br /> *To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here]].<br /> {{refend}} <br /> &lt;!-- Drafted by User:MB --&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:MB@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&amp;oldid=1114894896 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023 ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px&quot;&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; border: 1px solid #BBB; background: #FFFFFF;<br /> |}<br /> Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; <br /> |- style=&quot;font-size: 86%;&quot;<br /> |}<br /> [[File:Npp backlog 2022-Dec.jpg|thumb|400px|New Page Review queue December 2022]]<br /> ;Backlog<br /> The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to {{noping|WaddlesJP13}} who led with 2084 points. See [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022|this page]] for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if &lt;2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.<br /> ;2022 Awards<br /> [[File:New page reviewer of the year cup.svg|74px|left]]<br /> {{no ping|Onel5969}} won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. {{no ping|Rosguill}} led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Awards|Awards page]] and the [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Awards#NPP_Hall_of_Fame|Hall of Fame]]. Congratulations everyone!<br /> <br /> '''Minimum deletion time''': The previous [[WP:NPP]] guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and [[WP:BLAR]]). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the [[Special:NewPagesFeed|feed]] are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.) <br /> <br /> '''New draftify script''': In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly [[Help:Unreviewed new page|explanation page]]. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your [[Special:MyPage/common.js|common.js]] or vector.js file from '''&lt;code&gt;User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js&lt;/code&gt; to &lt;code&gt;User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js&lt;/code&gt;'''<br /> <br /> '''Redirects''': Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirects|this guide]], [[Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Redirect_checklist|this checklist]], and spend some time at [[WP:RFD]].<br /> <br /> '''Discussions with the WMF''' The [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/2022 WMF letter|PageTriage open letter]] signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted [[gerrit:q/repo:mediawiki/extensions/PageTriage+is:merged+NOT+author:Libraryupgrader+NOT+author:L10n-bot+before:2022-12-31|dozens of patches]] in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as {{noping|Novem Linguae}} and {{noping|MPGuy2824}} have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also [[Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features#Meeting details|had a video conference]] with the NPP coordinators to discuss [[User:Novem Linguae/Drafts/New landing page proposal|revamping the landing pages]] that new users see.<br /> <br /> {{refbegin}}<br /> ;Reminders<br /> *Newsletter feedback - please take this [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Newsletter|short poll]] about the newsletter. <br /> *There is live chat with patrollers on the [https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu New Page Patrol Discord].<br /> *Please add [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers|the project discussion page]] to your watchlist.<br /> *If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions|PERM]].<br /> *To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here]].<br /> {{refend}} <br /> &lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- Drafted by User:MB, Reviewed by Novem Linguae, Kudpung --&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:MB@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&amp;oldid=1130464022 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023 ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div style=&quot;border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px&quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- do not use ;Header to make bold headers per [[H:DL]], causes errors for screen readers --&gt;<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; border: 1px solid #BBB; background: #FFFFFF;<br /> |}<br /> Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},<br /> {| style=&quot;float: right; <br /> |- style=&quot;font-size: 86%;&quot;<br /> |}<br /> [[File:NPP April-June 2023 backlog.svg|thumb|400px|New Page Review queue April to June 2023]]<br /> '''Backlog'''<br /> <br /> '''Redirect drive''': In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with '''23851''' reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to '''0''' (momentarily). Congratulations to {{Noping|Hey man im josh}} who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by {{noping|Meena}} and {{noping|Greyzxq}} with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023|this page]] for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.<br /> <br /> '''Redirect autopatrol''': All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list#Requests|here]].<br /> <br /> '''WMF work on PageTriage''': The [[mw:Moderator Tools|WMF Moderator Tools team]], consisting of {{noping|Samwalton9 (WMF)|label1=Sam|JSherman (WMF)|label2=Jason|SCardenas (WMF)|label3=Susana}}, and also some patches from {{noping|Jon (WMF)|label1=Jon}}, has been hard at work [[Wikipedia:Page Curation/2023 Moderator Tools project|updating PageTriage]]. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in [[beta test]] where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of [[Special:NewPagesFeed]], to help find bugs. We will post more details at [[WT:NPPR]] when we are ready for beta testers.<br /> <br /> '''Articles for Creation (AFC)''': All new page reviewers are now '''automatically approved''' for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at [[WT:AFCP]] like was required previously). To install the [[WP:AFCH|AFC helper script]], visit [[Special:Preferences]], visit the Gadgets tab, tick &quot;Yet Another AFC Helper Script&quot;, then click &quot;Save&quot;. To find drafts to review, visit [[Special:NewPagesFeed]], and at the top left, tick &quot;Articles for Creation&quot;. To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the &quot;More&quot; menu, then click &quot;Review (AFCH)&quot;. You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.<br /> <br /> You can review the AFC workflow at [[WP:AFCR]]. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that [[WP:DRAFTOBJECT|draftspace is optional]], so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.<br /> <br /> '''Pro tip''': Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own [[WP:SNG|SNG]]? The most common part of this &quot;creative professionals&quot; criteria that applies to artists is [[WP:ARTIST]] 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).<br /> <br /> {{refbegin}}<br /> '''Reminders'''<br /> *Newsletter feedback - please take this [[Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Newsletter|short poll]] about the newsletter. <br /> *There is live chat with patrollers on the [https://discordapp.com/invite/heF3xPu New Page Patrol Discord] and {{IRC|wikimedia-npp}} on IRC.<br /> *Please add [[Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers|the project discussion page]] to your watchlist.<br /> *To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter list|here]].<br /> {{refend}}<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Drafted by Novem Linguae, MPGuy2824 and Zippybonzo. Sent by Zippybonzo. --&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:Zippybonzo@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&amp;oldid=1160196052 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == Re-instanciation of legitimate warnings just posted to user talk pages ==<br /> <br /> Hi,<br /> <br /> I aware users are allowed to remove content to their talk page, and I'm aware that talk pages are not meant to be used to shame users. However, I think it is not appropriate for users to just remove warning messages immediately after they get poster to their pages, and I think such warnings can legitimately be reinstated when this happens.<br /> <br /> In the case of [[User_talk:Justdoinsomeedtits|Justdoinsomeedtits]], I respectfully think your time would have been better invested investigating the recent behavior of this multi-recidivist vandal, who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. See e.g<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThaddeusSholto&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214584463 (bogus warning)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThaddeusSholto&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214584292 (...)<br /> * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ThaddeusSholto&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214583988 (personal attacks)<br /> Best,<br /> [[User:Malparti|Malparti]] ([[User talk:Malparti|talk]]) 21:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == Ethics Workshop Participation Request ==<br /> <br /> Hi! We're conducting a series of participatory workshops with Wikipedia editors, administrators, researchers, and Wikimedia employees to discuss, and hopefully improve, Wikipedia's structures for online research (see [[:meta:Research:Beyond the Individual: Community-Engaged Design and Implementation of a Framework for Ethical Online Communities Research|meta research page]]). In an effort to get the right people in the room to discuss these topics, I'm reaching out here to see if you are interested in participating as an active administrator. We'd work with you to ensure this workshop can fit into your schedule, but are targeting end of April/early May. I'm happy to discuss any of these topics further here or on our [[:meta:Research_talk:Beyond_the_Individual:_Community-Engaged_Design_and_Implementation_of_a_Framework_for_Ethical_Online_Communities_Research|talk page]]. [[User:Zentavious|Zentavious]] ([[User talk:Zentavious|talk]]) 16:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == ''The Signpost'': 29 March 2024 ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div lang=&quot;en&quot; dir=&quot;ltr&quot; class=&quot;mw-content-ltr&quot;&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;column-count:2;&quot;&gt; {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-29}} &lt;/div&gt;&lt;!--Volume 20, Issue 5--&gt; &lt;div class=&quot;hlist&quot; style=&quot;margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;&quot;&gt; * '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2024-03-29|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 22:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC) &lt;!-- Sent via script ([[User:JPxG/SPS]]) --&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&amp;oldid=1216007342 --&gt;<br /> <br /> == Please help ==<br /> <br /> Please help me. I am being blocked from contributing by an anonymous user who keeps taking me back instead of communicating. I told him that I was working on the jersey design and that the jersey would remain on the [[Altay S.K.|page]] temporarily, but he did not pay any attention to me. I shouldn't need an administrator to provide positive input, I would consider it harassment for an anonymous user to revert revisions. If you explain that there is no harm in having the club jersey on the page temporarily and that this jersey is available on many wikis, maybe they will accept your words. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]] ([[User talk:Delbatros|talk]]) 07:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altay_S.K.&diff=1216295318 2024-03-30T07:38:20Z

<p>Delbatros: I said temporarily!</p> <hr /> <div>{{short description|Turkish football club}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=October 2021}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Altay<br /> | image = Altay SK logo.png<br /> | image_size = 170px<br /> | caption = <br /> | fullname = Altay Spor Kulübü<br /> | nickname = ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay)<br /> | founded = {{Start date and years ago|df=yes|1914|1|16}}<br /> | formernames =<br /> | dissolved = <br /> | ground = [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]]<br /> | capacity = 15,000<br /> | owntitle = <br /> | owner = <br /> | chrtitle = President<br /> | chairman = Süleyman Özkaral<br /> | mgrtitle = Manager<br /> | manager = Cüneyt Biçer<br /> | league = {{Turkish football updater|Altay}}<br /> | season = {{Turkish football updater|Altay2}}<br /> | position = {{Turkish football updater|Altay3}}<br /> | website = http://www.altay.org.tr/<br /> | current = 2023–24 Altay S.K. season<br /> |pattern_la1 = _black_stripes_thin1<br /> |pattern_b1 = _nikestripeddiv4wb<br /> |pattern_ra1 = _black_stripes_thin1<br /> |leftarm1 = FFFFFF<br /> |body1 = FFFFFF<br /> |rightarm1 = FFFFFF<br /> |shorts1 = FFFFFF<br /> |socks1 = FFFFFF<br /> |pattern_la2 = _nikestrike3w<br /> |pattern_ra2 = _nikestrike3w<br /> |pattern_b2 = _altay2122a<br /> |leftarm2 = FFFFFF<br /> |body2 = FFFFFF<br /> |rightarm2 = FFFFFF<br /> |shorts2 = FFFFFF<br /> |socks2 = FFFFFF<br /> |pattern_la3 = <br /> |pattern_b3 = _altay2122t<br /> |pattern_ra3 = <br /> |leftarm3 = 000000<br /> |body3 = 000000<br /> |rightarm3 = 000000<br /> |shorts3 = 000000<br /> |socks3 = 000000<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Altay Spor Kulübü''' is a Turkish professional [[Association football|football]] club based in the city of [[İzmir]]. <br /> <br /> Formed in 1914, Altay are nicknamed ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay). The club colors are black and white, and they play their home matches at the [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]].<br /> <br /> Domestically, the club has finished third place for the [[Süper Lig]] three times and have won the [[Turkish Cup]] twice. They hold the record for most [[İzmir Football League]] titles with 14. They are the most successful İzmir-based club with 16 championships in various competitions.<br /> <br /> Collecting 24 points in the first half of the [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70 season]] in undefeated 15 games with 9 wins and 6 draws, Altay SK is one of three non-champion clubs that topped the first half of [[Süper Lig|1. Lig]] table, along with [[Kocaelispor]] in [[1992–93 1.Lig|1992–93]], and [[Sivasspor]] in [[2007–08 Süper Lig|2007–08]], [[2008–09 Süper Lig|2008–09]] and [[2019–20 Süper Lig|2019–20]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite news|title=Futbolda İlk Yarı Liderleri ve Şampiyonlar|url=http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|publisher=[]|date=5 January 2014|access-date=27 December 2016|language=tr|archive-date=27 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161227210040/http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> Altay was founded in 1914 in İzmir as İstiklal. The initial aim of the club was to unite Turkish youth under sporting activities and to encourage them, because in the 1910s minorities dominated sporting activities in İzmir. Under Ottoman rule, Turkish footballers were unable to compete. Altay was supported by many prominent Turkish politicians of the era. Former Turkish President [[Celal Bayar]] worked very hard in founding the club and gave his full support.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}}<br /> <br /> Altay has an important place in Turkey's football history. The club had a key role in uniting the Turkish community during the [[Turkish War of Independence]].{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} Many players and supporters of Altay SK lost their lives in the Turkish War.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} After the [[Surname Law]] was adopted, [[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] gave General [[Fahrettin Altay|Fahreddin Pasha]] the surname of &quot;Altay&quot;. Altay plays in the [[İzmir Alsancak Stadium]] first built in 1929 and was rebuilt in 2021.<br /> <br /> ==Honours==<br /> ===National Championships===<br /> * '''[[Süper Lig]]'''<br /> ** ''Third place (3):'' [[1956–57 Federation Cup|1956–57]], [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70]], [[1976–77 1.Lig|1976–77]]<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Championship]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1934 Turkish Football Championship|1934]], [[1951 Turkish Football Championship|1951]]<br /> * '''[[TFF First League]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2001–02<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1983–84, 1990–91<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Federation Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2006–07<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1963–64<br /> <br /> ===National Cups===<br /> * '''[[Turkish Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1966–67, 1979–80<br /> ** ''Runners-up (5):'' 1963–64, 1967–68, 1971–72, 1978–79, 1985–86<br /> * '''[[Turkish Super Cup|Super Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1967 Presidential Cup|1967]], 1980<br /> * '''[[Prime Minister's Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1972, 1979, 1986<br /> * '''[[Organ Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (18):'' 1936, 1937, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1958, 1961, 1968, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1984, 2004, 2005, 2021<br /> * '''[[Ayçilek Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1973, 1978<br /> * '''[[Tore Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1976<br /> * '''[[Aydin Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1963, 1964, 1986<br /> <br /> ===Regional competitions===<br /> * '''İzmir Professional League'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> * '''[[İzmir Football League]]''' <br /> ** '''Winners (14) (record):''' 1923–24, 1924–25, 1927–28, 1928–29, 1930–31, 1933–34, 1936–37, 1940–41, 1945–46, 1947–48, 1950–51, 1953–54, 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Altay won the championship as &quot;Üçok&quot; (Three arrows), an alliance between Altay, [[Altınordu F.K.|Altınordu]], and [[Bucaspor]].&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==League participations==<br /> * [[Süper Lig|Super League]]: 1958–83, 1984–90, 1991–2000, 2002–03, 2021–2022<br /> * [[TFF First League]]: 1983–84, 1990–91, 2000–02, 2003–11, 2018–21, 2022-2023<br /> * [[TFF Second League]]: 2011–15, 2017–18<br /> * [[TFF Third League]]: 2015–17<br /> <br /> ==European record==<br /> {{updated|25 July 1998}}<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> ! Competition<br /> ! Pld<br /> ! W<br /> ! D<br /> ! L<br /> ! GF<br /> ! GA<br /> ! GD<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 3<br /> | 6<br /> | 12<br /> | –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]<br /> | 2<br /> | 1<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 5<br /> | 6<br /> | –1<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 3<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 10<br /> | 9<br /> | +1<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 14<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 3<br /> ! 6<br /> ! 21<br /> ! 27<br /> ! –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]<br /> | 4<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 3<br /> | 14<br /> | –11<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup|Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 2<br /> | 6<br /> | 9<br /> | –3<br /> |-<br /> | [[Balkans Cup]]<br /> | 8<br /> | 1<br /> | 1<br /> | 6<br /> | 6<br /> | 23<br /> | –17<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''Non-UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 18<br /> ! 2<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 11<br /> ! 15<br /> ! 46<br /> ! –31<br /> |-<br /> ! Overall Total<br /> ! 32<br /> ! 7<br /> ! 8<br /> ! 17<br /> ! 36<br /> ! 73<br /> ! –37<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; non-UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1967-68 European Cup Winners' Cup|1967–68]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|BEL}} [[Standard Liège]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–3'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1968-69 European Cup Winners' Cup|1968–69]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|NOR}} [[Lyn Fotball|Lyn]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''4–5'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1980-81 European Cup Winners' Cup|1980–81]]<br /> |Preliminary Round<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[S.L. Benfica|Benfica]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–4'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1977–78 UEFA Cup|1977–78]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|4–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–5<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–6'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1974 Intertoto Cup|1974]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group 10)<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[G.D. Fabril|CUF]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Landskrona BoIS|Landskrona]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Hammarby Fotboll|Hammarby]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|[[1998 UEFA Intertoto Cup|1998]]<br /> |First Round<br /> |{{flagicon|IRL}} [[Shamrock Rovers F.C.|Shamrock Rovers]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–4'''<br /> |-<br /> |Second Round<br /> |{{flagicon|HUN}} [[Diósgyőri VTK|Diósgyőr]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–1'''<br /> |-<br /> |'''Third Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|FRA}} [[SC Bastia|Bastia]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–2 (aet)<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–4'''<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The tournament was founded in 1961–62, but was only taken over by UEFA in 1995.<br /> <br /> '''[[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1962–63 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1962–63]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|ITA}} [[A.S. Roma|Roma]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–10<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–13'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1969–70 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1969–70]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–1'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[Balkans Cup]]:'''<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Season<br /> !Round<br /> !Club<br /> !Home<br /> !Away<br /> !Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1971 Balkans Cup|1971]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group B)<br /> |{{flagicon|GRE|1970}} [[Panionios F.C.|Panionios]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–1<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Brașov (1936)|Steagul Roșu Brașov]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#ffd;&quot;| 0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1977 Balkans Cup|1977]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group A)<br /> |{{flagicon|BUL|1971}} [[PFC Slavia Sofia|Slavia Sofia]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–6<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Politehnica Timișoara|Politehnica Timișoara]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–5<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''UEFA Ranking history:'''<br /> {{see also|UEFA coefficient}}<br /> {{updated|1982}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable plainrowheaders sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Season !! Rank !! Points !! Ref.<br /> |-<br /> |1968||168 {{increase}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1968 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163544/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1969||103 {{increase}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1969 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920171251/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1970||89 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1970 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163551/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1971||86 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1971 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163715/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1972||87 {{decrease}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1972 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163902/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1973||112 {{decrease}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1973 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170622/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1974||203 {{decrease}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1974 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163132/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1978||157 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1978 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1979||155 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1979 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=28 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231228105207/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1980||155 {{same position}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1980 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163520/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1981||153 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1981 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=9 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220909184532/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1982||149 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1982 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Players==<br /> ===Current squad===<br /> {{updated|3 February 2024}}&lt;ref name=&quot;Current squad&quot;&gt;{{cite web|title=A TAKIM|url=https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|publisher=Altay|access-date=12 September 2020|archive-date=9 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809045156/https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;section begin=squad /&gt;<br /> {{Fs start|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 1|nat=TUR|name=[[Ozan Evrim Özenç]]|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 3|nat=TUR|name=Yusuf Tekin|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 4|nat=TUR|name=Hikmet Çolak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 5|nat=TUR|name=Sefa Özdemir|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 6|nat=TUR|name=[[Ceyhun Gülselam]]|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 7|nat=TUR|name=[[Eren Erdoğan]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=11|nat=TUR|name=Murat Uluç|pos=FW}} {{Captain}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=13|nat=TUR|name=Ulaş Hasan Özçelik|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=17|nat=TUR|name=Salih Sarıkaya|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=20|nat=TUR|name=Enes Yetkin|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=21|nat=TUR|name=Ali Kızılkuyu|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=23|nat=TUR|name=Murat Demir|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=24|nat=TUR|name=Erdem Özcan|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs mid|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=25|nat=TUR|name=Tugay Gündem|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=26|nat=TUR|name=Ege Parmaksiz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=28|nat=TUR|name=Mehmet Gündüz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=30|nat=TUR|name=Caner Baycan|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=32|nat=TUR|name=Arda Gezer|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=34|nat=TUR|name=Enes Öğrüce|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=44|nat=TUR|name=Kuban Altunbudak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=45|nat=TUR|name=Mustafa Çalışkan|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=63|nat=TUR|name=[[Deniz Kadah]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=77|nat=TUR|name=Onur Efe|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=88|nat=TUR|name=[[Özgür Özkaya]]|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=99|nat=TUR|name=Nurettin Küçükdeniz|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs end}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[List of Turkish sports clubs by foundation dates]]<br /> *[[Altay–Göztepe derby]]<br /> * [[Altay S.K. (women's football)]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *{{oweb|http://www.altay.org.tr/}}<br /> *[http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3591 Altay] on TFF.org<br /> <br /> {{Altay S.K.}}<br /> {{Süper Lig}}<br /> {{TFF First League}}<br /> {{Turkish Cup}}<br /> {{Turkish clubs in European football}}<br /> {{Turkish Women's First Football League}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Altay S.K.| ]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1914]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1914 establishments in the Ottoman Empire]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altay_S.K.&diff=1216295006 2024-03-30T07:34:39Z

<p>Delbatros: Keep out!</p> <hr /> <div>{{short description|Turkish football club}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=October 2021}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Altay<br /> | image = Altay SK logo.png<br /> | image_size = 170px<br /> | caption = <br /> | fullname = Altay Spor Kulübü<br /> | nickname = ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay)<br /> | founded = {{Start date and years ago|df=yes|1914|1|16}}<br /> | formernames =<br /> | dissolved = <br /> | ground = [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]]<br /> | capacity = 15,000<br /> | owntitle = <br /> | owner = <br /> | chrtitle = President<br /> | chairman = Süleyman Özkaral<br /> | mgrtitle = Manager<br /> | manager = Cüneyt Biçer<br /> | league = {{Turkish football updater|Altay}}<br /> | season = {{Turkish football updater|Altay2}}<br /> | position = {{Turkish football updater|Altay3}}<br /> | website = http://www.altay.org.tr/<br /> | current = 2023–24 Altay S.K. season<br /> |pattern_la1 = _black_stripes_thin1<br /> |pattern_b1 = _nikestripeddiv4wb<br /> |pattern_ra1 = _black_stripes_thin1<br /> |leftarm1 = FFFFFF<br /> |body1 = FFFFFF<br /> |rightarm1 = FFFFFF<br /> |shorts1 = FFFFFF<br /> |socks1 = FFFFFF<br /> |pattern_la2 = _nikestrike3w<br /> |pattern_ra2 = _nikestrike3w<br /> |pattern_b2 = _altay2122a<br /> |leftarm2 = FFFFFF<br /> |body2 = FFFFFF<br /> |rightarm2 = FFFFFF<br /> |shorts2 = FFFFFF<br /> |socks2 = FFFFFF<br /> |pattern_la3 = <br /> |pattern_b3 = _altay2122t<br /> |pattern_ra3 = <br /> |leftarm3 = 000000<br /> |body3 = 000000<br /> |rightarm3 = 000000<br /> |shorts3 = 000000<br /> |socks3 = 000000<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Altay Spor Kulübü''' is a Turkish professional [[Association football|football]] club based in the city of [[İzmir]]. <br /> <br /> Formed in 1914, Altay are nicknamed ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay). The club colors are black and white, and they play their home matches at the [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]].<br /> <br /> Domestically, the club has finished third place for the [[Süper Lig]] three times and have won the [[Turkish Cup]] twice. They hold the record for most [[İzmir Football League]] titles with 14. They are the most successful İzmir-based club with 16 championships in various competitions.<br /> <br /> Collecting 24 points in the first half of the [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70 season]] in undefeated 15 games with 9 wins and 6 draws, Altay SK is one of three non-champion clubs that topped the first half of [[Süper Lig|1. Lig]] table, along with [[Kocaelispor]] in [[1992–93 1.Lig|1992–93]], and [[Sivasspor]] in [[2007–08 Süper Lig|2007–08]], [[2008–09 Süper Lig|2008–09]] and [[2019–20 Süper Lig|2019–20]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite news|title=Futbolda İlk Yarı Liderleri ve Şampiyonlar|url=http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|publisher=[]|date=5 January 2014|access-date=27 December 2016|language=tr|archive-date=27 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161227210040/http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> Altay was founded in 1914 in İzmir as İstiklal. The initial aim of the club was to unite Turkish youth under sporting activities and to encourage them, because in the 1910s minorities dominated sporting activities in İzmir. Under Ottoman rule, Turkish footballers were unable to compete. Altay was supported by many prominent Turkish politicians of the era. Former Turkish President [[Celal Bayar]] worked very hard in founding the club and gave his full support.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}}<br /> <br /> Altay has an important place in Turkey's football history. The club had a key role in uniting the Turkish community during the [[Turkish War of Independence]].{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} Many players and supporters of Altay SK lost their lives in the Turkish War.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} After the [[Surname Law]] was adopted, [[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] gave General [[Fahrettin Altay|Fahreddin Pasha]] the surname of &quot;Altay&quot;. Altay plays in the [[İzmir Alsancak Stadium]] first built in 1929 and was rebuilt in 2021.<br /> <br /> ==Honours==<br /> ===National Championships===<br /> * '''[[Süper Lig]]'''<br /> ** ''Third place (3):'' [[1956–57 Federation Cup|1956–57]], [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70]], [[1976–77 1.Lig|1976–77]]<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Championship]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1934 Turkish Football Championship|1934]], [[1951 Turkish Football Championship|1951]]<br /> * '''[[TFF First League]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2001–02<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1983–84, 1990–91<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Federation Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2006–07<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1963–64<br /> <br /> ===National Cups===<br /> * '''[[Turkish Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1966–67, 1979–80<br /> ** ''Runners-up (5):'' 1963–64, 1967–68, 1971–72, 1978–79, 1985–86<br /> * '''[[Turkish Super Cup|Super Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1967 Presidential Cup|1967]], 1980<br /> * '''[[Prime Minister's Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1972, 1979, 1986<br /> * '''[[Organ Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (18):'' 1936, 1937, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1958, 1961, 1968, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1984, 2004, 2005, 2021<br /> * '''[[Ayçilek Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1973, 1978<br /> * '''[[Tore Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1976<br /> * '''[[Aydin Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1963, 1964, 1986<br /> <br /> ===Regional competitions===<br /> * '''İzmir Professional League'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> * '''[[İzmir Football League]]''' <br /> ** '''Winners (14) (record):''' 1923–24, 1924–25, 1927–28, 1928–29, 1930–31, 1933–34, 1936–37, 1940–41, 1945–46, 1947–48, 1950–51, 1953–54, 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Altay won the championship as &quot;Üçok&quot; (Three arrows), an alliance between Altay, [[Altınordu F.K.|Altınordu]], and [[Bucaspor]].&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==League participations==<br /> * [[Süper Lig|Super League]]: 1958–83, 1984–90, 1991–2000, 2002–03, 2021–2022<br /> * [[TFF First League]]: 1983–84, 1990–91, 2000–02, 2003–11, 2018–21, 2022-2023<br /> * [[TFF Second League]]: 2011–15, 2017–18<br /> * [[TFF Third League]]: 2015–17<br /> <br /> ==European record==<br /> {{updated|25 July 1998}}<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> ! Competition<br /> ! Pld<br /> ! W<br /> ! D<br /> ! L<br /> ! GF<br /> ! GA<br /> ! GD<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 3<br /> | 6<br /> | 12<br /> | –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]<br /> | 2<br /> | 1<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 5<br /> | 6<br /> | –1<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 3<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 10<br /> | 9<br /> | +1<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 14<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 3<br /> ! 6<br /> ! 21<br /> ! 27<br /> ! –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]<br /> | 4<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 3<br /> | 14<br /> | –11<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup|Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 2<br /> | 6<br /> | 9<br /> | –3<br /> |-<br /> | [[Balkans Cup]]<br /> | 8<br /> | 1<br /> | 1<br /> | 6<br /> | 6<br /> | 23<br /> | –17<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''Non-UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 18<br /> ! 2<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 11<br /> ! 15<br /> ! 46<br /> ! –31<br /> |-<br /> ! Overall Total<br /> ! 32<br /> ! 7<br /> ! 8<br /> ! 17<br /> ! 36<br /> ! 73<br /> ! –37<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; non-UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1967-68 European Cup Winners' Cup|1967–68]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|BEL}} [[Standard Liège]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–3'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1968-69 European Cup Winners' Cup|1968–69]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|NOR}} [[Lyn Fotball|Lyn]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''4–5'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1980-81 European Cup Winners' Cup|1980–81]]<br /> |Preliminary Round<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[S.L. Benfica|Benfica]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–4'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1977–78 UEFA Cup|1977–78]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|4–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–5<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–6'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1974 Intertoto Cup|1974]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group 10)<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[G.D. Fabril|CUF]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Landskrona BoIS|Landskrona]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Hammarby Fotboll|Hammarby]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|[[1998 UEFA Intertoto Cup|1998]]<br /> |First Round<br /> |{{flagicon|IRL}} [[Shamrock Rovers F.C.|Shamrock Rovers]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–4'''<br /> |-<br /> |Second Round<br /> |{{flagicon|HUN}} [[Diósgyőri VTK|Diósgyőr]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–1'''<br /> |-<br /> |'''Third Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|FRA}} [[SC Bastia|Bastia]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–2 (aet)<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–4'''<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The tournament was founded in 1961–62, but was only taken over by UEFA in 1995.<br /> <br /> '''[[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1962–63 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1962–63]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|ITA}} [[A.S. Roma|Roma]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–10<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–13'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1969–70 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1969–70]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–1'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[Balkans Cup]]:'''<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Season<br /> !Round<br /> !Club<br /> !Home<br /> !Away<br /> !Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1971 Balkans Cup|1971]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group B)<br /> |{{flagicon|GRE|1970}} [[Panionios F.C.|Panionios]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–1<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Brașov (1936)|Steagul Roșu Brașov]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#ffd;&quot;| 0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1977 Balkans Cup|1977]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group A)<br /> |{{flagicon|BUL|1971}} [[PFC Slavia Sofia|Slavia Sofia]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–6<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Politehnica Timișoara|Politehnica Timișoara]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–5<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''UEFA Ranking history:'''<br /> {{see also|UEFA coefficient}}<br /> {{updated|1982}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable plainrowheaders sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Season !! Rank !! Points !! Ref.<br /> |-<br /> |1968||168 {{increase}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1968 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163544/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1969||103 {{increase}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1969 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920171251/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1970||89 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1970 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163551/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1971||86 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1971 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163715/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1972||87 {{decrease}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1972 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163902/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1973||112 {{decrease}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1973 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170622/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1974||203 {{decrease}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1974 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163132/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1978||157 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1978 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1979||155 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1979 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=28 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231228105207/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1980||155 {{same position}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1980 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163520/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1981||153 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1981 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=9 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220909184532/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1982||149 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1982 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Players==<br /> ===Current squad===<br /> {{updated|3 February 2024}}&lt;ref name=&quot;Current squad&quot;&gt;{{cite web|title=A TAKIM|url=https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|publisher=Altay|access-date=12 September 2020|archive-date=9 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809045156/https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;section begin=squad /&gt;<br /> {{Fs start|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 1|nat=TUR|name=[[Ozan Evrim Özenç]]|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 3|nat=TUR|name=Yusuf Tekin|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 4|nat=TUR|name=Hikmet Çolak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 5|nat=TUR|name=Sefa Özdemir|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 6|nat=TUR|name=[[Ceyhun Gülselam]]|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 7|nat=TUR|name=[[Eren Erdoğan]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=11|nat=TUR|name=Murat Uluç|pos=FW}} {{Captain}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=13|nat=TUR|name=Ulaş Hasan Özçelik|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=17|nat=TUR|name=Salih Sarıkaya|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=20|nat=TUR|name=Enes Yetkin|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=21|nat=TUR|name=Ali Kızılkuyu|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=23|nat=TUR|name=Murat Demir|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=24|nat=TUR|name=Erdem Özcan|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs mid|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=25|nat=TUR|name=Tugay Gündem|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=26|nat=TUR|name=Ege Parmaksiz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=28|nat=TUR|name=Mehmet Gündüz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=30|nat=TUR|name=Caner Baycan|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=32|nat=TUR|name=Arda Gezer|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=34|nat=TUR|name=Enes Öğrüce|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=44|nat=TUR|name=Kuban Altunbudak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=45|nat=TUR|name=Mustafa Çalışkan|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=63|nat=TUR|name=[[Deniz Kadah]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=77|nat=TUR|name=Onur Efe|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=88|nat=TUR|name=[[Özgür Özkaya]]|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=99|nat=TUR|name=Nurettin Küçükdeniz|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs end}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[List of Turkish sports clubs by foundation dates]]<br /> *[[Altay–Göztepe derby]]<br /> * [[Altay S.K. (women's football)]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *{{oweb|http://www.altay.org.tr/}}<br /> *[http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3591 Altay] on TFF.org<br /> <br /> {{Altay S.K.}}<br /> {{Süper Lig}}<br /> {{TFF First League}}<br /> {{Turkish Cup}}<br /> {{Turkish clubs in European football}}<br /> {{Turkish Women's First Football League}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Altay S.K.| ]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1914]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1914 establishments in the Ottoman Empire]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altay_S.K.&diff=1216294479 2024-03-30T07:27:16Z

<p>Delbatros: Please stop! The previous season's jersey should remain on the page temporarily until the new jersey drawing is completed. I'm currently working on drawing.</p> <hr /> <div>{{short description|Turkish football club}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=October 2021}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Altay<br /> | image = Altay SK logo.png<br /> | image_size = 170px<br /> | caption = <br /> | fullname = Altay Spor Kulübü<br /> | nickname = ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay)<br /> | founded = {{Start date and years ago|df=yes|1914|1|16}}<br /> | formernames =<br /> | dissolved = <br /> | ground = [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]]<br /> | capacity = 15,000<br /> | owntitle = <br /> | owner = <br /> | chrtitle = President<br /> | chairman = Süleyman Özkaral<br /> | mgrtitle = Manager<br /> | manager = Cüneyt Biçer<br /> | league = {{Turkish football updater|Altay}}<br /> | season = {{Turkish football updater|Altay2}}<br /> | position = {{Turkish football updater|Altay3}}<br /> | website = http://www.altay.org.tr/<br /> | current = 2023–24 Altay S.K. season<br /> |pattern_la1 = _black_stripes_thin1<br /> |pattern_b1 = _nikestripeddiv4wb<br /> |pattern_ra1 = _black_stripes_thin1<br /> |leftarm1 = FFFFFF<br /> |body1 = FFFFFF<br /> |rightarm1 = FFFFFF<br /> |shorts1 = FFFFFF<br /> |socks1 = FFFFFF<br /> |pattern_la2 = _nikestrike3w<br /> |pattern_ra2 = _nikestrike3w<br /> |pattern_b2 = _altay2122a<br /> |leftarm2 = FFFFFF<br /> |body2 = FFFFFF<br /> |rightarm2 = FFFFFF<br /> |shorts2 = FFFFFF<br /> |socks2 = FFFFFF<br /> |pattern_la3 = <br /> |pattern_b3 = _altay2122t<br /> |pattern_ra3 = <br /> |leftarm3 = 000000<br /> |body3 = 000000<br /> |rightarm3 = 000000<br /> |shorts3 = 000000<br /> |socks3 = 000000<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Altay Spor Kulübü''' is a Turkish professional [[Association football|football]] club based in the city of [[İzmir]]. <br /> <br /> Formed in 1914, Altay are nicknamed ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay). The club colors are black and white, and they play their home matches at the [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]].<br /> <br /> Domestically, the club has finished third place for the [[Süper Lig]] three times and have won the [[Turkish Cup]] twice. They hold the record for most [[İzmir Football League]] titles with 14. They are the most successful İzmir-based club with 16 championships in various competitions.<br /> <br /> Collecting 24 points in the first half of the [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70 season]] in undefeated 15 games with 9 wins and 6 draws, Altay SK is one of three non-champion clubs that topped the first half of [[Süper Lig|1. Lig]] table, along with [[Kocaelispor]] in [[1992–93 1.Lig|1992–93]], and [[Sivasspor]] in [[2007–08 Süper Lig|2007–08]], [[2008–09 Süper Lig|2008–09]] and [[2019–20 Süper Lig|2019–20]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite news|title=Futbolda İlk Yarı Liderleri ve Şampiyonlar|url=http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|publisher=[]|date=5 January 2014|access-date=27 December 2016|language=tr|archive-date=27 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161227210040/http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> Altay was founded in 1914 in İzmir as İstiklal. The initial aim of the club was to unite Turkish youth under sporting activities and to encourage them, because in the 1910s minorities dominated sporting activities in İzmir. Under Ottoman rule, Turkish footballers were unable to compete. Altay was supported by many prominent Turkish politicians of the era. Former Turkish President [[Celal Bayar]] worked very hard in founding the club and gave his full support.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}}<br /> <br /> Altay has an important place in Turkey's football history. The club had a key role in uniting the Turkish community during the [[Turkish War of Independence]].{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} Many players and supporters of Altay SK lost their lives in the Turkish War.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} After the [[Surname Law]] was adopted, [[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] gave General [[Fahrettin Altay|Fahreddin Pasha]] the surname of &quot;Altay&quot;. Altay plays in the [[İzmir Alsancak Stadium]] first built in 1929 and was rebuilt in 2021.<br /> <br /> ==Honours==<br /> ===National Championships===<br /> * '''[[Süper Lig]]'''<br /> ** ''Third place (3):'' [[1956–57 Federation Cup|1956–57]], [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70]], [[1976–77 1.Lig|1976–77]]<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Championship]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1934 Turkish Football Championship|1934]], [[1951 Turkish Football Championship|1951]]<br /> * '''[[TFF First League]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2001–02<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1983–84, 1990–91<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Federation Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2006–07<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1963–64<br /> <br /> ===National Cups===<br /> * '''[[Turkish Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1966–67, 1979–80<br /> ** ''Runners-up (5):'' 1963–64, 1967–68, 1971–72, 1978–79, 1985–86<br /> * '''[[Turkish Super Cup|Super Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1967 Presidential Cup|1967]], 1980<br /> * '''[[Prime Minister's Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1972, 1979, 1986<br /> * '''[[Organ Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (18):'' 1936, 1937, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1958, 1961, 1968, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1984, 2004, 2005, 2021<br /> * '''[[Ayçilek Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1973, 1978<br /> * '''[[Tore Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1976<br /> * '''[[Aydin Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1963, 1964, 1986<br /> <br /> ===Regional competitions===<br /> * '''İzmir Professional League'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> * '''[[İzmir Football League]]''' <br /> ** '''Winners (14) (record):''' 1923–24, 1924–25, 1927–28, 1928–29, 1930–31, 1933–34, 1936–37, 1940–41, 1945–46, 1947–48, 1950–51, 1953–54, 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Altay won the championship as &quot;Üçok&quot; (Three arrows), an alliance between Altay, [[Altınordu F.K.|Altınordu]], and [[Bucaspor]].&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==League participations==<br /> * [[Süper Lig|Super League]]: 1958–83, 1984–90, 1991–2000, 2002–03, 2021–2022<br /> * [[TFF First League]]: 1983–84, 1990–91, 2000–02, 2003–11, 2018–21, 2022-2023<br /> * [[TFF Second League]]: 2011–15, 2017–18<br /> * [[TFF Third League]]: 2015–17<br /> <br /> ==European record==<br /> {{updated|25 July 1998}}<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> ! Competition<br /> ! Pld<br /> ! W<br /> ! D<br /> ! L<br /> ! GF<br /> ! GA<br /> ! GD<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 3<br /> | 6<br /> | 12<br /> | –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]<br /> | 2<br /> | 1<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 5<br /> | 6<br /> | –1<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 3<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 10<br /> | 9<br /> | +1<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 14<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 3<br /> ! 6<br /> ! 21<br /> ! 27<br /> ! –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]<br /> | 4<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 3<br /> | 14<br /> | –11<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup|Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 2<br /> | 6<br /> | 9<br /> | –3<br /> |-<br /> | [[Balkans Cup]]<br /> | 8<br /> | 1<br /> | 1<br /> | 6<br /> | 6<br /> | 23<br /> | –17<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''Non-UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 18<br /> ! 2<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 11<br /> ! 15<br /> ! 46<br /> ! –31<br /> |-<br /> ! Overall Total<br /> ! 32<br /> ! 7<br /> ! 8<br /> ! 17<br /> ! 36<br /> ! 73<br /> ! –37<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; non-UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1967-68 European Cup Winners' Cup|1967–68]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|BEL}} [[Standard Liège]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–3'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1968-69 European Cup Winners' Cup|1968–69]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|NOR}} [[Lyn Fotball|Lyn]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''4–5'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1980-81 European Cup Winners' Cup|1980–81]]<br /> |Preliminary Round<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[S.L. Benfica|Benfica]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–4'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1977–78 UEFA Cup|1977–78]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|4–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–5<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–6'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1974 Intertoto Cup|1974]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group 10)<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[G.D. Fabril|CUF]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Landskrona BoIS|Landskrona]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Hammarby Fotboll|Hammarby]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|[[1998 UEFA Intertoto Cup|1998]]<br /> |First Round<br /> |{{flagicon|IRL}} [[Shamrock Rovers F.C.|Shamrock Rovers]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–4'''<br /> |-<br /> |Second Round<br /> |{{flagicon|HUN}} [[Diósgyőri VTK|Diósgyőr]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–1'''<br /> |-<br /> |'''Third Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|FRA}} [[SC Bastia|Bastia]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–2 (aet)<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–4'''<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The tournament was founded in 1961–62, but was only taken over by UEFA in 1995.<br /> <br /> '''[[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1962–63 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1962–63]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|ITA}} [[A.S. Roma|Roma]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–10<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–13'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1969–70 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1969–70]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–1'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[Balkans Cup]]:'''<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Season<br /> !Round<br /> !Club<br /> !Home<br /> !Away<br /> !Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1971 Balkans Cup|1971]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group B)<br /> |{{flagicon|GRE|1970}} [[Panionios F.C.|Panionios]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–1<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Brașov (1936)|Steagul Roșu Brașov]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#ffd;&quot;| 0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1977 Balkans Cup|1977]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group A)<br /> |{{flagicon|BUL|1971}} [[PFC Slavia Sofia|Slavia Sofia]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–6<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Politehnica Timișoara|Politehnica Timișoara]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–5<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''UEFA Ranking history:'''<br /> {{see also|UEFA coefficient}}<br /> {{updated|1982}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable plainrowheaders sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Season !! Rank !! Points !! Ref.<br /> |-<br /> |1968||168 {{increase}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1968 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163544/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1969||103 {{increase}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1969 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920171251/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1970||89 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1970 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163551/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1971||86 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1971 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163715/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1972||87 {{decrease}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1972 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163902/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1973||112 {{decrease}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1973 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170622/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1974||203 {{decrease}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1974 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163132/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1978||157 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1978 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1979||155 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1979 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=28 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231228105207/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1980||155 {{same position}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1980 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163520/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1981||153 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1981 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=9 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220909184532/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1982||149 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1982 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Players==<br /> ===Current squad===<br /> {{updated|3 February 2024}}&lt;ref name=&quot;Current squad&quot;&gt;{{cite web|title=A TAKIM|url=https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|publisher=Altay|access-date=12 September 2020|archive-date=9 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809045156/https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;section begin=squad /&gt;<br /> {{Fs start|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 1|nat=TUR|name=[[Ozan Evrim Özenç]]|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 3|nat=TUR|name=Yusuf Tekin|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 4|nat=TUR|name=Hikmet Çolak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 5|nat=TUR|name=Sefa Özdemir|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 6|nat=TUR|name=[[Ceyhun Gülselam]]|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 7|nat=TUR|name=[[Eren Erdoğan]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=11|nat=TUR|name=Murat Uluç|pos=FW}} {{Captain}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=13|nat=TUR|name=Ulaş Hasan Özçelik|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=17|nat=TUR|name=Salih Sarıkaya|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=20|nat=TUR|name=Enes Yetkin|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=21|nat=TUR|name=Ali Kızılkuyu|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=23|nat=TUR|name=Murat Demir|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=24|nat=TUR|name=Erdem Özcan|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs mid|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=25|nat=TUR|name=Tugay Gündem|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=26|nat=TUR|name=Ege Parmaksiz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=28|nat=TUR|name=Mehmet Gündüz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=30|nat=TUR|name=Caner Baycan|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=32|nat=TUR|name=Arda Gezer|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=34|nat=TUR|name=Enes Öğrüce|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=44|nat=TUR|name=Kuban Altunbudak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=45|nat=TUR|name=Mustafa Çalışkan|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=63|nat=TUR|name=[[Deniz Kadah]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=77|nat=TUR|name=Onur Efe|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=88|nat=TUR|name=[[Özgür Özkaya]]|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=99|nat=TUR|name=Nurettin Küçükdeniz|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs end}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[List of Turkish sports clubs by foundation dates]]<br /> *[[Altay–Göztepe derby]]<br /> * [[Altay S.K. (women's football)]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *{{oweb|http://www.altay.org.tr/}}<br /> *[http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3591 Altay] on TFF.org<br /> <br /> {{Altay S.K.}}<br /> {{Süper Lig}}<br /> {{TFF First League}}<br /> {{Turkish Cup}}<br /> {{Turkish clubs in European football}}<br /> {{Turkish Women's First Football League}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Altay S.K.| ]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1914]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1914 establishments in the Ottoman Empire]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altay_S.K.&diff=1216285190 2024-03-30T05:32:32Z

<p>Delbatros: Please stop following me!</p> <hr /> <div>{{short description|Turkish football club}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=October 2021}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Altay<br /> | image = Altay SK logo.png<br /> | image_size = 170px<br /> | caption = <br /> | fullname = Altay Spor Kulübü<br /> | nickname = ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay)<br /> | founded = {{Start date and years ago|df=yes|1914|1|16}}<br /> | formernames =<br /> | dissolved = <br /> | ground = [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]]<br /> | capacity = 15,000<br /> | owntitle = <br /> | owner = <br /> | chrtitle = President<br /> | chairman = Süleyman Özkaral<br /> | mgrtitle = Manager<br /> | manager = Cüneyt Biçer<br /> | league = {{Turkish football updater|Altay}}<br /> | season = {{Turkish football updater|Altay2}}<br /> | position = {{Turkish football updater|Altay3}}<br /> | website = http://www.altay.org.tr/<br /> | current = 2023–24 Altay S.K. season<br /> |pattern_la1 = _black_stripes_thin1<br /> |pattern_b1 = _nikestripeddiv4wb<br /> |pattern_ra1 = _black_stripes_thin1<br /> |leftarm1 = FFFFFF<br /> |body1 = FFFFFF<br /> |rightarm1 = FFFFFF<br /> |shorts1 = FFFFFF<br /> |socks1 = FFFFFF<br /> |pattern_la2 = _nikestrike3w<br /> |pattern_ra2 = _nikestrike3w<br /> |pattern_b2 = _altay2122a<br /> |leftarm2 = FFFFFF<br /> |body2 = FFFFFF<br /> |rightarm2 = FFFFFF<br /> |shorts2 = FFFFFF<br /> |socks2 = FFFFFF<br /> |pattern_la3 = <br /> |pattern_b3 = _altay2122t<br /> |pattern_ra3 = <br /> |leftarm3 = 000000<br /> |body3 = 000000<br /> |rightarm3 = 000000<br /> |shorts3 = 000000<br /> |socks3 = 000000<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Altay Spor Kulübü''' is a Turkish professional [[Association football|football]] club based in the city of [[İzmir]]. <br /> <br /> Formed in 1914, Altay are nicknamed ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay). The club colors are black and white, and they play their home matches at the [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]].<br /> <br /> Domestically, the club has finished third place for the [[Süper Lig]] three times and have won the [[Turkish Cup]] twice. They hold the record for most [[İzmir Football League]] titles with 14. They are the most successful İzmir-based club with 16 championships in various competitions.<br /> <br /> Collecting 24 points in the first half of the [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70 season]] in undefeated 15 games with 9 wins and 6 draws, Altay SK is one of three non-champion clubs that topped the first half of [[Süper Lig|1. Lig]] table, along with [[Kocaelispor]] in [[1992–93 1.Lig|1992–93]], and [[Sivasspor]] in [[2007–08 Süper Lig|2007–08]], [[2008–09 Süper Lig|2008–09]] and [[2019–20 Süper Lig|2019–20]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite news|title=Futbolda İlk Yarı Liderleri ve Şampiyonlar|url=http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|publisher=[]|date=5 January 2014|access-date=27 December 2016|language=tr|archive-date=27 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161227210040/http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> Altay was founded in 1914 in İzmir as İstiklal. The initial aim of the club was to unite Turkish youth under sporting activities and to encourage them, because in the 1910s minorities dominated sporting activities in İzmir. Under Ottoman rule, Turkish footballers were unable to compete. Altay was supported by many prominent Turkish politicians of the era. Former Turkish President [[Celal Bayar]] worked very hard in founding the club and gave his full support.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}}<br /> <br /> Altay has an important place in Turkey's football history. The club had a key role in uniting the Turkish community during the [[Turkish War of Independence]].{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} Many players and supporters of Altay SK lost their lives in the Turkish War.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} After the [[Surname Law]] was adopted, [[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] gave General [[Fahrettin Altay|Fahreddin Pasha]] the surname of &quot;Altay&quot;. Altay plays in the [[İzmir Alsancak Stadium]] first built in 1929 and was rebuilt in 2021.<br /> <br /> ==Honours==<br /> ===National Championships===<br /> * '''[[Süper Lig]]'''<br /> ** ''Third place (3):'' [[1956–57 Federation Cup|1956–57]], [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70]], [[1976–77 1.Lig|1976–77]]<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Championship]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1934 Turkish Football Championship|1934]], [[1951 Turkish Football Championship|1951]]<br /> * '''[[TFF First League]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2001–02<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1983–84, 1990–91<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Federation Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2006–07<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1963–64<br /> <br /> ===National Cups===<br /> * '''[[Turkish Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1966–67, 1979–80<br /> ** ''Runners-up (5):'' 1963–64, 1967–68, 1971–72, 1978–79, 1985–86<br /> * '''[[Turkish Super Cup|Super Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1967 Presidential Cup|1967]], 1980<br /> * '''[[Prime Minister's Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1972, 1979, 1986<br /> * '''[[Organ Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (18):'' 1936, 1937, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1958, 1961, 1968, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1984, 2004, 2005, 2021<br /> * '''[[Ayçilek Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1973, 1978<br /> * '''[[Tore Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1976<br /> * '''[[Aydin Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1963, 1964, 1986<br /> <br /> ===Regional competitions===<br /> * '''İzmir Professional League'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> * '''[[İzmir Football League]]''' <br /> ** '''Winners (14) (record):''' 1923–24, 1924–25, 1927–28, 1928–29, 1930–31, 1933–34, 1936–37, 1940–41, 1945–46, 1947–48, 1950–51, 1953–54, 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Altay won the championship as &quot;Üçok&quot; (Three arrows), an alliance between Altay, [[Altınordu F.K.|Altınordu]], and [[Bucaspor]].&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==League participations==<br /> * [[Süper Lig|Super League]]: 1958–83, 1984–90, 1991–2000, 2002–03, 2021–2022<br /> * [[TFF First League]]: 1983–84, 1990–91, 2000–02, 2003–11, 2018–21, 2022-2023<br /> * [[TFF Second League]]: 2011–15, 2017–18<br /> * [[TFF Third League]]: 2015–17<br /> <br /> ==European record==<br /> {{updated|25 July 1998}}<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> ! Competition<br /> ! Pld<br /> ! W<br /> ! D<br /> ! L<br /> ! GF<br /> ! GA<br /> ! GD<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 3<br /> | 6<br /> | 12<br /> | –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]<br /> | 2<br /> | 1<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 5<br /> | 6<br /> | –1<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 3<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 10<br /> | 9<br /> | +1<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 14<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 3<br /> ! 6<br /> ! 21<br /> ! 27<br /> ! –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]<br /> | 4<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 3<br /> | 14<br /> | –11<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup|Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 2<br /> | 6<br /> | 9<br /> | –3<br /> |-<br /> | [[Balkans Cup]]<br /> | 8<br /> | 1<br /> | 1<br /> | 6<br /> | 6<br /> | 23<br /> | –17<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''Non-UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 18<br /> ! 2<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 11<br /> ! 15<br /> ! 46<br /> ! –31<br /> |-<br /> ! Overall Total<br /> ! 32<br /> ! 7<br /> ! 8<br /> ! 17<br /> ! 36<br /> ! 73<br /> ! –37<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; non-UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1967-68 European Cup Winners' Cup|1967–68]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|BEL}} [[Standard Liège]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–3'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1968-69 European Cup Winners' Cup|1968–69]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|NOR}} [[Lyn Fotball|Lyn]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''4–5'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1980-81 European Cup Winners' Cup|1980–81]]<br /> |Preliminary Round<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[S.L. Benfica|Benfica]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–4'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1977–78 UEFA Cup|1977–78]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|4–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–5<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–6'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1974 Intertoto Cup|1974]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group 10)<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[G.D. Fabril|CUF]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Landskrona BoIS|Landskrona]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Hammarby Fotboll|Hammarby]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|[[1998 UEFA Intertoto Cup|1998]]<br /> |First Round<br /> |{{flagicon|IRL}} [[Shamrock Rovers F.C.|Shamrock Rovers]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–4'''<br /> |-<br /> |Second Round<br /> |{{flagicon|HUN}} [[Diósgyőri VTK|Diósgyőr]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–1'''<br /> |-<br /> |'''Third Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|FRA}} [[SC Bastia|Bastia]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–2 (aet)<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–4'''<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The tournament was founded in 1961–62, but was only taken over by UEFA in 1995.<br /> <br /> '''[[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1962–63 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1962–63]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|ITA}} [[A.S. Roma|Roma]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–10<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–13'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1969–70 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1969–70]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–1'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[Balkans Cup]]:'''<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Season<br /> !Round<br /> !Club<br /> !Home<br /> !Away<br /> !Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1971 Balkans Cup|1971]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group B)<br /> |{{flagicon|GRE|1970}} [[Panionios F.C.|Panionios]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–1<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Brașov (1936)|Steagul Roșu Brașov]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#ffd;&quot;| 0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1977 Balkans Cup|1977]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group A)<br /> |{{flagicon|BUL|1971}} [[PFC Slavia Sofia|Slavia Sofia]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–6<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Politehnica Timișoara|Politehnica Timișoara]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–5<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''UEFA Ranking history:'''<br /> {{see also|UEFA coefficient}}<br /> {{updated|1982}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable plainrowheaders sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Season !! Rank !! Points !! Ref.<br /> |-<br /> |1968||168 {{increase}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1968 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163544/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1969||103 {{increase}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1969 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920171251/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1970||89 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1970 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163551/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1971||86 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1971 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163715/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1972||87 {{decrease}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1972 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163902/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1973||112 {{decrease}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1973 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170622/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1974||203 {{decrease}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1974 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163132/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1978||157 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1978 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1979||155 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1979 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=28 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231228105207/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1980||155 {{same position}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1980 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163520/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1981||153 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1981 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=9 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220909184532/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1982||149 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1982 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Players==<br /> ===Current squad===<br /> {{updated|3 February 2024}}&lt;ref name=&quot;Current squad&quot;&gt;{{cite web|title=A TAKIM|url=https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|publisher=Altay|access-date=12 September 2020|archive-date=9 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809045156/https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;section begin=squad /&gt;<br /> {{Fs start|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 1|nat=TUR|name=[[Ozan Evrim Özenç]]|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 3|nat=TUR|name=Yusuf Tekin|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 4|nat=TUR|name=Hikmet Çolak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 5|nat=TUR|name=Sefa Özdemir|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 6|nat=TUR|name=[[Ceyhun Gülselam]]|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 7|nat=TUR|name=[[Eren Erdoğan]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=11|nat=TUR|name=Murat Uluç|pos=FW}} {{Captain}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=13|nat=TUR|name=Ulaş Hasan Özçelik|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=17|nat=TUR|name=Salih Sarıkaya|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=20|nat=TUR|name=Enes Yetkin|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=21|nat=TUR|name=Ali Kızılkuyu|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=23|nat=TUR|name=Murat Demir|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=24|nat=TUR|name=Erdem Özcan|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs mid|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=25|nat=TUR|name=Tugay Gündem|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=26|nat=TUR|name=Ege Parmaksiz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=28|nat=TUR|name=Mehmet Gündüz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=30|nat=TUR|name=Caner Baycan|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=32|nat=TUR|name=Arda Gezer|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=34|nat=TUR|name=Enes Öğrüce|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=44|nat=TUR|name=Kuban Altunbudak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=45|nat=TUR|name=Mustafa Çalışkan|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=63|nat=TUR|name=[[Deniz Kadah]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=77|nat=TUR|name=Onur Efe|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=88|nat=TUR|name=[[Özgür Özkaya]]|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=99|nat=TUR|name=Nurettin Küçükdeniz|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs end}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[List of Turkish sports clubs by foundation dates]]<br /> *[[Altay–Göztepe derby]]<br /> * [[Altay S.K. (women's football)]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *{{oweb|http://www.altay.org.tr/}}<br /> *[http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3591 Altay] on TFF.org<br /> <br /> {{Altay S.K.}}<br /> {{Süper Lig}}<br /> {{TFF First League}}<br /> {{Turkish Cup}}<br /> {{Turkish clubs in European football}}<br /> {{Turkish Women's First Football League}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Altay S.K.| ]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1914]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1914 establishments in the Ottoman Empire]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altay_S.K.&diff=1215291707 2024-03-24T06:51:10Z

<p>Delbatros: </p> <hr /> <div>{{short description|Turkish football club}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=October 2021}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Altay<br /> | image = Altay SK logo.png<br /> | image_size = 170px<br /> | caption = <br /> | fullname = Altay Spor Kulübü<br /> | nickname = ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay)<br /> | founded = {{Start date and years ago|df=yes|1914|1|16}}<br /> | formernames =<br /> | dissolved = <br /> | ground = [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]]<br /> | capacity = 15,000<br /> | owntitle = <br /> | owner = <br /> | chrtitle = President<br /> | chairman = Süleyman Özkaral<br /> | mgrtitle = Manager<br /> | manager = Cüneyt Biçer<br /> | league = {{Turkish football updater|Altay}}<br /> | season = {{Turkish football updater|Altay2}}<br /> | position = {{Turkish football updater|Altay3}}<br /> | website = http://www.altay.org.tr/<br /> | current = 2023–24 Altay S.K. season<br /> |pattern_la1 = _black_stripes_thin1<br /> |pattern_b1 = _nikestripeddiv4wb<br /> |pattern_ra1 = _black_stripes_thin1<br /> |leftarm1 = FFFFFF<br /> |body1 = FFFFFF<br /> |rightarm1 = FFFFFF<br /> |shorts1 = FFFFFF<br /> |socks1 = FFFFFF<br /> |pattern_la2 = _nikestrike3w<br /> |pattern_ra2 = _nikestrike3w<br /> |pattern_b2 = _altay2122a<br /> |leftarm2 = FFFFFF<br /> |body2 = FFFFFF<br /> |rightarm2 = FFFFFF<br /> |shorts2 = FFFFFF<br /> |socks2 = FFFFFF<br /> |pattern_la3 = <br /> |pattern_b3 = _altay2122t<br /> |pattern_ra3 = <br /> |leftarm3 = 000000<br /> |body3 = 000000<br /> |rightarm3 = 000000<br /> |shorts3 = 000000<br /> |socks3 = 000000<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Altay Spor Kulübü''' is a Turkish professional [[Association football|football]] club based in the city of [[İzmir]]. <br /> <br /> Formed in 1914, Altay are nicknamed ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay). The club colors are black and white, and they play their home matches at the [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]].<br /> <br /> Domestically, the club has finished third place for the [[Süper Lig]] three times and have won the [[Turkish Cup]] twice. They hold the record for most [[İzmir Football League]] titles with 14. They are the most successful İzmir-based club with 16 championships in various competitions.<br /> <br /> Collecting 24 points in the first half of the [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70 season]] in undefeated 15 games with 9 wins and 6 draws, Altay SK is one of three non-champion clubs that topped the first half of [[Süper Lig|1. Lig]] table, along with [[Kocaelispor]] in [[1992–93 1.Lig|1992–93]], and [[Sivasspor]] in [[2007–08 Süper Lig|2007–08]], [[2008–09 Süper Lig|2008–09]] and [[2019–20 Süper Lig|2019–20]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite news|title=Futbolda İlk Yarı Liderleri ve Şampiyonlar|url=http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|publisher=[]|date=5 January 2014|access-date=27 December 2016|language=tr|archive-date=27 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161227210040/http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> Altay was founded in 1914 in İzmir as İstiklal. The initial aim of the club was to unite Turkish youth under sporting activities and to encourage them, because in the 1910s minorities dominated sporting activities in İzmir. Under Ottoman rule, Turkish footballers were unable to compete. Altay was supported by many prominent Turkish politicians of the era. Former Turkish President [[Celal Bayar]] worked very hard in founding the club and gave his full support.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}}<br /> <br /> Altay has an important place in Turkey's football history. The club had a key role in uniting the Turkish community during the [[Turkish War of Independence]].{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} Many players and supporters of Altay SK lost their lives in the Turkish War.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} After the [[Surname Law]] was adopted, [[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] gave General [[Fahrettin Altay|Fahreddin Pasha]] the surname of &quot;Altay&quot;. Altay plays in the [[İzmir Alsancak Stadium]] first built in 1929 and was rebuilt in 2021.<br /> <br /> ==Honours==<br /> ===National Championships===<br /> * '''[[Süper Lig]]'''<br /> ** ''Third place (3):'' [[1956–57 Federation Cup|1956–57]], [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70]], [[1976–77 1.Lig|1976–77]]<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Championship]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1934 Turkish Football Championship|1934]], [[1951 Turkish Football Championship|1951]]<br /> * '''[[TFF First League]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2001–02<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1983–84, 1990–91<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Federation Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2006–07<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1963–64<br /> <br /> ===National Cups===<br /> * '''[[Turkish Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1966–67, 1979–80<br /> ** ''Runners-up (5):'' 1963–64, 1967–68, 1971–72, 1978–79, 1985–86<br /> * '''[[Turkish Super Cup|Super Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1967 Presidential Cup|1967]], 1980<br /> * '''[[Prime Minister's Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1972, 1979, 1986<br /> * '''[[Organ Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (18):'' 1936, 1937, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1958, 1961, 1968, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1984, 2004, 2005, 2021<br /> * '''[[Ayçilek Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1973, 1978<br /> * '''[[Tore Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1976<br /> * '''[[Aydin Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1963, 1964, 1986<br /> <br /> ===Regional competitions===<br /> * '''İzmir Professional League'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> * '''[[İzmir Football League]]''' <br /> ** '''Winners (14) (record):''' 1923–24, 1924–25, 1927–28, 1928–29, 1930–31, 1933–34, 1936–37, 1940–41, 1945–46, 1947–48, 1950–51, 1953–54, 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Altay won the championship as &quot;Üçok&quot; (Three arrows), an alliance between Altay, [[Altınordu F.K.|Altınordu]], and [[Bucaspor]].&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==League participations==<br /> * [[Süper Lig|Super League]]: 1958–83, 1984–90, 1991–2000, 2002–03, 2021–2022<br /> * [[TFF First League]]: 1983–84, 1990–91, 2000–02, 2003–11, 2018–21, 2022-2023<br /> * [[TFF Second League]]: 2011–15, 2017–18<br /> * [[TFF Third League]]: 2015–17<br /> <br /> ==European record==<br /> {{updated|25 July 1998}}<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> ! Competition<br /> ! Pld<br /> ! W<br /> ! D<br /> ! L<br /> ! GF<br /> ! GA<br /> ! GD<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 3<br /> | 6<br /> | 12<br /> | –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]<br /> | 2<br /> | 1<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 5<br /> | 6<br /> | –1<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 3<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 10<br /> | 9<br /> | +1<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 14<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 3<br /> ! 6<br /> ! 21<br /> ! 27<br /> ! –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]<br /> | 4<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 3<br /> | 14<br /> | –11<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup|Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 2<br /> | 6<br /> | 9<br /> | –3<br /> |-<br /> | [[Balkans Cup]]<br /> | 8<br /> | 1<br /> | 1<br /> | 6<br /> | 6<br /> | 23<br /> | –17<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''Non-UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 18<br /> ! 2<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 11<br /> ! 15<br /> ! 46<br /> ! –31<br /> |-<br /> ! Overall Total<br /> ! 32<br /> ! 7<br /> ! 8<br /> ! 17<br /> ! 36<br /> ! 73<br /> ! –37<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; non-UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1967-68 European Cup Winners' Cup|1967–68]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|BEL}} [[Standard Liège]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–3'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1968-69 European Cup Winners' Cup|1968–69]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|NOR}} [[Lyn Fotball|Lyn]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''4–5'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1980-81 European Cup Winners' Cup|1980–81]]<br /> |Preliminary Round<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[S.L. Benfica|Benfica]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–4'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1977–78 UEFA Cup|1977–78]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|4–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–5<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–6'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1974 Intertoto Cup|1974]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group 10)<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[G.D. Fabril|CUF]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Landskrona BoIS|Landskrona]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Hammarby Fotboll|Hammarby]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|[[1998 UEFA Intertoto Cup|1998]]<br /> |First Round<br /> |{{flagicon|IRL}} [[Shamrock Rovers F.C.|Shamrock Rovers]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–4'''<br /> |-<br /> |Second Round<br /> |{{flagicon|HUN}} [[Diósgyőri VTK|Diósgyőr]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–1'''<br /> |-<br /> |'''Third Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|FRA}} [[SC Bastia|Bastia]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–2 (aet)<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–4'''<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The tournament was founded in 1961–62, but was only taken over by UEFA in 1995.<br /> <br /> '''[[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1962–63 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1962–63]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|ITA}} [[A.S. Roma|Roma]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–10<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–13'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1969–70 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1969–70]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–1'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[Balkans Cup]]:'''<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Season<br /> !Round<br /> !Club<br /> !Home<br /> !Away<br /> !Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1971 Balkans Cup|1971]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group B)<br /> |{{flagicon|GRE|1970}} [[Panionios F.C.|Panionios]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–1<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Brașov (1936)|Steagul Roșu Brașov]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#ffd;&quot;| 0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1977 Balkans Cup|1977]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group A)<br /> |{{flagicon|BUL|1971}} [[PFC Slavia Sofia|Slavia Sofia]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–6<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Politehnica Timișoara|Politehnica Timișoara]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–5<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''UEFA Ranking history:'''<br /> {{see also|UEFA coefficient}}<br /> {{updated|1982}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable plainrowheaders sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Season !! Rank !! Points !! Ref.<br /> |-<br /> |1968||168 {{increase}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1968 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163544/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1969||103 {{increase}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1969 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920171251/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1970||89 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1970 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163551/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1971||86 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1971 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163715/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1972||87 {{decrease}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1972 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163902/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1973||112 {{decrease}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1973 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170622/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1974||203 {{decrease}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1974 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163132/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1978||157 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1978 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1979||155 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1979 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=28 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231228105207/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1980||155 {{same position}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1980 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163520/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1981||153 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1981 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=9 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220909184532/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1982||149 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1982 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Players==<br /> ===Current squad===<br /> {{updated|3 February 2024}}&lt;ref name=&quot;Current squad&quot;&gt;{{cite web|title=A TAKIM|url=https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|publisher=Altay|access-date=12 September 2020|archive-date=9 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809045156/https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;section begin=squad /&gt;<br /> {{Fs start|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 1|nat=TUR|name=[[Ozan Evrim Özenç]]|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 3|nat=TUR|name=Yusuf Tekin|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 4|nat=TUR|name=Hikmet Çolak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 5|nat=TUR|name=Sefa Özdemir|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 6|nat=TUR|name=[[Ceyhun Gülselam]]|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 7|nat=TUR|name=[[Eren Erdoğan]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=11|nat=TUR|name=Murat Uluç|pos=FW}} {{Captain}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=13|nat=TUR|name=Ulaş Hasan Özçelik|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=17|nat=TUR|name=Salih Sarıkaya|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=20|nat=TUR|name=Enes Yetkin|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=21|nat=TUR|name=Ali Kızılkuyu|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=23|nat=TUR|name=Murat Demir|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=24|nat=TUR|name=Erdem Özcan|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs mid|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=25|nat=TUR|name=Tugay Gündem|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=26|nat=TUR|name=Ege Parmaksiz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=28|nat=TUR|name=Mehmet Gündüz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=30|nat=TUR|name=Caner Baycan|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=32|nat=TUR|name=Arda Gezer|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=34|nat=TUR|name=Enes Öğrüce|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=44|nat=TUR|name=Kuban Altunbudak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=45|nat=TUR|name=Mustafa Çalışkan|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=63|nat=TUR|name=[[Deniz Kadah]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=77|nat=TUR|name=Onur Efe|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=88|nat=TUR|name=[[Özgür Özkaya]]|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=99|nat=TUR|name=Nurettin Küçükdeniz|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs end}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[List of Turkish sports clubs by foundation dates]]<br /> *[[Altay–Göztepe derby]]<br /> * [[Altay S.K. (women's football)]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *{{oweb|http://www.altay.org.tr/}}<br /> *[http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3591 Altay] on TFF.org<br /> <br /> {{Altay S.K.}}<br /> {{Süper Lig}}<br /> {{TFF First League}}<br /> {{Turkish Cup}}<br /> {{Turkish clubs in European football}}<br /> {{Turkish Women's First Football League}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Altay S.K.| ]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1914]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1914 establishments in the Ottoman Empire]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altay_S.K.&diff=1215291538 2024-03-24T06:49:29Z

<p>Delbatros: This club has no owner. In order to become an owner, the club must first have company status, but it is not a company.</p> <hr /> <div>{{short description|Turkish football club}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=October 2021}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Altay<br /> | image = Altay SK logo.png<br /> | image_size = 170px<br /> | caption = <br /> | fullname = Altay Spor Kulübü<br /> | nickname = ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay)<br /> | founded = {{Start date and years ago|df=yes|1914|1|16}}<br /> | formernames =<br /> | dissolved = <br /> | ground = [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]]<br /> | capacity = 15,000<br /> | owntitle = <br /> | owner = <br /> | chrtitle = President<br /> | chairman = Süleyman Özkaral<br /> | mgrtitle = Manager<br /> | manager = Cüneyt Biçer<br /> | league = {{Turkish football updater|Altay}}<br /> | season = {{Turkish football updater|Altay2}}<br /> | position = {{Turkish football updater|Altay3}}<br /> | website = http://www.altay.org.tr/<br /> | current = 2023–24 Altay S.K. season<br /> | pattern_la1 = _whitelines<br /> | pattern_b1 = _shoulder_stripes_white_stripes<br /> | pattern_ra1 = _whitelines<br /> | pattern_sh1 = _black_adidas<br /> | pattern_so1 = <br /> | leftarm1 = 000000<br /> | body1 = 000000<br /> | rightarm1 = 000000<br /> | shorts1 = 000000<br /> | socks1 = 000000<br /> | pattern_la2 = _adidasblack<br /> | pattern_b2 = _adidasblack<br /> | pattern_ra2 = _adidasblack<br /> | pattern_sh2 = <br /> | pattern_so2 = _greytop<br /> | leftarm2 = D3D3D3<br /> | body2 = D3D3D3<br /> | rightarm2 = D3D3D3<br /> | shorts2 = FFFFFF<br /> | socks2 = FFFFFF<br /> | pattern_la3 = _shoulder_stripes_white_shirt<br /> | pattern_b3 = <br /> | pattern_ra3 = _shoulder_stripes_white_shirt<br /> | pattern_sh3 = <br /> | pattern_so3 = _color_3_stripes_black<br /> | leftarm3 = FFFFFF<br /> | body3 = FFFFFF<br /> | rightarm3 = FFFFFF<br /> | shorts3 = FFFFFF<br /> | socks3 = 40E0D0 <br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Altay Spor Kulübü''' is a Turkish professional [[Association football|football]] club based in the city of [[İzmir]]. <br /> <br /> Formed in 1914, Altay are nicknamed ''Büyük Altay'' (Great Altay). The club colors are black and white, and they play their home matches at the [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]].<br /> <br /> Domestically, the club has finished third place for the [[Süper Lig]] three times and have won the [[Turkish Cup]] twice. They hold the record for most [[İzmir Football League]] titles with 14. They are the most successful İzmir-based club with 16 championships in various competitions.<br /> <br /> Collecting 24 points in the first half of the [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70 season]] in undefeated 15 games with 9 wins and 6 draws, Altay SK is one of three non-champion clubs that topped the first half of [[Süper Lig|1. Lig]] table, along with [[Kocaelispor]] in [[1992–93 1.Lig|1992–93]], and [[Sivasspor]] in [[2007–08 Süper Lig|2007–08]], [[2008–09 Süper Lig|2008–09]] and [[2019–20 Süper Lig|2019–20]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite news|title=Futbolda İlk Yarı Liderleri ve Şampiyonlar|url=http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|publisher=[]|date=5 January 2014|access-date=27 December 2016|language=tr|archive-date=27 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161227210040/http://www.milliyet.com.tr/futbolda-ilk-yari-liderleri-ve---1817550-skorerhaber/|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> Altay was founded in 1914 in İzmir as İstiklal. The initial aim of the club was to unite Turkish youth under sporting activities and to encourage them, because in the 1910s minorities dominated sporting activities in İzmir. Under Ottoman rule, Turkish footballers were unable to compete. Altay was supported by many prominent Turkish politicians of the era. Former Turkish President [[Celal Bayar]] worked very hard in founding the club and gave his full support.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}}<br /> <br /> Altay has an important place in Turkey's football history. The club had a key role in uniting the Turkish community during the [[Turkish War of Independence]].{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} Many players and supporters of Altay SK lost their lives in the Turkish War.{{citation needed|date=June 2010}} After the [[Surname Law]] was adopted, [[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] gave General [[Fahrettin Altay|Fahreddin Pasha]] the surname of &quot;Altay&quot;. Altay plays in the [[İzmir Alsancak Stadium]] first built in 1929 and was rebuilt in 2021.<br /> <br /> ==Honours==<br /> ===National Championships===<br /> * '''[[Süper Lig]]'''<br /> ** ''Third place (3):'' [[1956–57 Federation Cup|1956–57]], [[1969–70 1.Lig|1969–70]], [[1976–77 1.Lig|1976–77]]<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Championship]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1934 Turkish Football Championship|1934]], [[1951 Turkish Football Championship|1951]]<br /> * '''[[TFF First League]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2001–02<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1983–84, 1990–91<br /> * '''[[Turkish Football Federation Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (1):''' 2006–07<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1963–64<br /> <br /> ===National Cups===<br /> * '''[[Turkish Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1966–67, 1979–80<br /> ** ''Runners-up (5):'' 1963–64, 1967–68, 1971–72, 1978–79, 1985–86<br /> * '''[[Turkish Super Cup|Super Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' [[1967 Presidential Cup|1967]], 1980<br /> * '''[[Prime Minister's Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1972, 1979, 1986<br /> * '''[[Organ Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (18):'' 1936, 1937, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1958, 1961, 1968, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1984, 2004, 2005, 2021<br /> * '''[[Ayçilek Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (2):'' 1973, 1978<br /> * '''[[Tore Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1976<br /> * '''[[Aydin Doğan Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' 1963, 1964, 1986<br /> <br /> ===Regional competitions===<br /> * '''İzmir Professional League'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> * '''[[İzmir Football League]]''' <br /> ** '''Winners (14) (record):''' 1923–24, 1924–25, 1927–28, 1928–29, 1930–31, 1933–34, 1936–37, 1940–41, 1945–46, 1947–48, 1950–51, 1953–54, 1956–57, 1957–58<br /> &lt;small&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Altay won the championship as &quot;Üçok&quot; (Three arrows), an alliance between Altay, [[Altınordu F.K.|Altınordu]], and [[Bucaspor]].&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> ==League participations==<br /> * [[Süper Lig|Super League]]: 1958–83, 1984–90, 1991–2000, 2002–03, 2021–2022<br /> * [[TFF First League]]: 1983–84, 1990–91, 2000–02, 2003–11, 2018–21, 2022-2023<br /> * [[TFF Second League]]: 2011–15, 2017–18<br /> * [[TFF Third League]]: 2015–17<br /> <br /> ==European record==<br /> {{updated|25 July 1998}}<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> ! Competition<br /> ! Pld<br /> ! W<br /> ! D<br /> ! L<br /> ! GF<br /> ! GA<br /> ! GD<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 3<br /> | 6<br /> | 12<br /> | –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]<br /> | 2<br /> | 1<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 5<br /> | 6<br /> | –1<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 3<br /> | 1<br /> | 2<br /> | 10<br /> | 9<br /> | +1<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 14<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 3<br /> ! 6<br /> ! 21<br /> ! 27<br /> ! –6<br /> |-<br /> | [[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]<br /> | 4<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 3<br /> | 14<br /> | –11<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup|Intertoto Cup]]&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | 6<br /> | 1<br /> | 3<br /> | 2<br /> | 6<br /> | 9<br /> | –3<br /> |-<br /> | [[Balkans Cup]]<br /> | 8<br /> | 1<br /> | 1<br /> | 6<br /> | 6<br /> | 23<br /> | –17<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''Non-UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 18<br /> ! 2<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 11<br /> ! 15<br /> ! 46<br /> ! –31<br /> |-<br /> ! Overall Total<br /> ! 32<br /> ! 7<br /> ! 8<br /> ! 17<br /> ! 36<br /> ! 73<br /> ! –37<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; non-UEFA edition.<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1967-68 European Cup Winners' Cup|1967–68]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|BEL}} [[Standard Liège]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–3'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1968-69 European Cup Winners' Cup|1968–69]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|NOR}} [[Lyn Fotball|Lyn]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''4–5'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1980-81 European Cup Winners' Cup|1980–81]]<br /> |Preliminary Round<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[S.L. Benfica|Benfica]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–4'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1977–78 UEFA Cup|1977–78]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|4–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–5<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–6'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1974 Intertoto Cup|1974]]&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group 10)<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[G.D. Fabril|CUF]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> | rowspan=&quot;3&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Landskrona BoIS|Landskrona]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Hammarby Fotboll|Hammarby]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|[[1998 UEFA Intertoto Cup|1998]]<br /> |First Round<br /> |{{flagicon|IRL}} [[Shamrock Rovers F.C.|Shamrock Rovers]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''5–4'''<br /> |-<br /> |Second Round<br /> |{{flagicon|HUN}} [[Diósgyőri VTK|Diósgyőr]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–1<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''2–1'''<br /> |-<br /> |'''Third Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|FRA}} [[SC Bastia|Bastia]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|3–2 (aet)<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–4'''<br /> |}<br /> &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; The tournament was founded in 1961–62, but was only taken over by UEFA in 1995.<br /> <br /> '''[[Inter-Cities Fairs Cup]]''':<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1962–63 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1962–63]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|ITA}} [[A.S. Roma|Roma]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–3<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|1–10<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''3–13'''<br /> |-<br /> |[[1969–70 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup|1969–70]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|East Germany}} [[FC Carl Zeiss Jena|Carl Zeiss Jena]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–0<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ffdddd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|0–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''0–1'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''[[Balkans Cup]]:'''<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Season<br /> !Round<br /> !Club<br /> !Home<br /> !Away<br /> !Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1971 Balkans Cup|1971]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group B)<br /> |{{flagicon|GRE|1970}} [[Panionios F.C.|Panionios]]<br /> | bgcolor=&quot;#ddffdd&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|2–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–1<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Brașov (1936)|Steagul Roșu Brașov]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#ffd;&quot;| 0–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> |-<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|[[1977 Balkans Cup|1977]]<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;|'''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group A)<br /> |{{flagicon|BUL|1971}} [[PFC Slavia Sofia|Slavia Sofia]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–3<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–6<br /> | rowspan=&quot;2&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FC Politehnica Timișoara|Politehnica Timișoara]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–5<br /> |}<br /> <br /> '''UEFA Ranking history:'''<br /> {{see also|UEFA coefficient}}<br /> {{updated|1982}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable plainrowheaders sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Season !! Rank !! Points !! Ref.<br /> |-<br /> |1968||168 {{increase}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1968 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163544/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1968.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1969||103 {{increase}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1969 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920171251/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1969.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1970||89 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1970 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163551/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1970.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1971||86 {{increase}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1971 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163715/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1971.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1972||87 {{decrease}}||2.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1972 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163902/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1972.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1973||112 {{decrease}}||1.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1973 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170622/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1973.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1974||203 {{decrease}}||0.500||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1974 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163132/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1974.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1978||157 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1978 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920170542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1978.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1979||155 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1979 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=28 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231228105207/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1979.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1980||155 {{same position}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1980 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163520/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1980.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1981||153 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1981 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=9 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220909184532/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1981.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |1982||149 {{increase}}||1.000||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 1982 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2022-09-17 |archive-date=20 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220920163542/https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method1/trank1982.html |url-status=live }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Players==<br /> ===Current squad===<br /> {{updated|3 February 2024}}&lt;ref name=&quot;Current squad&quot;&gt;{{cite web|title=A TAKIM|url=https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|publisher=Altay|access-date=12 September 2020|archive-date=9 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809045156/https://www.altay.org.tr/takim|url-status=live}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;section begin=squad /&gt;<br /> {{Fs start|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 1|nat=TUR|name=[[Ozan Evrim Özenç]]|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 3|nat=TUR|name=Yusuf Tekin|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 4|nat=TUR|name=Hikmet Çolak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 5|nat=TUR|name=Sefa Özdemir|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 6|nat=TUR|name=[[Ceyhun Gülselam]]|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no= 7|nat=TUR|name=[[Eren Erdoğan]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=11|nat=TUR|name=Murat Uluç|pos=FW}} {{Captain}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=13|nat=TUR|name=Ulaş Hasan Özçelik|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=17|nat=TUR|name=Salih Sarıkaya|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=20|nat=TUR|name=Enes Yetkin|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=21|nat=TUR|name=Ali Kızılkuyu|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=23|nat=TUR|name=Murat Demir|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=24|nat=TUR|name=Erdem Özcan|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs mid|nonumber=|bg=000000|color=FFFFFF|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=25|nat=TUR|name=Tugay Gündem|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=26|nat=TUR|name=Ege Parmaksiz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=28|nat=TUR|name=Mehmet Gündüz|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=30|nat=TUR|name=Caner Baycan|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=32|nat=TUR|name=Arda Gezer|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=34|nat=TUR|name=Enes Öğrüce|pos=MF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=44|nat=TUR|name=Kuban Altunbudak|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=45|nat=TUR|name=Mustafa Çalışkan|pos=GK}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=63|nat=TUR|name=[[Deniz Kadah]]|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=77|nat=TUR|name=Onur Efe|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=88|nat=TUR|name=[[Özgür Özkaya]]|pos=DF}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=99|nat=TUR|name=Nurettin Küçükdeniz|pos=FW}}<br /> {{Fs end}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[List of Turkish sports clubs by foundation dates]]<br /> *[[Altay–Göztepe derby]]<br /> * [[Altay S.K. (women's football)]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *{{oweb|http://www.altay.org.tr/}}<br /> *[http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3591 Altay] on TFF.org<br /> <br /> {{Altay S.K.}}<br /> {{Süper Lig}}<br /> {{TFF First League}}<br /> {{Turkish Cup}}<br /> {{Turkish clubs in European football}}<br /> {{Turkish Women's First Football League}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Altay S.K.| ]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1914]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1914 establishments in the Ottoman Empire]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&diff=1215291151 2024-03-24T06:44:38Z

<p>Delbatros: Referenced information added. (please do not take it back)</p> <hr /> <div>{{short description|Turkish sports club}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Karşıyaka<br /> | image = KSK logo.png<br /> | image_size = 170px<br /> | fullname = Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü<br /> | nickname = Kaf Kaf, Kaf Sin Kaf, The 35 and half<br /> | founded = {{Start date and years ago|df=yes|1912|11|1}}<br /> | ground = [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]]<br /> | capacity = 15,000<br /> | chairman = İlker Mehmet Ergüllü&lt;ref&gt;https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> | manager = [[Erkan Sözeri]]<br /> | league = [[TFF Third League ]]<br /> | season = 2022-23<br /> | position = [[TFF Third League ]], Group 1, 7th<br /> | website = http://www.ksk.org.tr/<br /> |pattern_la1 =<br /> |pattern_b1 = _greenstripes<br /> |pattern_ra1 =<br /> |leftarm1 = FF0000<br /> |body1 = FF0000<br /> |rightarm1 = FF0000<br /> |shorts1 = FF0000<br /> |socks1 = FF0000<br /> |pattern_la2 =<br /> |pattern_b2 =<br /> |pattern_ra2 =<br /> |leftarm2 = FF0000<br /> |body2 = 00AA00<br /> |rightarm2 = FF0000<br /> |shorts2 = FF0000<br /> |socks2 = FF0000<br /> |pattern_la3 =<br /> |pattern_b3 =<br /> |pattern_ra3 =<br /> |leftarm3 = <br /> |body3 = <br /> |rightarm3 = <br /> |shorts3 = <br /> |socks3 =<br /> | current = 2023-24 [[TFF Third League]] Group 2<br /> | kit_alt1 = Red and Green vertical boxes with white shorts and socks<br /> }}<br /> '''Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü''' (English: Karşıyaka Sports Club) also known as '''Karşıyaka''' is a Turkish sports club located in [[Karşıyaka]], [[İzmir]]. Founded in 1912, they are İzmir's oldest club. Like all others in Turkey; the &quot;SK&quot; suffix refers to ''sports club'', as besides football the club has sports branches in [[Karşıyaka Basket|basketball]], [[Karşıyaka Women's Volleyball Team|volleyball]], [[handball]], [[tennis]], [[Swimming (sport)|swimming]], [[sailing (sport)|sailing]], [[billiards]], and [[bowling]]. The club's football team currently competes in the [[TFF Third League]], the fourth tier of the Turkish football league system. The basketball team currently competes in the [[Turkish Basketball League]] and the women's volleyball team in the Turkish Women's Second League.<br /> <br /> Karşıyaka has a very large fanbase in Northern İzmir, and have a fierce rivalry with [[Göztepe S.K.|Göztepe]]; the match between the two teams is collectively known as the [[Göztepe–Karşıyaka rivalry|İzmir Derby]]. Other rivalries are with [[Altay S.K.|Altay]] and [[Bucaspor]].<br /> [[File:Karsiyaka 1912.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Karşıyaka in 1912.]]<br /> <br /> ==European participations==<br /> {{updated|29 September 1992}}<br /> <br /> '''Statistics''':<br /> <br /> {|class=&quot;wikitable sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Competition!!Pld!!W!!D!!L!!GF!!GA!!GD<br /> |-<br /> |align=center|[[Balkans Cup]]<br /> |2||1||0||1||5||6||{{nowrap|–1}}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;'''Pld''' = Matches played; '''W''' = Matches won; '''D''' = Matches drawn; '''L''' = Matches lost; '''GF''' = Goals for; '''GA''' = Goals against; '''GD''' = Goal Difference. &lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> '''[[Balkans Cup]]:'''<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Season<br /> !Round<br /> !Club<br /> !Home<br /> !Away<br /> !Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1992–93 Balkans Cup|1992-93]]<br /> | '''Quarter-finals'''<br /> |{{flagicon|BUL}} [[FC Etar (Veliko Tarnovo)|Etar]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 4–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 1–5<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''5–6'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Current squad==<br /> {{updated|For the 2023-24 season [[TFF Third League]] Group 2|&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageID=535&amp;kulupID=3598 | title=KARŞIYAKA - Club Details TFF }}&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> {{fs start}}<br /> {{fs player|no=1|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=[[Haydar Yılmaz]]}}{{Football squad player|nat=TUR|pos=DF|name=Ferdi Burgaz|no=3}}<br /> {{fs player|no=4|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Erdi̇nç Çepoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=5|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Alpay Koldaş}}<br /> {{fs player|no=6|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Emre Keleşoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=8|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Efe Tatli|other={{small|on loan from [[Fatih Karagümrük S.K.]]}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=9|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Fatih Taşdelen}}<br /> {{fs player|no=10|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Emre Gemici}}<br /> {{fs player|no=11|pos=MF|nat=GER|name=Yasi̇n Ozan}}<br /> {{fs player|no=15|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=Hasan Sürmeli̇}}<br /> {{fs player|no=17|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Enes Nalbantoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=18|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=Enes Kalyoncu}}<br /> {{fs mid}}<br /> {{fs player|no=20|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Hakan Erçeli̇k}}<br /> {{fs player|no=21|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Mustafa Durgun}}<br /> {{fs player|no=22|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Bi̇lal Ceylan|other={{small|on loan from [[Beşiktaş J.K.]]}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=24|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Sefa Küpeli̇}}<br /> {{fs player|no=25|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Ömer Alper Tatlisu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=33|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Emre Can Heptazeler}}<br /> {{fs player|no=41|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Mertcan Koç}}<br /> {{fs player|no=77|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Fati̇h Çi̇plak}}<br /> {{fs player|no=80|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Adem Büyük|other=}}<br /> {{fs player|no=94|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Bariş Sağir}}<br /> {{fs player|no=99|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Cenk Ahmet Alkılıç}}<br /> {{fs end}}<br /> <br /> == League participations in football ==<br /> * [[Turkish Super League|Turkish Premier Division]]: 1958–64, 1966–67, 1970–72, 1987–91, 1992–94, 1995–96<br /> * [[TFF First League|Turkish First Division]]: 1964–66, 1967–70, 1972–73, 1980–87, 1991–92, 1994–95, 1996–01, 2003–2016<br /> * [[TFF Second League|Turkish Second Division]]: 1973–80, 2001–03, 2016–18<br /> * [[TFF Third League|Turkish Third Division]]: 2018–present<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> {{Commons category|Karşıyaka SK}}<br /> * [[Karşıyaka Basket|Pınar Karşıyaka]]<br /> * [[Karşıyaka Women's Volleyball Team]]<br /> * [[Göztepe-Karşıyaka rivalry]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *{{oweb|http://www.ksk.org.tr/}}<br /> *[http://www.tff.org.tr/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3598 Karşıyaka] on TFF.org<br /> <br /> {{Karşıyaka S.K.}}<br /> {{TFF Third League}}<br /> {{Football in Turkey}}<br /> <br /> {{Authority control}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=February 2021}}<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Karsiyaka S. K.}}<br /> [[Category:Karşıyaka S.K.| ]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1912]]<br /> [[Category:Multi-sport clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1912 establishments in the Ottoman Empire]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Turkey-footyclub-stub}}</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&diff=1214566595 2024-03-19T19:00:19Z

<p>Delbatros: /* 18:59, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Delbatros */</p> <hr /> <div>{{/header}}<br /> __NEWSECTIONLINK__<br /> [[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed|{{PAGENAME}}]]<br /> {{skip to top and bottom}}<br /> [[Category:Pages that should not be manually archived]]<br /> [[Category:WikiProject Articles for creation]]<br /> [[Category:Wikipedia help forums|Articles for creation: Help Desk]]<br /> &lt;!-- LEAVE YOUR MESSAGE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE --&gt;<br /> __TOC__<br /> <br /> {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024 March 13}}<br /> <br /> = March 14 =<br /> <br /> == 00:51, 14 March 2024 review of submission by 2603:7000:B900:71A5:2C0F:BF13:DE1B:716D ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=2603:7000:B900:71A5:2C0F:BF13:DE1B:716D|ts=00:51, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Karina_Guardiola-Lopez}}<br /> Can you please explain why my publications and accolades are not suffice to create a wikipedia page. A number of my fellow poets and writers all have pages but I am unable to. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:B900:71A5:2C0F:BF13:DE1B:716D|2603:7000:B900:71A5:2C0F:BF13:DE1B:716D]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:B900:71A5:2C0F:BF13:DE1B:716D|talk]]) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Wikipedia has '''articles''' as part of the encyclopedia, not &quot;pages&quot; which has a broader meaning. Wikipedia articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. While not forbidden, writing autobiographical articles is highly discouraged, please see the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]]. Beware in using other articles as a guide, these too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. See [[WP:OSE|other stuff exists]]. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are [[WP:GOODARTICLE|classified as good articles]].<br /> :Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves and their work; articles summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:NWRITER|a notable creative professional]] or more broadly [[WP:BIO|a notable person]]. If you have independent reliable sources that chose on their own to give you significant coverage and tell what makes you important/significant/influential as a writer or person, that's what we need summarized- we don't just want sources documeting your work. Please see [[WP:YFA|Your first article]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 00:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, which violates the core content policy [[WP:V|Verifiability]]. Wikipedia is uninterested in what you know about yourself. Over 99% of efforts to write an autobiography end up as frustrating failures. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 01:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{HD/WINI}} [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 17:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 09:13, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Tamillifehacking ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Tamillifehacking|ts=09:13, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Dhayanidhi SK}}<br /> I Submitted My Article but the article was declined, anyone can help me, please?<br /> I don't what the problem anyone help to improve my article. [[User:Tamillifehacking|Tamillifehacking]] ([[User talk:Tamillifehacking|talk]]) 09:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :IMDB, YouTube, Wiki Commons and Wikipedia, your own website and Google search are not reliable independent sources. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 09:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 11:49, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Venkatesh Pechetti ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Venkatesh Pechetti|ts=11:49, 14 March 2024|draft=User:Venkatesh_Pechetti/sandbox}}<br /> I am writing my own biography..in sandbox.. For that what type of references should i have to include.. if not have reference then what is the process... please help me.. thank you [[User:Venkatesh Pechetti|Venkatesh Pechetti]] ([[User talk:Venkatesh Pechetti|talk]]) 11:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]]. Wikipedia is interested in what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] say about a topic, not what it says about itself. If you truly meet the [[WP:BIO|special Wikipedia definition of a notable person]], someone will eventually take note of coverage of you in independent sources and choose to write about you. Keep in mind that [[WP:PROUD|an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing]]. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 11:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 12:53, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Peppa pig e minha fds ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Peppa pig e minha fds|ts=12:53, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Bingus_cat}}<br /> I was declined for a unfair reason, i clearly did what was asked and was still declined [[User:Peppa pig e minha fds|Peppa pig e minha fds]] ([[User talk:Peppa pig e minha fds|talk]]) 12:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Very few of your sources have to do with the cat, and those that do are inappropriate(mostly social media). The draft was correctly declined. Any draft about this cat must summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage like news reports say about it.<br /> :I get the sense that this could be your cat. If so, you need to declare a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Peppa pig e minha fds|Peppa pig e minha fds]], I have had a look at your draft and noticed quite a few grammar mistakes that need fixing. Additionally, I didn't see any [[Help:Link|wikilinks]] included, it might be a good idea to add some. The main issue with your draft is the lack of [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] backing up what you've written. It's important to include sources that give [[Wikipedia:Sigcov|significant coverage]] of the topic and support your points. Also, you've included a lot of details about the subject, so perhaps it's a good idea to trim some of the unnecessary ones. Regarding reference numbers 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 15, it would be wise to replace them with more reliable sources. I wanted to provide you with some detailed feedback. I hope this helps. – [[User:DreamRimmer|&lt;b style=&quot;color:black; font-family: Tahoma&quot;&gt;DreamRimmer&lt;/b&gt;]] ('''[[User talk:DreamRimmer|talk]]''') 13:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 13:48, 14 March 2024 review of submission by RAGYoung2024 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=RAGYoung2024|ts=13:48, 14 March 2024|draft=User:RAGYoung2024/sandbox}}<br /> Good morning, is there somone that can give me assistnance in setting up my Wikipedia page. [[User:RAGYoung2024|RAGYoung2024]] ([[User talk:RAGYoung2024|talk]]) 13:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:RAGYoung2024|RAGYoung2024]]: what do you mean by &quot;my Wikipedia page&quot;? Your user page? See [[WP:UP]]. Your first article? See [[WP:YFA]]. An article ''about'' you? Don't. See [[WP:AUTOBIO]]. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::In regards to setting up the article. [[User:RAGYoung2024|RAGYoung2024]] ([[User talk:RAGYoung2024|talk]]) 14:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::&quot;''The'' article&quot;? Still not sure what you mean, but one of the links I provided should give you the answer. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 14:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Your phrase &quot;setting up my Wikipedia page&quot; suggests that, like many people, you are confusing Wikipedia with social media. <br /> :This is an encyclopaedia. We don't &quot;set up pages&quot; here: we ''write articles'', which are neutrally-written summaries of what [[WP:42|reliable indepenent sources]] have published about a subject. {{HD/WINI}} [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 17:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 14:04, 14 March 2024 review of submission by MobeenYounasDigitalCreator ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=MobeenYounasDigitalCreator|ts=14:04, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Agha Majid}}<br /> Which type of reference do I have to use in the article, &amp; How can I improve the article? [[User:MobeenYounasDigitalCreator|MobeenYounasDigitalCreator]] ([[User talk:MobeenYounasDigitalCreator|talk]]) 14:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :IMDb is not a reliable source because it is user edited, so that one needs to go. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 14:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{u|MobeenYounasDigitalCreator}} I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the &quot;Draft:&quot; portion). You have no sources that indicate this person meets [[WP:NACTOR]]. Assassination requires a political motivation for an attack, and I see no sources that describe shooting at this person as an assassination.<br /> :You identify yourself as a digital creator. If you are compensated for this, the terms of use require you to disclose that, see [[WP:PAID]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 14:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I have no option to select MobeenYounas as a username, so I have to keep my username as mobeenyounasdigitalcreator. Now, tell me a way how to change the username. [[User:MobeenYounasDigitalCreator|MobeenYounasDigitalCreator]] ([[User talk:MobeenYounasDigitalCreator|talk]]) 14:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::You don't need to change your username; you need to comply with [[WP:PAID]] per the terms of use if your job is a content creator or marketer. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 14:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::They would probably be best advised to change their user name, as a quick Google search shows this is a business name. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 14:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::The name is fine as they seem to be Mr. Younas. They need to make the paid disclosure, though. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::No it is not paid content and tell me how to improve this article? Help me to rewrite it so i can understand what mistake i have done. [[User:MobeenYounasDigitalCreator|MobeenYounasDigitalCreator]] ([[User talk:MobeenYounasDigitalCreator|talk]]) 15:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::If your job is a digital content creator, you are a paid editor, you do not need to be specifically paid to make edits. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}The draft is rife with [[Name-dropping]]. A person does not become notable by associating with other notable people. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 16:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 14:57, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Rizzler29 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Rizzler29|ts=14:57, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Steamy_Football_Club}}<br /> hey man, where do you think i can get references that solidify my article? If i cant find anything does that just mean this shouldnt be a wikipedia article in the first place? I wanted to make this as a way to follow and update people I know on the football club in question. Thanks, Onni [[User:Rizzler29|Rizzler29]] ([[User talk:Rizzler29|talk]]) 14:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :An article must summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] say about the topic. As you did not provide any such sources, the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Rizzler29|Rizzler29]]: I rejected this as not only did you not provide any meaningful sources to establish notability, I couldn't find any when I searched myself (nothing at all for 'Steamy Football Club', and only a few useless hits for 'Steamy FC'), which is not surprising as I doubt there are any for a club of this calibre. If the team is part of [[Laajasalon Palloseura]], you may be able to include a mention of it in that article, but only if supported by reliable sources. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 17:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 15:14, 14 March 2024 review of submission by 2603:8080:DBF0:8BE0:8879:84E2:1616:63BF ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=2603:8080:DBF0:8BE0:8879:84E2:1616:63BF|ts=15:14, 14 March 2024|draft=Paula Maya}}<br /> I'm not sure how to do this. The page title should be my professional name, Paula Maya. But the sandbox didn't let me add the title. So it's under Burleyhr sandbox. Is that the reason why it was declined? Should I create an account with my artistic name Paula Maya?<br /> <br /> Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/2603:8080:DBF0:8BE0:8879:84E2:1616:63BF|2603:8080:DBF0:8BE0:8879:84E2:1616:63BF]] ([[User talk:2603:8080:DBF0:8BE0:8879:84E2:1616:63BF|talk]]) 15:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Please log into your account before posting. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Courtesy link [[Draft:Paula Maya]] which has one unsourced sentence and nothing else. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 17:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :There is no connection between the name of an account, and the name of any article that account creates or edits. ''But'' writing about yourself is strongly discouraged: see [[WP:autobiography|autobiography]]. <br /> :Writing a Wikipedia article is a challenging task for an inexperienced editors, and even more if they have a conflict of interest. I advise not trying it at all until you have spent several months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have learnt about [[WP:reliable sources|reliable sources]], [[WP:verifiability|verifiability]], [[WP:neutral point of view|neutral point of view]], and [[WP:notability|notability]], you can read [[WP:your first article|your first article]], and decide whether or not your subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 17:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::That draft bears no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 18:07, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Thibaukes ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Thibaukes|ts=18:07, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Xianye_Li}}<br /> I want to make a page for my friend.<br /> Could i get any tips? [[User:Thibaukes|Thibaukes]] ([[User talk:Thibaukes|talk]]) 18:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about your friend. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] like the news say about people that [[WP:BIO|are notable as Wikipedia defines the term]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 18:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Yes...don't. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 18:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{u|Thibaukes}}, here is my tip. Go write about your friend on your favorite social media platform, not here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles about [[WP:GNG|notable topics]]. An ordinary 13 year old child is not notable. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 18:34, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Radha krishna 123 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Radha krishna 123|ts=18:34, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Aacharya_Sri_K_R_Manoj}}<br /> Please help in adding reference<br /> [[User:Radha krishna 123|Radha krishna 123]] ([[User talk:Radha krishna 123|talk]]) 18:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Radha krishna 123|Radha krishna 123]]: this draft has been rejected (twice), and will therefore not be considered further. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 18:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 19:17, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Klamakin ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Klamakin|ts=19:17, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Alla_Smirnova}}<br /> Dear Help Desk, <br /> <br /> Reaching out for help with the article (my first on Wikipedia) that got rejected. Any guidance for the suggested edits will be very much appreciated. <br /> <br /> Thank you. [[User:Klamakin|Klamakin]] ([[User talk:Klamakin|talk]]) 19:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Rejection means that it won't be considered further. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you for getting back to me. Is there anything I can do in the article for the reject status to be re-considered? [[User:Klamakin|Klamakin]] ([[User talk:Klamakin|talk]]) 20:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :That question was answered yesterday, at [[#03:19, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Klamakin]]. If you manage to find suitable sources (each one of which meets the criteria in [[WP:42]]) and write an acceptable draft, then you can contact the reviewer who rejected it and ask them to reconsider. Please don't waste their time (or your own) unless you have found such sources. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 19:29, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Eggs111 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Eggs111|ts=19:29, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Zhwe with breve}}<br /> I'm not mad, but I would like to know the reason for this rejection.I want to know how I could improve next time.<br /> Thanks. [[User:Eggs111|Eggs111]] ([[User talk:Eggs111|talk]]) 19:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I know why it got declined now. Thanks [[User:Eggs111|Eggs111]] ([[User talk:Eggs111|talk]]) 19:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 20:09, 14 March 2024 review of submission by IgalSX ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=IgalSX|ts=20:09, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Igal_Stulbach}}<br /> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Igal_Stulbach. &lt;&lt; declined because not supported by reliable source...I think it includes several known and reliable sources What should I do to approve the page? [[User:IgalSX|IgalSX]] ([[User talk:IgalSX|talk]]) 20:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Asked and answered at the Teahouse. Please don't post questions in multiple places. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 22:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 20:17, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Chennaiwiki20 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Chennaiwiki20|ts=20:17, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:John_Ahiya_Naan_(2022)}}<br /> got error : <br /> John Ahiya Naan: Directed by Appu k Sami. With Arul Anbalahan, Nakshatra Rao, Nizhalgal Ravi, Appu k Sami. Truth always killed by lies, finally truth will win [[User:Chennaiwiki20|Chennaiwiki20]] ([[User talk:Chennaiwiki20|talk]]) 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :An acceptable Wikipedia article is based on what [[WP: 42|independent, reliable sources]] say about the subject. You have cited two mere listings, and two Wikipedia articles (which can never be cited, as Wikipedia is not a [[WP:reliable source|reliable source]]. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 22:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 21:48, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Hkc345 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Hkc345|ts=21:48, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Jorge_Suárez_(pianist)}}<br /> Hi, I have an undisclosed tag on the Wikipedia page even though I have disclosed on my talk page that I am being paid to edit. Do I have to disclose it somewhere else?<br /> Thank you [[User:Hkc345|Hkc345]] ([[User talk:Hkc345|talk]]) 21:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I see somebody has removed that tag, and replaced it with a different one. In my opinion, it is far too promotional. Great long lists of people and places he has played with do not serve Wikipedia, they only serve him. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 22:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 23:01, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Thegibster1 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Thegibster1|ts=23:01, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Pro_wrestler:Nikson_Mellen}}<br /> the editor is biased [[User:Thegibster1|Thegibster1]] ([[User talk:Thegibster1|talk]]) 23:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Thegibster1|thegibster1]]: ok? what's your question? [[user:ltbdl|ltb]][[user:ltbdl/d|&lt;span style=&quot;color:orange&quot;&gt;d&lt;/span&gt;]][[user:ltbdl|l]] ([[user talk:ltbdl|talk]]) 05:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> = March 15 =<br /> <br /> == 01:00, 15 March 2024 review of submission by 136.36.47.34 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=136.36.47.34|ts=01:00, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Wiz_Mud}}<br /> I HAVE A COMPLAINT<br /> The reason it was rejected was &quot;Wikipedia articles are not for stuff made up in one day.&quot;<br /> I DID NOT INVENT WIZ MUD<br /> SOMEBODY ELSE DID<br /> AND IT WAS NOT MADE UP IN ONE DAY<br /> IT WAS CREATED IN 2017<br /> BRUH WHY ARE THE EDITORS ALWAYS CAPPING BRUH!!!!! [[Special:Contributions/136.36.47.34|136.36.47.34]] ([[User talk:136.36.47.34|talk]]) 01:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Your draft has been rejected and won't be considered any longer. – [[User:DreamRimmer|&lt;b style=&quot;color:black; font-family: Tahoma&quot;&gt;DreamRimmer&lt;/b&gt;]] ('''[[User talk:DreamRimmer|talk]]''') 05:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Your draft violates Wikipedia's core content policies and is simply not appropriate for this encyclopedia. Discuss this game on social media if you want to, but not here. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 07:12, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Srinivaschinka90 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Srinivaschinka90|ts=07:12, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:CHINKA_SRINIVASA_RAO}}<br /> I have established myself in my field and Wikipedia helps me in stating that I'm genuine person for those who don't me personally and Wikipedia will help me to grow my name in longer wide online rather I struggling in off-line [[User:Srinivaschinka90|Srinivaschinka90]] ([[User talk:Srinivaschinka90|talk]]) 07:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Srinivaschinka90|Srinivaschinka90]]: try LinkedIn or something similar. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for promoting yourself. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 07:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 07:17, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Rajaranics37 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Rajaranics37|ts=07:17, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:CHINKA_SRINIVASA_RAO}}<br /> Why [[User:Rajaranics37|Rajaranics37]] ([[User talk:Rajaranics37|talk]]) 07:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :...is this your other account? [[user:ltbdl|ltb]][[user:ltbdl/d|&lt;span style=&quot;color:orange&quot;&gt;d&lt;/span&gt;]][[user:ltbdl|l]] ([[user talk:ltbdl|talk]]) 07:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 07:38, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Kaiumkhan321 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Kaiumkhan321|ts=07:38, 15 March 2024|draft=Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User talk:Kaiumkhan321&amp;oldid=1211776518}}<br /> Why this page is not getting published, working hard for more than 2 years and provided with sufficient links to proof including government links, kindly look into it. [[User:Kaiumkhan321|Kaiumkhan321]] ([[User talk:Kaiumkhan321|talk]]) 07:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Kaiumkhan321|Kaiumkhan321]]: you're pointing to your user talk page, we don't publish those as articles, obviously (and you shouldn't use it to develop article content, either). If instead you mean [[Draft:Abdul Kashim Khan]], then that draft was deleted months ago. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 07:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 10:34, 15 March 2024 review of submission by 203.123.39.86 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=203.123.39.86|ts=10:34, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Vh1_Jagazu}}<br /> what are the reasons for rejection [[Special:Contributions/203.123.39.86|203.123.39.86]] ([[User talk:203.123.39.86|talk]]) 10:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :there is one sentence. [[user:ltbdl|ltb]][[user:ltbdl/d|&lt;span style=&quot;color:orange&quot;&gt;d&lt;/span&gt;]][[user:ltbdl|l]] ([[user talk:ltbdl|talk]]) 11:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 12:25, 15 March 2024 review of submission by İstbull ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=İstbull|ts=12:25, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Samdaqu}}<br /> Hi, we are trying to create our university's wikipedia, however, can you help us with this, will it be accepted if we put external links or our university's own page as a reference? [[User:İstbull|Cem Barut]] 12:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Wikipedia articles are not for organizations to tell the world about themselves Articles summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:ORG|a notable organization]].<br /> :If you are an employee of the university, that must be disclosed according to the Terms of Use, see [[WP:PAID]] for instructions. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{u|İstbull}}, your draft is much more like a promotional essay than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 14:01, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Puck Osborne ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Puck Osborne|ts=14:01, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:John_May_(architect)}}<br /> I have made the revisions as requested but want to make sure I have resolved all the issues adequately before resubmitting. Thanks! [[User:Puck Osborne|Puck Osborne]] ([[User talk:Puck Osborne|talk]]) 14:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Hello, we don't really do pre-review reviews here- the best way to get feedback is to submit it. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 15:16, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Friendbelittler ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Friendbelittler|ts=15:16, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Tracey Brakes}}<br /> Hi there! My page was declined and I figured I would ask point blank what things I would need to add to demonstrate that the artist meets the notability guidelines. Would the inclusion of additional coverage from reputable sources independent of the artist (like her Splice interview) be sufficient? [[User:Friendbelittler|Friendbelittler]] ([[User talk:Friendbelittler|talk]]) 15:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{u|Friendbelittler}} I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. <br /> :Interviews do not contribute to notability as interviews are not independent sources, being the person speaking about themselves. You need to show how she meets [[WP:BAND|the definition of a notable musician]] with significant coverage in independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that chose on their own to give the coverage. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks for your reply! I'll give the guidelines a more thorough read and resubmit in the future when I think she's met the criteria. [[User:Friendbelittler|Friendbelittler]] ([[User talk:Friendbelittler|talk]]) 15:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Friendbelittler|Friendbelittler]]: you would need to cite sources that meet the [[WP:GNG]] notability guideline, or else provide evidence that the subject satisfies the [[WP:MUSICBIO]] one. The sources currently provided fall far short of either.<br /> :And just resubmitting the article without any improvement after it has been declined is not going to get you anywhere, other than eventually resulting in a rejected draft with no option to resubmit. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 15:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Good to know about the possibility of rejection on resubmission, thanks! [[User:Friendbelittler|Friendbelittler]] ([[User talk:Friendbelittler|talk]]) 15:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 16:03, 15 March 2024 review of submission by PratikPatel0795 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=PratikPatel0795|ts=16:03, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Pratik_Patel_(PC)}}<br /> Please let me know about modifications in this article. [[User:PratikPatel0795|PratikPatel0795]] ([[User talk:PratikPatel0795|talk]]) 16:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:PratikPatel0795|PratikPatel0795]]: this draft has been deleted as promotional. Please note that you should not be writing about yourself, see [[WP:AUTOBIO]]. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 16:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 17:18, 15 March 2024 review of submission by LRW123 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=LRW123|ts=17:18, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Swiss Diet and Health Foundation}}<br /> Article for creation rejected because sources are not considered notable. When I have used all the secondary sources that I could find on the subject, what else can be done to get the article published? ` [[User:LRW123|LRW123]] ([[User talk:LRW123|talk]]) 17:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:LRW123|LRW123]]: this was declined, not rejected; rejection would mean that you cannot resubmit, whereas declined drafts can be submitted again once you've addressed the decline reasons. That said, if you cannot find better sources, then the subject may be not notable enough to justify an article. There isn't anything else that can be done, as notability cannot be magically conjured out of thin air. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 17:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you for your quick action and clarification on the matter! [[User:LRW123|LRW123]] ([[User talk:LRW123|talk]]) 12:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Another question, why is there a note that says my article has paid contributions, when I go to edit the article? [[User:LRW123|LRW123]] ([[User talk:LRW123|talk]]) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:LRW123|LRW123]]: you've declared general COI in this subject, but should you have declared the more specific COI of paid editing? Which is another way of asking, what is your relationship with this organisation?<br /> :::The paid contributions template is just flagging up that the text may require editing for neutral POV etc. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 14:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 21:51, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Peanutlover2024 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Peanutlover2024|ts=21:51, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Yasunari Takeshima}}<br /> Why my page has declined?<br /> What is missing in my page? [[User:Peanutlover2024|Peanutlover2024]] ([[User talk:Peanutlover2024|talk]]) 21:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{u|Peanutlover2024}} I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft. Your draft has no sources to support its content. Please see [[WP:REFB|referencing for beginners]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 23:22, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Mazula258 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Mazula258|ts=23:22, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Brazão_Mazula}}<br /> Hello I am trying to add an information panel using Wikidata? Any help appreciated. [[User:Mazula258|Mazula258]] ([[User talk:Mazula258|talk]]) 23:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> = March 16 =<br /> <br /> == 04:21, 16 March 2024 review of submission by ScriptKKiddie ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=ScriptKKiddie|ts=04:21, 16 March 2024|draft=Draft:Fraud_Risk_Management}}<br /> I need help finding reliable sources and ensuring the accuracy of my article on Fraud Risk Management. Can I get feedback from other Wikipedians? [[User:ScriptKKiddie|ScriptKKiddie]] ([[User talk:ScriptKKiddie|talk]]) 04:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:ScriptKKiddie|scriptkkiddie]]: stop using chatgpt to write an article. [[user:ltbdl|ltb]][[user:ltbdl/d|&lt;span style=&quot;color:orange&quot;&gt;d&lt;/span&gt;]][[user:ltbdl|l]] ([[user talk:ltbdl|talk]]) 07:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 08:04, 16 March 2024 review of submission by LetsGetBotanical ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=LetsGetBotanical|ts=08:04, 16 March 2024|draft=Draft:Louisa_Grace_Fortescue}}<br /> Hi! I've just embarked on an a quest to create pages for overlooked female botanists. I've hit a hurdle with my first attempt.<br /> <br /> I have written about Louisa Grace Fortescue, Lady Clermont, who discovered a fern known as Lady Clermont's Spleenwort. It took me *days* of research to find out who Lady Clermont was and so I decided that no-one else should have to struggle like I did.<br /> <br /> I created a page, linked her to her husband and father, who both have pages, and added in her discovery - a fern that was thought to be a new species, and subsequently was one of the first ferns to be suspected (and then confirmed) as a hybrid. It has a hybrid binomial in her honour, Asplenium x clermontiae.<br /> <br /> Unfortunately my article has been rejected on notability grounds, but this feels a bit subjective. Her husband has a wikipedia page after all, and - if I was being facetious - I'd say that all he ever did was 'be born an artistocrat'. Lady Clermont actually *did* something!<br /> <br /> Checking notability guidelines, I see that one criteria is &quot;The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field&quot; - like discovering a fern named after you.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> LetsGetBotanical [[User:LetsGetBotanical|LetsGetBotanical]] ([[User talk:LetsGetBotanical|talk]]) 08:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have to say I'm rather surprised that this was rejected rather than declined, by an admin as well. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 08:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I think I see why he did- she discovered the fern, but the botany advances were made by others long after her death. In looking at the sources, they don't seem to extensively describe her influence on this. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks! Any idea what I can do? [[User:LetsGetBotanical|LetsGetBotanical]] ([[User talk:LetsGetBotanical|talk]]) 19:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Just because there exists an article on her husband is certainly no reason to create one on her. Especially as that article possibly shouldn't exist either, as notability isn't demonstrated by the cited sources (two cites of a book written by himself, one cite of a deprecated source, and one with only the briefest of passing mentions). -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 10:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::How do we get that deleted then? And on that point, how is an article like this: [[2021 Rugby World Cup squads]] notable, but the discoverer of a fern isn't? I *am* being facetious but it feels there is a lot of personal preference involved in this process. [[User:LetsGetBotanical|LetsGetBotanical]] ([[User talk:LetsGetBotanical|talk]]) 19:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Please see [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]] to learn about the process. National rugby teams are usually extensively covered in independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. The main issue here is that sources do not give Lady Clermont extensive coverage. She could likely be mentioned in an article about the fern, she just doesn't seem to merit a standalone article. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 10:49, 16 March 2024 review of submission by Coco Adnan ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Coco Adnan|ts=10:49, 16 March 2024|draft=Draft:Nameer_Khan}}<br /> If I add more info on this budding actor with relevant sources, will I be able to continue editing? [[User:Coco Adnan|Coco Adnan]] ([[User talk:Coco Adnan|talk]]) 10:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Coco Adnan|Coco Adnan]]: technically speaking you can continue editing, but you cannot resubmit it for another review. If you can demonstrate notability clearly and unequivocally, you may appeal to the reviewer who rejected this, but that's only worth doing if notability is obviously there. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 10:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks for getting back. So, would it be better to just restart again? rather than editing this draft (which has already been rejected) [[User:Coco Adnan|Coco Adnan]] ([[User talk:Coco Adnan|talk]]) 10:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Coco Adnan|Coco Adnan]]: no, that could be interpreted as an attempt to game the system. Make your edits to this draft, and take your case (assuming notability is demonstrated) to the last reviewer. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 11:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&quot;Budding actor&quot; almost certainly means they do not yet meet the [[WP:NACTOR|definition of a notable actor]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 11:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::so how does this work? If I re-edit the article and cannot resubmit it for another review, how will I get it reviewed then? [[User:Coco Adnan|Coco Adnan]] ([[User talk:Coco Adnan|talk]]) 11:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Coco Adnan|Coco Adnan]]: for the ''third'' time, you need to make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft. That's how this works.<br /> :::But as 331dot points out, &quot;budding&quot;, as well as &quot;actor who recently made his acting debut&quot;, etc. imply pretty much the polar opposite of notable, so you may well be on a hiding to nothing here. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 11:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::will circle back once the actor has more body of work. can this page pls be deleted till then? thanks. [[User:Coco Adnan|Coco Adnan]] ([[User talk:Coco Adnan|talk]]) 11:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::It can be, but it can also remain so that there is a starting point for later; other than by request, drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 11:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 16:28, 16 March 2024 review of submission by Kchoose2 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Kchoose2|ts=16:28, 16 March 2024|draft=Draft:Valeriya_Gogunskaya}}<br /> Brand new to contributing. I believe this person is worthy of an entry, because I came here looking for information on her and, finding none, tried to start a page that others could contribute to. Two tries came up short and I am wondering what I can do next. Thanks! [[User:Kchoose2|Kchoose2]] ([[User talk:Kchoose2|talk]]) 16:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{u|Kchoose2}} You have only two sources; to pass this process most reviewers look for at least three sources to be summarized. And as noted, one of the two sources is an interview, which does not contribute to notability, and the other just mentions her video. These are not significant coverage of this person, showing how they meet [[WP:BIO]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 19:17, 16 March 2024 review of submission by Mr Francesco Miranda ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Mr Francesco Miranda|ts=19:17, 16 March 2024|draft=Draft:Ludwig_Albert}}<br /> I sent the article for review two times, but I think that I did not really understand what is wrong. So could anyone tell me how to fix it?<br /> Thanks! [[User:Mr Francesco Miranda|Mr Francesco Miranda]] ([[User talk:Mr Francesco Miranda|talk]]) 19:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Part of the issue is that your citations are not next to the information they are citing. See [[WP:REFB|referencing for beginners]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 22:00, 16 March 2024 review of submission by Matttimings ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Matttimings|ts=22:00, 16 March 2024|draft=Draft:Liam Turnbull}}<br /> Hi there,<br /> <br /> Hoping for some pointers on what more would be required here, the individual is what I believe qualifies as &quot;notable&quot; as he's a multiple world record holder in powerlifting and I provided references to rankings, however, this is my first Wiki creation so I appreciate that I could have done something wrong. Any pointers would be much appreciated.<br /> <br /> Many thanks,<br /> Matt T [[User:Matttimings|Matttimings]] ([[User talk:Matttimings|talk]]) 22:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{u|Matttimings}} I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. He may be notable, but most if not all of the sources you have do not have significant coverage of him. Some sources are just his businesses, which are not independent sources.<br /> <br /> :If you work for him, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see [[WP:PAID]]. You did declare a COI, but the paid editing declaration is stricter. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 22:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Many thanks for the suggestions, I do not work for him although I have used his mentorship service previously. I've added some more references in, hoping that'll be enough [[User:Matttimings|Matttimings]] ([[User talk:Matttimings|talk]]) 23:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> = March 17 =<br /> <br /> == 05:57, 17 March 2024 review of submission by Jaclyn.v108 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Jaclyn.v108|ts=05:57, 17 March 2024|draft=Draft:River_Faught}}<br /> My article was declined for lacking enough references but I have quite a few, 41 total, most of which are not published by the subject. Can you please elaborate or give me any tips on how to add enough references? What else do you see that I can reference? I’ve seen other wiki pages with way fewer references than mine. Please assist. [[User:Jaclyn.v108|Jaclyn.v108]] ([[User talk:Jaclyn.v108|talk]]) 05:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Jaclyn.v108|Jaclyn.v108]]: the sources you're citing are user-generated or otherwise of poor quality, failing both the core requirements of [[WP:verifiability|verifiability]] and [[WP:notability|notability]]. Meanwhile, almost the entire body text is unreferenced: the referencing only appears in the 'Filmography' and later sections. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Please see [[WP:OSE|other stuff exists]]; what happens on other articles(that themselves could be problematic, and you wouldn't be aware of this) is not that relevant. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are [[WP:GOODARTICLE|classified as good articles]], which have received community vetting. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 09:47, 17 March 2024 review of submission by Vis-Techeditor ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Vis-Techeditor|ts=09:47, 17 March 2024|draft=Draft:Sam_Beklik}}<br /> Could you please clarify exactly what you tagged for deletion on this article? The last feedback and review, in August 2023 by Johannes, suggested that the article requires stronger references and improvement in terms of its unencyclopedic tone. There is no promotion in this article. it is solely the biography of the artist. [[User:Vis-Techeditor|Vis-Techeditor]] ([[User talk:Vis-Techeditor|talk]]) 09:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Vis-Techeditor|vis-techeditor]]: oh ''come'' on.<br /> :{{tqb|Beklik embarked on his artistic journey with a focus on photography at MTF Tehran. He further honed his skills at the International Summer Academy for Fine Arts in Salzburg, Austria. Seeking a more comprehensive artistic foundation, he pursued studies in stage and costume design, film, and exhibition architecture at Mozarteum University Salzburg.}} [[user:ltbdl|ltb]][[user:ltbdl/d|&lt;span style=&quot;color:orange&quot;&gt;d&lt;/span&gt;]][[user:ltbdl|l]] ([[user talk:ltbdl|talk]]) 11:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you, [[User:Ltbdl|ltb]][[User:Ltbdl/d|d]][[User:Ltbdl|l]], for the feedback! But I'm still confused about how this is written in a promotional tone. Do you have any suggestions for improving this paragraph? [[User:Vis-Techeditor|Vis-Techeditor]] ([[User talk:Vis-Techeditor|talk]]) 13:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::You declared a conflict of interest with regards to this individual, what is the general nature of the conflict? I'm just wondering if you have a marketing background and perhaps are unable to see how you are being promotional.<br /> :::Language like &quot;journey&quot; and &quot;honed his skills&quot; is just promotional fluff. Articles should be written as dry and matter-of-fact as possible [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you [[User:331dot|331dot]] for the feedback. is it now better now? <br /> ::::Beklik studied photography at MTF Tehran before continuing his education at the International Summer Academy for Fine Arts in Salzburg, Austria. He then pursued studies in stage and costume design, film, and exhibition architecture at Mozarteum University Salzburg. [[User:Vis-Techeditor|Vis-Techeditor]] ([[User talk:Vis-Techeditor|talk]]) 13:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I ask again, what is the general nature of your conflict of interest? I see that you took a picture of this individual, how do you know him?<br /> :::::There are still many promotional areas of the text; the last reviewer has rejected the draft and nominated it for speedy deletion. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I'm writing as the artist's assistant, and I want to confirm that I have this photo directly from the artist. Yes i see and that makes me confused because on the last review, in August 2023 by Johannes, suggested that the article requires stronger references and improvement in terms of its unencyclopedic tone, as i did but today another reviewer has rejected the draft. is there any way to fix it? [[User:Vis-Techeditor|Vis-Techeditor]] ([[User talk:Vis-Techeditor|talk]]) 13:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thank you; if by being his assistant you mean he employs you, the Terms of Use require you to make the [[WP:PAID|paid editing disclosure]], which is stricter that the COI disclosure.<br /> :::::::You may discuss the rejection with the reviewer that rejected it, that's the first step. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 14:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Thank you [[User:Vis-Techeditor|Vis-Techeditor]] ([[User talk:Vis-Techeditor|talk]]) 14:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 11:45, 17 March 2024 review of submission by MasterOfNone67 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=MasterOfNone67|ts=11:45, 17 March 2024|draft=Draft:Watchlist_(play)}}<br /> I'm a first time Wikipedia page creator / editor and need assistance creating a page. Any advice on how to improve my current draft would be much appreciated. [[User:MasterOfNone67|MasterOfNone67]] ([[User talk:MasterOfNone67|talk]]) 11:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 15:36, 17 March 2024 review of submission by KülTegin.Alp ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=KülTegin.Alp|ts=15:36, 17 March 2024|draft=Draft:World_Alpagut_Federation}}<br /> We want to publish this page, please review the page and help if there are any errors. [[User:KülTegin.Alp|KülTegin.Alp]] ([[User talk:KülTegin.Alp|talk]]) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :You have submitted the article for review. Please be patient. <br /> :But while you are waiting, you should do what the comment says, and remove all [[WP:external link|external link]]s from the text. <br /> :You should also review all your cited sources against the criteria in the [[WP:golden rule|golden rule]], and remove most of those which are not [[WP:IS|indepedent]] of the WAF (such as anything based on interview and press releases). {{HD/WINI}} [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 09:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 16:37, 17 March 2024 review of submission by 1Mamalujo ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=1Mamalujo|ts=16:37, 17 March 2024|draft=Draft:Columbia_30}}<br /> I'm a bit confused why this article was denied based on sourcing. The type of sourcing used is typical for articles on production sailboats: owners association pages, manufacturer data, and sailboat data guides like https://sailboatdata.com, https://sailboat.guide, and https://sailboatlab.com. See this article as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_34. Same sources.Now, I understand that the formatting for the citations was a bit screwy, but that can easily be fixed by an editor proficient in such things. There may be boats which sold in the thousands like the Catalina 30 which have broad press coverage, but that is not the case with most boats and most of such articles on Wikipedia. The sources cited are reliable. Most of the facts are boat spec and dimensions, matters about which owners associations, sailboat data sites, and manufacturer sites give reliable info. This isn't some controversial political subject where reported facts are controversial and varying and super rigorous sourcing is needed. It seems a shame to deny the readers an article on a boat made by a highly notable manufacturer. Also, the article was denied puportedly based on sourcing, not notability. [[User:1Mamalujo|1Mamalujo]] ([[User talk:1Mamalujo|talk]]) 16:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Not every individual model of boat merits an article. It depends on the coverage. Please see [[WP:OSE|other stuff exists]] as to why the existence of other articles that themselves may be problematic cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. Please point out these other articles so action can be taken. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 17:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The boat was reviewed, upon its debut, in the New York Times, and noted for its &quot;'years ahead' innovations in yacht design&quot;, citing three specific such &quot;design breakthrough(s)&quot;. Sounds a bit more notable than just &quot;other stuff&quot;. Thousands of production yacht models have been made. Few of them are even reviewed, much less given accolades for multiple &quot;design breakthroughs&quot; in one of the Anglophone world's papers of record such as the New York times. I've now cited the NYT article in the draft. [[User:1Mamalujo|1Mamalujo]] ([[User talk:1Mamalujo|talk]]) 18:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The NYT article reads to me as &quot;these are the wonderful things that Tripp says he has done&quot;, not as an independent review. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 09:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 19:12, 17 March 2024 review of submission by Itsarnovnm ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Itsarnovnm|ts=19:12, 17 March 2024|draft=Draft:Arno_Vanmassenhove}}<br /> Dear Wikipedia Editorial Team,<br /> <br /> We noticed the cancellation of our client Arno Vanmassenhove's Wikipedia page and would appreciate clarification on the decision. Arno's significant contributions to entrepreneurship and personal development warrant recognition on Wikipedia. We are eager to address any concerns and ensure the accuracy of his page.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your attention.<br /> <br /> Sincerely,<br /> <br /> Cris Cawley<br /> Game Changer Publishing [[User:Itsarnovnm|Itsarnovnm]] ([[User talk:Itsarnovnm|talk]]) 19:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :First, only a single person should be operating your account. <br /> :Your draft was wholly promotional and has no place on Wikipedia. If you were specifically paid to edit Wikipedia, I suggest you return his money. You have much to learn before you can write in the area of your conflict of interest. Please see [[WP:PROMO]], [[WP:BIO]], and [[WP:YFA|Your first article]]. Wikipedia is not a form of recognition or means to honor someone. Our only interest is in summarizing independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 20:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> = March 18 =<br /> <br /> == 00:06, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Shadokp ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Shadokp|ts=00:06, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Glenda Allen}}<br /> I have worked very hard compiling so much information about this under appreciated actress and model but with IMDB not a reliable source there is really no way to prove that this actress was in any movie even ones she is credited it. In Dracula AD 1972 multiple sources have her and another model named Flannagan uncredited in the movie but there is a Flannagan article in Wikipedia that lists her uncredited for the movie. how is it possible for any uncredited listing in Wikipedia if there is no evidence. Also much of the proof is available in photos and movie posters but none of that is available because of copyright. There are people who have less credits who have pages. It is most frustrating. Thank you for you time in helping me. [[User:Shadokp|Shadokp]] ([[User talk:Shadokp|talk]]) 00:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{u|Shadokp}} I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. &quot;Under appreciated actress&quot; is a strong indicator that [[WP:TOOSOON|she does not yet]] meet the [[WP:NACTOR|special Wikipedia definition of a notable actress]]. Credits are sufficient to establish participation in a film, but Wikipedia articles need more, they need independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage of her that are summarized in the article. Wikipedia is not a place to pubilcize someone or otherwise ensure that they are appreciated- they must first be noticed and get the coverage needed for an article, not the other way around. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows the coverage.<br /> :Please see [[WP:OSE|other stuff exists]]; there are likely many inappropriate articles on Wikipedia(especially about actors) and volunteers don't have time to get around to addressing them all; this cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. If you would like to help us, please identify other inappropriate articles you see for possible action. We need the help. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Shadokp|Shadokp]]: even if you could find proof that this person had uncredited roles in some films, that would almost certainly not be enough to make her notable. Your task is to demonstrate notability by either the [[WP:GNG]] or [[WP:NACTOR]] guidelines, and that does require much more than simply proving that she existed and did a bit of acting or modelling work. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 08:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks - I guess there are other places to archive this type of information. Wikipedia becomes less accurate due to the lack of information that is not allowed. So much is going to be lost to history because of no proof. I understand the concept and reasons given but I have to imagine most of what is listed on Wikipedia is taken from other sites or common knowledge. Proving someone existed is a bit odd. [[User:Shadokp|Shadokp]] ([[User talk:Shadokp|talk]]) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No one is asking you to prove someone existed? Wikipedia is not a directory of everyone who has lived, acted or whatever.[[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks - it was worth a try [[User:Shadokp|Shadokp]] ([[User talk:Shadokp|talk]]) 21:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> == 02:57, 18 March 2024 review of submission by RealmUnknown ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=RealmUnknown|ts=02:57, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:André_Armenante}}<br /> Looking to improve this article, mainly with focus on sourcing. Several of the sources provided are from old magazines and articles I've come across, such as numbers 5, 9 &amp; 10. Perhaps these physical publications ones need to be scanned and uploaded? I've cut and stripped a few items out of the article due to this very issue, as I realize they had no key sources. [[User:RealmUnknown|RealmUnknown]] ([[User talk:RealmUnknown|talk]]) 02:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:RealmUnknown|RealmUnknown]]: you do not need to scan and upload offline sources, in fact you shouldn't as they're likely to be in copyright; you just need to cite them with sufficient details to enable the sources to be reliably identified for verification purposes (see [[WP:OFFLINE]] for advice). If it's not obvious from the title what the source is and what it says about and/or how extensively it covers the subject, you should also consider including a short quotation. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 08:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks a bunch, hadn't considered a quotation, that may help out a bit. [[User:RealmUnknown|RealmUnknown]] ([[User talk:RealmUnknown|talk]]) 15:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 09:39, 18 March 2024 review of submission by 194.223.23.148 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=194.223.23.148|ts=09:39, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:How To Train Your Dragon: Snoggletog Log}}<br /> I'm requesting to find help to see if someone can help improve the article for me. Plus, it's hard for me to find any other sources by myself. I'll need someone to update the draft for me. [[Special:Contributions/194.223.23.148|194.223.23.148]] ([[User talk:194.223.23.148|talk]]) 09:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :This encyclopaedia is created by volunteers like you. Why do you think somebody might want to come and work on your pet project? (They might - but why would they?) <br /> :The heart and soul of a Wikipedia article is its sources. If you have looked, and can't find enough, that is a very good reason for thinking that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for [[WP:notability|notability]]. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 09:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 09:49, 18 March 2024 review of submission by JulioHo ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=JulioHo|ts=09:49, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Ifm_group}}<br /> Hello all, I just submitted a draft about German company ifm Group and it was rejected due to lack of independent references. Could you please specify what I need to do now as the four independent references I cited seem fine to me. I would be happy for help about this article to provide quality on articles on big German companies as I noticed a lack of relevant references in similar articles, such as: <br /> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilz_(company)<br /> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turck<br /> <br /> Would a translation/link to the German article be helpful and are German references (there are plenty) helpful? Thanks for your help! [[User:JulioHo|JulioHo]] ([[User talk:JulioHo|talk]]) 09:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :References can be in German. The main issue is that you have only summarized the activities of the company, and not significant coverage in independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that go into detail about what they see as important about the company and how it meets [[WP:ORG|the definition of a notable company]].<br /> :Note that the German Wikipedia has different policies, what is acceptable there is not necessarily so here. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:JulioHo|JulioHo]]: sources 5 &amp; 6 are just routine business reporting, and 7 &amp; 8 are mere passing mentions. Source 3 is debatable, in that it is more about the CEO than the business, but in any case it alone wouldn't be enough to establish notability.<br /> :If you have found other articles without sufficient evidence of notability, you're very welcome to improve them, or if this cannot be done, to initiate deletion proceedings. Either way, the existence of such articles is no reason to create more similar problems. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 10:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] Thank you for clarifying! I'll dive into that matter and will search for other more reliable sources! [[User:JulioHo|JulioHo]] ([[User talk:JulioHo|talk]]) 12:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 11:15, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Nihimba ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Nihimba|ts=11:15, 18 March 2024|draft=HEBO Consult}}<br /> Why has this been rejected? [[User:Nihimba|Nihimba]] ([[User talk:Nihimba|talk]]) 11:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Nihimba|Nihimba]]: [[User:Nihimba/sandbox/HEBO Consult]] wasn't rejected. It was declined (two years ago!) for being promotional, and deleted six months later, either for the same reason or for having been not edited for 6 months (I'm not quite sure which). -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 11:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 12:39, 18 March 2024 review of submission by 4Bt'tjes ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=4Bt'tjes|ts=12:39, 18 March 2024|draft=User:4Bt'tjes/sandbox}}<br /> I would really want this to be published, this is a very dum reason but i get bullied and maybe they will find this funny, I hope? Thank you very much for taking this in to consideration.<br /> Ps it did not include any false information regarding the subject. [[User:4Bt&amp;#39;tjes|4Bt&amp;#39;tjes]] ([[User talk:4Bt&amp;#39;tjes|talk]]) 12:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:4Bt'tjes|4Bt'tjes]]: please understand that this is an encyclopaedia, not a place to tell the world about your mates. Try a social media platform or similar. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::But what if I really made a honest page about him? Not as a joke, it would still be information about somthing/someone. I would write about him in a profesional way. No jokes, just a life story about him. Just like there are enough story's about Kanye West and so on. I would really appreciate you taking this into considiration. I see this as a chance to change some things on the internet. Not everybody has to make a video on tiktok or a Reel on instagram. Just a honest story on here. Now that I tought about it u could actually make a different app about my idea. U could call it My Story or somthing like that. Ps my first submission really didn't include any fals information. [[User:4Bt&amp;#39;tjes|4Bt&amp;#39;tjes]] ([[User talk:4Bt&amp;#39;tjes|talk]]) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Please have a look at [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] and then [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]]. – [[User:DreamRimmer|&lt;b style=&quot;color:black; font-family: Tahoma&quot;&gt;DreamRimmer&lt;/b&gt;]] ('''[[User talk:DreamRimmer|talk]]''') 15:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::It really didn't help [[User:4Bt&amp;#39;tjes|4Bt&amp;#39;tjes]] ([[User talk:4Bt&amp;#39;tjes|talk]]) 16:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::A Wikipedia article summarises what [[WP:42|independent reliable sources]] have published about a subject. That is all. If there are such sources about your subject, then an article may be possible: if there are not, then no article is possible. <br /> :::::The purposes you have mentioned above have nothing to do with Wikipedia, as explained in various sections of the first page linked above. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 18:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 12:47, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Viveliot ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Viveliot|ts=12:47, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Lingvanex_Translator}}<br /> hello, i need more information about reliable sources. [[User:Viveliot|Viveliot]] ([[User talk:Viveliot|talk]]) 12:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Viveliot|Viveliot]]: click on the 'reliable sources' link in the decline notice. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 12:59, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Sadikul Masduq ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Sadikul Masduq|ts=12:59, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Salman_Habib}}<br /> How can I solve this? [[User:Sadikul Masduq|Sadikul Masduq]] ([[User talk:Sadikul Masduq|talk]]) 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Sadikul Masduq|Sadikul Masduq]]: you cannot 'solve this'; the draft has been rejected, and won't therefore be considered further. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 13:27, 18 March 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A312:C43C:7680:45A5:7113:623F:425C ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=2A02:A312:C43C:7680:45A5:7113:623F:425C|ts=13:27, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Aniket_Bharti}}<br /> Hi! I would like to improve the draft and resubmit it for Aniket Bharti. The draft was declined on March 12, 2024, by Randompersonediting (talk) due to insufficient references that demonstrate the subject's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:A312:C43C:7680:45A5:7113:623F:425C|2A02:A312:C43C:7680:45A5:7113:623F:425C]] ([[User talk:2A02:A312:C43C:7680:45A5:7113:623F:425C|talk]]) 13:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Yes, you're welcome to improve this draft, as it hasn't been rejected. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 16:04, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Christiana Stanley ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Christiana Stanley|ts=16:04, 18 March 2024|draft=ABUBAKAR SANI}}<br /> Hello, I wanted to let you know that I've recreated the draft for [[Abubakar Sani]]. <br /> I noticed it was deleted for potential advertising - I apologize for that, as I'm new to Wiki. I've made some changes to address this concern by removing questionable material and the citation to the website. Additionally, I've added some extra information that I believe could be helpful. I'd like more specific advice on how to go about successfully getting this article published in the main space. [[User:Christiana Stanley|&amp;#126;Ana]] ([[User talk:Christiana Stanley|talk]]) 16:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Christiana Stanley|Christiana Stanley]]: where have you created it? I can't see anything in your contributions. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 16:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you for your swift response, Please find a link to the draft below. <br /> ::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._Abubakar_Sani [[User:Christiana Stanley|&amp;#126;Ana]] ([[User talk:Christiana Stanley|talk]]) 16:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 16:39, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Ganisario ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Ganisario|ts=16:39, 18 March 2024|draft=https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Ganisario/Sandbox}}<br /> Could you kindly tell me why article was rejected. Also, please provide some quick advice [[User:Ganisario|Ganisario]] ([[User talk:Ganisario|talk]]) 16:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Your draft is located at [[User:Ganisario/sandbox]]. Your draft is in Italian, this is the English Wikipedia, a different project. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Ganisario|Ganisario]]: presumably you mean [[User:Ganisario/sandbox]]? It was declined because it's not in English, as it says in the decline notice. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I got no traction with the Italia wiki, deafening silence, not even a rejection. With you I got prompt replies. Any suggestion? What if I change the page to English? [[User:Ganisario|Ganisario]] ([[User talk:Ganisario|talk]]) 16:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Being in English is a must; but the standards here are likely stricter than the Italian Wikipedia. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 17:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Ganisario|Ganisario]]: it looks like you've tried to submit your sandbox draft on the Italian Wikipedia, but haven't done it correctly (I don't know for sure, but I expect they don't use the same &lt;code&gt;subst:submit&lt;/code&gt; template as we do here). That might explain why you didn't get any response. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 17:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 18:58, 18 March 2024 review of submission by AlanP93 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=AlanP93|ts=18:58, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Gravic, Inc.}}<br /> I was immediately denied after clicking submit for a new page. I believe this was for citation reasons. I'd love any feedback on how to make the page better and meet Wikipedia's guidelines. [[User:AlanP93|AlanP93]] ([[User talk:AlanP93|talk]]) 18:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{u|AlanP93}} I fixed your post, the whole url is not needed. You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?<br /> : The draft just tells about the business and its offerings. Wikipedia articles should primarily summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:ORG|a notable business]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Hey 331Dot. Regarding the conflict of interest declaration, I am currently employed by the company in question. I understand the importance of maintaining neutrality and adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines for content creation. I understand that I was supposed to disclose this beforehand, so I added a tag to my profile. Regarding the draft, I also understand that it needs improvement to meet Wikipedia's standards. I am thankful for your response, I am new at this, and I will work on revising the draft to ensure it summarizes information from only from independent sources. I added the products offered mainly because that's what the company was famous for in particular. I will review the guidelines more thoroughly and make the necessary revisions to ensure the draft meets Wikipedia's standards. Could you please (if able) tell me what else you would have on the page? I sort of just copied the formats of other Wikipages I saw of Gravic's partners Scantron and HPE. I'd take any and all advice. I don't wish to break any rules, nor do I want to publish a subpar page. [[User:AlanP93|AlanP93]] ([[User talk:AlanP93|talk]]) 19:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thank you. As an employee, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter [[WP:PAID|paid editing disclosure]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::In terms of the draft, quite frankly it needs to be largely rewritten. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like [[Academy Award]] or [[Nobel Peace Prize]]). Products shouldn't be discussed that in depth. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Also be advised it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, as these too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. See [[WP:OSE]]. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are [[WP:GOODARTICLE|classified as good articles]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::This is all really great feedback! I saved it all. Thank you. Would you mind if I rewrite it and show it to you first? Probably won't be ready for a week or so. [[User:AlanP93|AlanP93]] ([[User talk:AlanP93|talk]]) 20:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Please understand that {{HD/WINI}}<br /> :::::Evaluate every one of your sources against [[WP:42|42]]: pretty well all of them will fail. <br /> :::::Absolutely the first task in creating an article is to find several sources that do meet those criteria, because if they don't exist (as is the case for most companies), then it does not meet [[WP:NORG|NORG]], and no article is possible.<br /> :::::If you can find suitable sources, a good way to proceed (especially if you are connected with the subject) is to ''forget absolutely everything you know about the subject'' and write a summary of what those independent sources say. <br /> :::::Your draft is highly promotional, in that it says what Gravic wants people to know. Wikipedia does not care in the slightest what Gravic wants people to know. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 18:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 19:32, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Some random account on this website ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Some random account on this website|ts=19:32, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:2030 Russian presidential election}}<br /> Need help improving the article if by any means nessecary to be accepted. [[User:Some random account on this website|ＲＡＮＤＯＭ]] [[User talk:Some random account on this website|ａｃｃｏｕｎｔ]] 19:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Why does it need to be worked on &quot;by any means necessary&quot;?<br /> :Prior reviews must remain on the draft. It's going to be difficult for you to overcome [[WP:TOOSOON]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 20:58, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Toxopid ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Toxopid|ts=20:58, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Bianticupola}}<br /> I am having trouble finding even just one source for this polyhedron. So far, the only mention I've seen of it anywhere on the internet is in the Wikipedia article for cupolae. I would love to get some help finding a good source. [[User:Toxopid|Toxopid]] ([[User talk:Toxopid|talk]]) 20:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Toxopid|Toxopid]] the Help Desk does not generally assist with deveoping drafts. We are here to mostly to answer questions about the process or if a draft is declined or rejected. If you don't have access to scholarly journals, it will likely be difficult but you can try Google Books or Google Scholar. You can also ask for help at [[WP:WikiProject Mathematics]]. [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 21:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks. I will make sure to check that out. [[User:Toxopid|Toxopid]] ([[User talk:Toxopid|talk]]) 21:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 21:03, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Wikiwriterhippo ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Wikiwriterhippo|ts=21:03, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Rudolf_Gonzalez}}<br /> It was not approved because &quot;This draft is a copyright violation collection.&quot; Can someone please help me understand what exactly the violation is? [[User:Wikiwriterhippo|Wikiwriterhippo]] ([[User talk:Wikiwriterhippo|talk]]) 21:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Wikiwriterhippo|Wikiwriterhippo]] pinging @[[User:Johannes Maximilian|Johannes Maximilian]] to explain but I think it might be because the images violate copyright unless you are the artist. [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 21:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It's the pictures. Very obvious copyvio. --[[User:Johannes Maximilian|Johannes]] ([[User_Talk:Johannes Maximilian|Talk]]) &lt;small&gt;([[Special:Contribs/Johannes Maximilian|Contribs]]) ([[User:Johannes Maximilian/Articles2|Articles]])&lt;/small&gt; 00:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == After I published an article through Article Wizards, how can I know whether it's in review? ==<br /> <br /> I just published an article through Article Wizards, however I didn't see the yellow box that shows '''Review waiting, please be patient. Do this mean I didn't submit successfully or it take time to be reviewed.''' [[User:Alicey2121|Alicey2121]] ([[User talk:Alicey2121|talk]]) 23:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Your attempt to submit [[Draft:Daniel Seah]] failed, because you inserted the &quot;subst:submit&quot; formula within &amp;lt;nowiki&gt; ... &amp;lt;/nowiki&gt; tags, so it was not effective. <br /> :You then [[WP:moved|moved]] the draft to [[Daniel Seah]], which you are entitled to do, but it is not recommended for inexperienced editors. <br /> :I suspect that very soon it will get either deleted, or moved back to draft, for the reasons which another editor has already put at the top. The most obvious problems I see are:<br /> :# It can't decide whether it is about Seah or about Digital Domain. It needs to be about one or the other<br /> :# It is highly promotional. {{HD/WINI}}<br /> :# Few of the sources appear to be independent of Digital Domain.<br /> :[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 18:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> = March 19 =<br /> <br /> == 01:16, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Kim alice film ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Kim alice film|ts=01:16, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Wash My Soul In The River's Flow}}<br /> Hello I am a new user and dont have coding experience so am using the visual editor field. I made a submission for a film 'Wash My Soul In The River's Flow' and it was rejected because I had external links to IMDB which I didn't realise weren't allowed. I have removed them and tried to resubmit the draft. I am not sure if I have resubmitted it properly. I hit the resubmit button but nothing seemed to happen so i hit the publish button which seemed to do something. I am not sure if other editors can see the new draft and will be alerted to checking it. How can I best check if it is in the wait pile to be reviewed and is it possible to check in on this progress? thanks, kim alice film<br /> [[User:Kim alice film|Kim alice film]] ([[User talk:Kim alice film|talk]]) 01:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Kim alice film|Kim alice film]]: it looks like the draft wasn't resubmitted, but rather the AfC template was manually edited, resulting in the same ie. the draft now awaiting review.<br /> :Please don't tamper with the templates, they need to remain there and intact until the draft is accepted. Thanks, -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 08:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 02:59, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Matt46665 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Matt46665|ts=02:59, 19 March 2024|draft=User:Matt46665/sandbox}}<br /> Why was my article rejected so quickly? The article name is Called 'What is Hidden Parable Theory&quot;. [[User:Matt46665|Matt46665]] ([[User talk:Matt46665|talk]]) 02:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 03:02, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Matt46665 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Matt46665|ts=03:02, 19 March 2024|draft=User:Matt46665/sandbox}}<br /> How is this article contrary to wikipedia? It's a new theory based on scientific concepts. [[User:Matt46665|Matt46665]] ([[User talk:Matt46665|talk]]) 03:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is also unsourced nonsense. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 08:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 04:06, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Pratik Girish Karwade ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Pratik Girish Karwade|ts=04:06, 19 March 2024|draft=User:Pratik_Girish_Karwade/sandbox}}<br /> Hello, <br /> Wonder why I can create my wikipedia, I work as an Photographer and have achieved a lot in the field working with giant production house in Bollywood, India.<br /> I have seen a lot of cinematographers page on wikipedia and thought of building one of mine. <br /> please help me so I could create a page here of me. <br /> Thank You<br /> Pratik Karwade [[User:Pratik Girish Karwade|Pratik Girish Karwade]] ([[User talk:Pratik Girish Karwade|talk]]) 04:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]]. While not forbidden, writing an autobiographical article is highly discouraged. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:N|notability]], such as [[WP:BIO|a notable person]] or more narrowly in your case a [[WP:NARTIST|notable creative professional]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 05:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 06:11, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Microbeai3.0 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Microbeai3.0|ts=06:11, 19 March 2024|draft=User:Microbeai3.0/sandbox}}<br /> Could you help me to publish page. [[User:Microbeai3.0|Microbeai3.0]] ([[User talk:Microbeai3.0|talk]]) 06:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please see the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]]. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or publish their resume. Please use social media for that. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 06:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 06:56, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Me.Autem.Minui ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Me.Autem.Minui|ts=06:56, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Blackfriars, Kings Lynn}}<br /> How do I update the articles title? It should read “Blackfriars, King’s Lynn” rather than Kings Lynn [[User:Me.Autem.Minui|Me.Autem.Minui]] ([[User talk:Me.Autem.Minui|talk]]) 06:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Me.Autem.Minui|Me.Autem.Minui]]: you don't; there is no way of changing page titles, this is achieved by moving the page to a new title. But don't worry about that for now, if/when the draft is accepted it gets moved anyway. I'll put a note on it to mention this. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 08:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you very much - very helpful and prompt reply. [[User:Me.Autem.Minui|Me.Autem.Minui]] ([[User talk:Me.Autem.Minui|talk]]) 08:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I have accepted the draft and changed the title for you. Great work. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 08:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yay - thank you so so much!!! I’m genuinely a bit moved. Watch this space for lots more monastic and mendicant history from medieval England! [[User:Me.Autem.Minui|Me.Autem.Minui]] ([[User talk:Me.Autem.Minui|talk]]) 08:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 09:46, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Talchu ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Talchu|ts=09:46, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Eli Shamir}}<br /> The article (my first) was declined due to number of sources? I'd request to better understand whether my sources are not good, or whether I should just add a few more notable mentions. The artist has a Hebrew page, and I volunteered to add his page in English, and expand it a bit. I also referred to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals [[User:Talchu|Talchu]] ([[User talk:Talchu|talk]]) 09:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please note that the Hebrew Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{courtesy link|Draft:Elie Shamir}} --[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 18:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 10:45, 19 March 2024 review of submission by FlorinCornianu ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=FlorinCornianu|ts=10:45, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:123FormBuilder}}<br /> Hello, <br /> <br /> Sorry, I cannot understand why my page gets rejected every time. It doesn't sound like an advertisement, you can check also our competitor pages, they are just the same and they quote their own website resources.<br /> <br /> Please explain your point of view.<br /> <br /> Thanks!<br /> Florin<br /> [[User:FlorinCornianu|FlorinCornianu]] ([[User talk:FlorinCornianu|talk]]) 10:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:FlorinCornianu|FlorinCornianu]]: your draft was declined, not rejected, and the reason is that there isn't any evidence that your business is [[WP:notable|notable]] in the Wikipedia sense of the term.<br /> :Also, please disclose your paid editing, as requested on your talk page twice now. This is a hard requirement under our T&amp;Cs, not just an optional extra. Thank you. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 10:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Please see [[WP:OSE|other stuff exists]]. Other inappropriate articles existing does not mean that more can be added, it only means we haven't gotten around to renoving them, as this is a volunteer project. If you would like to help us, please identify the articles about your competitors so action can be taken. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Your competitors meriting articles does not automatically mean your company does too. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 12:51, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Eva Verplaetse ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Eva Verplaetse|ts=12:51, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Unifiedpost_Group}}<br /> I submitted this article 4 times - it's just a listing of what happened to the company over the years and which solutions we give - I added a lot of independent, reliable sources and still I get declined because it would be more like an advertisement. the article contains 3 blocks: history (just a list of facts), our offer (what is it) and some facts regarding our IPO - everything is checkable by the sources.<br /> Can you please show the parts that are &quot;more like an advertisement&quot;? Because I want this article live but I don't know what to change anymore. [[User:Eva Verplaetse|Eva Verplaetse]] ([[User talk:Eva Verplaetse|talk]]) 12:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Wikipedia articles are not for companies to tell the world about themselves, what they do, and their offerings. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company and what makes it important/significant/influential as the source sees it- how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:ORG|a notable company]]. <br /> :You may be too close to your company to write about it. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Eva Verplaetse|Eva Verplaetse]]: you're citing only primary sources and some 'capsule profiles' as your sources, these do not establish notability per [[WP:NCORP]], and instead are (and this is where promotionality comes in) essentially just the company telling the world about itself. You need to find a few sources that clearly meet the NCORP standard, and summarise what they have said about the business. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 12:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 14:42, 19 March 2024 review of submission by TheGreatestLuvofAll ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=TheGreatestLuvofAll|ts=14:42, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Zonnique}}<br /> I actually had did a research of reliable sources on this draft, and however my draft's topic was not just about music.. They also did reality TV and acting, as shown [[Draft:Zonnique#Filmography|here]]. A example of a reality TV star and singer is [[Tammy Rivera]] and [[Masika Kalysha]], however they are mostly notable through reality TV, like the subject. I am asking help because I want to make sure how can I know that my draft is eligible for an encyclopedia article? [[User:TheGreatestLuvofAll|TheGreatestLuvofAll]] ([[User talk:TheGreatestLuvofAll|talk]]) 14:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :[http://www.itunescharts.net/us/artists/music/zonnique/ See this chart website] which says that they might have had a position on a chart, which may meet the criteria of [[WP:SINGER]]. [[User:TheGreatestLuvofAll|TheGreatestLuvofAll]] ([[User talk:TheGreatestLuvofAll|talk]]) 14:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:TheGreatestLuvofAll|TheGreatestLuvofAll]]: per [[WP:BADCHARTS]], iTunes does not qualify, and in any case that source doesn't seem too reliable.<br /> ::I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but basically you need to show that this person meets either the general [[WP:GNG]] or one of the special ([[WP:SINGER]], [[WP:NACTOR]], etc.) notability standards. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 14:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Okay. [[User:TheGreatestLuvofAll|TheGreatestLuvofAll]] ([[User talk:TheGreatestLuvofAll|talk]]) 14:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::There is already [[Zonnique|a redirect]] to the group she worked with before her solo career. I put it in draftspace to work on it there to make it into an article. [[User:TheGreatestLuvofAll|TheGreatestLuvofAll]] ([[User talk:TheGreatestLuvofAll|talk]]) 15:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I requested deletion. [[User:TheGreatestLuvofAll|TheGreatestLuvofAll]] ([[User talk:TheGreatestLuvofAll|talk]]) 17:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 15:16, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Suhit72 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Suhit72|ts=15:16, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Suhit_Nagam}}<br /> How can I make it not able. [[User:Suhit72|Suhit72]] ([[User talk:Suhit72|talk]]) 15:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :There is nothing more you can do, the draft was rejected. Please read the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]]. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves; this is not social media. Please use actual social media to tell the world about yourself and your accomplishments. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 16:26, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Jmarquette ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Jmarquette|ts=16:26, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Bucks_Quarterly_Meeting}}<br /> Greetings - looking to ensure that I've hit all the marks for this work. [[User:Jmarquette|Jmarquette]] ([[User talk:Jmarquette|talk]]) 16:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Jmarquette|Jmarquette]]: we don't provide pre-reviews here at the help desk, you need to submit the draft to get a review. That said, I can tell you already now that this would be declined, as the referencing is woefully inadequate, and does not establish notability of any sort.<br /> :Also, you will need to remove all the inline external links from the body text. If you can use any of them as references, do so by citing them instead. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 16:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::That's the help I needed. Thank you. [[User:Jmarquette|Jmarquette]] ([[User talk:Jmarquette|talk]]) 16:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 18:59, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Delbatros ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Delbatros|ts=18:59, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Nazillispor}}<br /> How can I save a page belonging to a former Turkish football club that closed in 1975 from draft status? Unfortunately, there is no reference on behalf of a club that has operated for 8 years. I tried to edit the page here according to its [[:tr:Nazillispor|page]] on tr:wiki. At first, the page was created a long time ago based on incorrect guidance, but since such a club was active in the past but not today, I tried to translate it and added it here with the same order, but it was put in draft status. How to remove this page from draft status? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&diff=1214566513 2024-03-19T18:59:45Z

<p>Delbatros: Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Nazillispor</p> <hr /> <div>{{/header}}<br /> __NEWSECTIONLINK__<br /> [[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed|{{PAGENAME}}]]<br /> {{skip to top and bottom}}<br /> [[Category:Pages that should not be manually archived]]<br /> [[Category:WikiProject Articles for creation]]<br /> [[Category:Wikipedia help forums|Articles for creation: Help Desk]]<br /> &lt;!-- LEAVE YOUR MESSAGE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE --&gt;<br /> __TOC__<br /> <br /> {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024 March 13}}<br /> <br /> = March 14 =<br /> <br /> == 00:51, 14 March 2024 review of submission by 2603:7000:B900:71A5:2C0F:BF13:DE1B:716D ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=2603:7000:B900:71A5:2C0F:BF13:DE1B:716D|ts=00:51, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Karina_Guardiola-Lopez}}<br /> Can you please explain why my publications and accolades are not suffice to create a wikipedia page. A number of my fellow poets and writers all have pages but I am unable to. [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:B900:71A5:2C0F:BF13:DE1B:716D|2603:7000:B900:71A5:2C0F:BF13:DE1B:716D]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:B900:71A5:2C0F:BF13:DE1B:716D|talk]]) 00:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Wikipedia has '''articles''' as part of the encyclopedia, not &quot;pages&quot; which has a broader meaning. Wikipedia articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. While not forbidden, writing autobiographical articles is highly discouraged, please see the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]]. Beware in using other articles as a guide, these too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. See [[WP:OSE|other stuff exists]]. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are [[WP:GOODARTICLE|classified as good articles]].<br /> :Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves and their work; articles summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:NWRITER|a notable creative professional]] or more broadly [[WP:BIO|a notable person]]. If you have independent reliable sources that chose on their own to give you significant coverage and tell what makes you important/significant/influential as a writer or person, that's what we need summarized- we don't just want sources documeting your work. Please see [[WP:YFA|Your first article]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 00:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, which violates the core content policy [[WP:V|Verifiability]]. Wikipedia is uninterested in what you know about yourself. Over 99% of efforts to write an autobiography end up as frustrating failures. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 01:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{HD/WINI}} [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 17:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 09:13, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Tamillifehacking ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Tamillifehacking|ts=09:13, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Dhayanidhi SK}}<br /> I Submitted My Article but the article was declined, anyone can help me, please?<br /> I don't what the problem anyone help to improve my article. [[User:Tamillifehacking|Tamillifehacking]] ([[User talk:Tamillifehacking|talk]]) 09:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :IMDB, YouTube, Wiki Commons and Wikipedia, your own website and Google search are not reliable independent sources. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 09:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 11:49, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Venkatesh Pechetti ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Venkatesh Pechetti|ts=11:49, 14 March 2024|draft=User:Venkatesh_Pechetti/sandbox}}<br /> I am writing my own biography..in sandbox.. For that what type of references should i have to include.. if not have reference then what is the process... please help me.. thank you [[User:Venkatesh Pechetti|Venkatesh Pechetti]] ([[User talk:Venkatesh Pechetti|talk]]) 11:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]]. Wikipedia is interested in what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] say about a topic, not what it says about itself. If you truly meet the [[WP:BIO|special Wikipedia definition of a notable person]], someone will eventually take note of coverage of you in independent sources and choose to write about you. Keep in mind that [[WP:PROUD|an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing]]. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 11:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 12:53, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Peppa pig e minha fds ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Peppa pig e minha fds|ts=12:53, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Bingus_cat}}<br /> I was declined for a unfair reason, i clearly did what was asked and was still declined [[User:Peppa pig e minha fds|Peppa pig e minha fds]] ([[User talk:Peppa pig e minha fds|talk]]) 12:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Very few of your sources have to do with the cat, and those that do are inappropriate(mostly social media). The draft was correctly declined. Any draft about this cat must summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage like news reports say about it.<br /> :I get the sense that this could be your cat. If so, you need to declare a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Peppa pig e minha fds|Peppa pig e minha fds]], I have had a look at your draft and noticed quite a few grammar mistakes that need fixing. Additionally, I didn't see any [[Help:Link|wikilinks]] included, it might be a good idea to add some. The main issue with your draft is the lack of [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] backing up what you've written. It's important to include sources that give [[Wikipedia:Sigcov|significant coverage]] of the topic and support your points. Also, you've included a lot of details about the subject, so perhaps it's a good idea to trim some of the unnecessary ones. Regarding reference numbers 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 15, it would be wise to replace them with more reliable sources. I wanted to provide you with some detailed feedback. I hope this helps. – [[User:DreamRimmer|&lt;b style=&quot;color:black; font-family: Tahoma&quot;&gt;DreamRimmer&lt;/b&gt;]] ('''[[User talk:DreamRimmer|talk]]''') 13:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 13:48, 14 March 2024 review of submission by RAGYoung2024 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=RAGYoung2024|ts=13:48, 14 March 2024|draft=User:RAGYoung2024/sandbox}}<br /> Good morning, is there somone that can give me assistnance in setting up my Wikipedia page. [[User:RAGYoung2024|RAGYoung2024]] ([[User talk:RAGYoung2024|talk]]) 13:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:RAGYoung2024|RAGYoung2024]]: what do you mean by &quot;my Wikipedia page&quot;? Your user page? See [[WP:UP]]. Your first article? See [[WP:YFA]]. An article ''about'' you? Don't. See [[WP:AUTOBIO]]. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::In regards to setting up the article. [[User:RAGYoung2024|RAGYoung2024]] ([[User talk:RAGYoung2024|talk]]) 14:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::&quot;''The'' article&quot;? Still not sure what you mean, but one of the links I provided should give you the answer. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 14:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Your phrase &quot;setting up my Wikipedia page&quot; suggests that, like many people, you are confusing Wikipedia with social media. <br /> :This is an encyclopaedia. We don't &quot;set up pages&quot; here: we ''write articles'', which are neutrally-written summaries of what [[WP:42|reliable indepenent sources]] have published about a subject. {{HD/WINI}} [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 17:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 14:04, 14 March 2024 review of submission by MobeenYounasDigitalCreator ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=MobeenYounasDigitalCreator|ts=14:04, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Agha Majid}}<br /> Which type of reference do I have to use in the article, &amp; How can I improve the article? [[User:MobeenYounasDigitalCreator|MobeenYounasDigitalCreator]] ([[User talk:MobeenYounasDigitalCreator|talk]]) 14:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :IMDb is not a reliable source because it is user edited, so that one needs to go. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 14:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{u|MobeenYounasDigitalCreator}} I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the &quot;Draft:&quot; portion). You have no sources that indicate this person meets [[WP:NACTOR]]. Assassination requires a political motivation for an attack, and I see no sources that describe shooting at this person as an assassination.<br /> :You identify yourself as a digital creator. If you are compensated for this, the terms of use require you to disclose that, see [[WP:PAID]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 14:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I have no option to select MobeenYounas as a username, so I have to keep my username as mobeenyounasdigitalcreator. Now, tell me a way how to change the username. [[User:MobeenYounasDigitalCreator|MobeenYounasDigitalCreator]] ([[User talk:MobeenYounasDigitalCreator|talk]]) 14:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::You don't need to change your username; you need to comply with [[WP:PAID]] per the terms of use if your job is a content creator or marketer. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 14:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::They would probably be best advised to change their user name, as a quick Google search shows this is a business name. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 14:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::The name is fine as they seem to be Mr. Younas. They need to make the paid disclosure, though. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::No it is not paid content and tell me how to improve this article? Help me to rewrite it so i can understand what mistake i have done. [[User:MobeenYounasDigitalCreator|MobeenYounasDigitalCreator]] ([[User talk:MobeenYounasDigitalCreator|talk]]) 15:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::If your job is a digital content creator, you are a paid editor, you do not need to be specifically paid to make edits. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> {{od}}The draft is rife with [[Name-dropping]]. A person does not become notable by associating with other notable people. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 16:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 14:57, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Rizzler29 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Rizzler29|ts=14:57, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Steamy_Football_Club}}<br /> hey man, where do you think i can get references that solidify my article? If i cant find anything does that just mean this shouldnt be a wikipedia article in the first place? I wanted to make this as a way to follow and update people I know on the football club in question. Thanks, Onni [[User:Rizzler29|Rizzler29]] ([[User talk:Rizzler29|talk]]) 14:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :An article must summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] say about the topic. As you did not provide any such sources, the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Rizzler29|Rizzler29]]: I rejected this as not only did you not provide any meaningful sources to establish notability, I couldn't find any when I searched myself (nothing at all for 'Steamy Football Club', and only a few useless hits for 'Steamy FC'), which is not surprising as I doubt there are any for a club of this calibre. If the team is part of [[Laajasalon Palloseura]], you may be able to include a mention of it in that article, but only if supported by reliable sources. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 17:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 15:14, 14 March 2024 review of submission by 2603:8080:DBF0:8BE0:8879:84E2:1616:63BF ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=2603:8080:DBF0:8BE0:8879:84E2:1616:63BF|ts=15:14, 14 March 2024|draft=Paula Maya}}<br /> I'm not sure how to do this. The page title should be my professional name, Paula Maya. But the sandbox didn't let me add the title. So it's under Burleyhr sandbox. Is that the reason why it was declined? Should I create an account with my artistic name Paula Maya?<br /> <br /> Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/2603:8080:DBF0:8BE0:8879:84E2:1616:63BF|2603:8080:DBF0:8BE0:8879:84E2:1616:63BF]] ([[User talk:2603:8080:DBF0:8BE0:8879:84E2:1616:63BF|talk]]) 15:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Please log into your account before posting. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Courtesy link [[Draft:Paula Maya]] which has one unsourced sentence and nothing else. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 17:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :There is no connection between the name of an account, and the name of any article that account creates or edits. ''But'' writing about yourself is strongly discouraged: see [[WP:autobiography|autobiography]]. <br /> :Writing a Wikipedia article is a challenging task for an inexperienced editors, and even more if they have a conflict of interest. I advise not trying it at all until you have spent several months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have learnt about [[WP:reliable sources|reliable sources]], [[WP:verifiability|verifiability]], [[WP:neutral point of view|neutral point of view]], and [[WP:notability|notability]], you can read [[WP:your first article|your first article]], and decide whether or not your subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 17:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::That draft bears no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 18:07, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Thibaukes ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Thibaukes|ts=18:07, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Xianye_Li}}<br /> I want to make a page for my friend.<br /> Could i get any tips? [[User:Thibaukes|Thibaukes]] ([[User talk:Thibaukes|talk]]) 18:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about your friend. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] like the news say about people that [[WP:BIO|are notable as Wikipedia defines the term]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 18:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Yes...don't. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 18:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{u|Thibaukes}}, here is my tip. Go write about your friend on your favorite social media platform, not here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles about [[WP:GNG|notable topics]]. An ordinary 13 year old child is not notable. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 18:34, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Radha krishna 123 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Radha krishna 123|ts=18:34, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Aacharya_Sri_K_R_Manoj}}<br /> Please help in adding reference<br /> [[User:Radha krishna 123|Radha krishna 123]] ([[User talk:Radha krishna 123|talk]]) 18:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Radha krishna 123|Radha krishna 123]]: this draft has been rejected (twice), and will therefore not be considered further. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 18:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 19:17, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Klamakin ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Klamakin|ts=19:17, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Alla_Smirnova}}<br /> Dear Help Desk, <br /> <br /> Reaching out for help with the article (my first on Wikipedia) that got rejected. Any guidance for the suggested edits will be very much appreciated. <br /> <br /> Thank you. [[User:Klamakin|Klamakin]] ([[User talk:Klamakin|talk]]) 19:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Rejection means that it won't be considered further. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you for getting back to me. Is there anything I can do in the article for the reject status to be re-considered? [[User:Klamakin|Klamakin]] ([[User talk:Klamakin|talk]]) 20:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :That question was answered yesterday, at [[#03:19, 13 March 2024 review of submission by Klamakin]]. If you manage to find suitable sources (each one of which meets the criteria in [[WP:42]]) and write an acceptable draft, then you can contact the reviewer who rejected it and ask them to reconsider. Please don't waste their time (or your own) unless you have found such sources. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 19:29, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Eggs111 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Eggs111|ts=19:29, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Zhwe with breve}}<br /> I'm not mad, but I would like to know the reason for this rejection.I want to know how I could improve next time.<br /> Thanks. [[User:Eggs111|Eggs111]] ([[User talk:Eggs111|talk]]) 19:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I know why it got declined now. Thanks [[User:Eggs111|Eggs111]] ([[User talk:Eggs111|talk]]) 19:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 20:09, 14 March 2024 review of submission by IgalSX ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=IgalSX|ts=20:09, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Igal_Stulbach}}<br /> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Igal_Stulbach. &lt;&lt; declined because not supported by reliable source...I think it includes several known and reliable sources What should I do to approve the page? [[User:IgalSX|IgalSX]] ([[User talk:IgalSX|talk]]) 20:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Asked and answered at the Teahouse. Please don't post questions in multiple places. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 22:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 20:17, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Chennaiwiki20 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Chennaiwiki20|ts=20:17, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:John_Ahiya_Naan_(2022)}}<br /> got error : <br /> John Ahiya Naan: Directed by Appu k Sami. With Arul Anbalahan, Nakshatra Rao, Nizhalgal Ravi, Appu k Sami. Truth always killed by lies, finally truth will win [[User:Chennaiwiki20|Chennaiwiki20]] ([[User talk:Chennaiwiki20|talk]]) 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :An acceptable Wikipedia article is based on what [[WP: 42|independent, reliable sources]] say about the subject. You have cited two mere listings, and two Wikipedia articles (which can never be cited, as Wikipedia is not a [[WP:reliable source|reliable source]]. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 22:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 21:48, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Hkc345 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Hkc345|ts=21:48, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Jorge_Suárez_(pianist)}}<br /> Hi, I have an undisclosed tag on the Wikipedia page even though I have disclosed on my talk page that I am being paid to edit. Do I have to disclose it somewhere else?<br /> Thank you [[User:Hkc345|Hkc345]] ([[User talk:Hkc345|talk]]) 21:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :I see somebody has removed that tag, and replaced it with a different one. In my opinion, it is far too promotional. Great long lists of people and places he has played with do not serve Wikipedia, they only serve him. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 22:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 23:01, 14 March 2024 review of submission by Thegibster1 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Thegibster1|ts=23:01, 14 March 2024|draft=Draft:Pro_wrestler:Nikson_Mellen}}<br /> the editor is biased [[User:Thegibster1|Thegibster1]] ([[User talk:Thegibster1|talk]]) 23:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Thegibster1|thegibster1]]: ok? what's your question? [[user:ltbdl|ltb]][[user:ltbdl/d|&lt;span style=&quot;color:orange&quot;&gt;d&lt;/span&gt;]][[user:ltbdl|l]] ([[user talk:ltbdl|talk]]) 05:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> = March 15 =<br /> <br /> == 01:00, 15 March 2024 review of submission by 136.36.47.34 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=136.36.47.34|ts=01:00, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Wiz_Mud}}<br /> I HAVE A COMPLAINT<br /> The reason it was rejected was &quot;Wikipedia articles are not for stuff made up in one day.&quot;<br /> I DID NOT INVENT WIZ MUD<br /> SOMEBODY ELSE DID<br /> AND IT WAS NOT MADE UP IN ONE DAY<br /> IT WAS CREATED IN 2017<br /> BRUH WHY ARE THE EDITORS ALWAYS CAPPING BRUH!!!!! [[Special:Contributions/136.36.47.34|136.36.47.34]] ([[User talk:136.36.47.34|talk]]) 01:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Your draft has been rejected and won't be considered any longer. – [[User:DreamRimmer|&lt;b style=&quot;color:black; font-family: Tahoma&quot;&gt;DreamRimmer&lt;/b&gt;]] ('''[[User talk:DreamRimmer|talk]]''') 05:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Your draft violates Wikipedia's core content policies and is simply not appropriate for this encyclopedia. Discuss this game on social media if you want to, but not here. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 07:12, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Srinivaschinka90 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Srinivaschinka90|ts=07:12, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:CHINKA_SRINIVASA_RAO}}<br /> I have established myself in my field and Wikipedia helps me in stating that I'm genuine person for those who don't me personally and Wikipedia will help me to grow my name in longer wide online rather I struggling in off-line [[User:Srinivaschinka90|Srinivaschinka90]] ([[User talk:Srinivaschinka90|talk]]) 07:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Srinivaschinka90|Srinivaschinka90]]: try LinkedIn or something similar. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for promoting yourself. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 07:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 07:17, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Rajaranics37 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Rajaranics37|ts=07:17, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:CHINKA_SRINIVASA_RAO}}<br /> Why [[User:Rajaranics37|Rajaranics37]] ([[User talk:Rajaranics37|talk]]) 07:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :...is this your other account? [[user:ltbdl|ltb]][[user:ltbdl/d|&lt;span style=&quot;color:orange&quot;&gt;d&lt;/span&gt;]][[user:ltbdl|l]] ([[user talk:ltbdl|talk]]) 07:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 07:38, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Kaiumkhan321 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Kaiumkhan321|ts=07:38, 15 March 2024|draft=Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User talk:Kaiumkhan321&amp;oldid=1211776518}}<br /> Why this page is not getting published, working hard for more than 2 years and provided with sufficient links to proof including government links, kindly look into it. [[User:Kaiumkhan321|Kaiumkhan321]] ([[User talk:Kaiumkhan321|talk]]) 07:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Kaiumkhan321|Kaiumkhan321]]: you're pointing to your user talk page, we don't publish those as articles, obviously (and you shouldn't use it to develop article content, either). If instead you mean [[Draft:Abdul Kashim Khan]], then that draft was deleted months ago. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 07:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 10:34, 15 March 2024 review of submission by 203.123.39.86 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=203.123.39.86|ts=10:34, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Vh1_Jagazu}}<br /> what are the reasons for rejection [[Special:Contributions/203.123.39.86|203.123.39.86]] ([[User talk:203.123.39.86|talk]]) 10:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :there is one sentence. [[user:ltbdl|ltb]][[user:ltbdl/d|&lt;span style=&quot;color:orange&quot;&gt;d&lt;/span&gt;]][[user:ltbdl|l]] ([[user talk:ltbdl|talk]]) 11:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 12:25, 15 March 2024 review of submission by İstbull ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=İstbull|ts=12:25, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Samdaqu}}<br /> Hi, we are trying to create our university's wikipedia, however, can you help us with this, will it be accepted if we put external links or our university's own page as a reference? [[User:İstbull|Cem Barut]] 12:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Wikipedia articles are not for organizations to tell the world about themselves Articles summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:ORG|a notable organization]].<br /> :If you are an employee of the university, that must be disclosed according to the Terms of Use, see [[WP:PAID]] for instructions. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{u|İstbull}}, your draft is much more like a promotional essay than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 17:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 14:01, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Puck Osborne ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Puck Osborne|ts=14:01, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:John_May_(architect)}}<br /> I have made the revisions as requested but want to make sure I have resolved all the issues adequately before resubmitting. Thanks! [[User:Puck Osborne|Puck Osborne]] ([[User talk:Puck Osborne|talk]]) 14:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Hello, we don't really do pre-review reviews here- the best way to get feedback is to submit it. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 14:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 15:16, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Friendbelittler ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Friendbelittler|ts=15:16, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Tracey Brakes}}<br /> Hi there! My page was declined and I figured I would ask point blank what things I would need to add to demonstrate that the artist meets the notability guidelines. Would the inclusion of additional coverage from reputable sources independent of the artist (like her Splice interview) be sufficient? [[User:Friendbelittler|Friendbelittler]] ([[User talk:Friendbelittler|talk]]) 15:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{u|Friendbelittler}} I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. <br /> :Interviews do not contribute to notability as interviews are not independent sources, being the person speaking about themselves. You need to show how she meets [[WP:BAND|the definition of a notable musician]] with significant coverage in independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that chose on their own to give the coverage. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks for your reply! I'll give the guidelines a more thorough read and resubmit in the future when I think she's met the criteria. [[User:Friendbelittler|Friendbelittler]] ([[User talk:Friendbelittler|talk]]) 15:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Friendbelittler|Friendbelittler]]: you would need to cite sources that meet the [[WP:GNG]] notability guideline, or else provide evidence that the subject satisfies the [[WP:MUSICBIO]] one. The sources currently provided fall far short of either.<br /> :And just resubmitting the article without any improvement after it has been declined is not going to get you anywhere, other than eventually resulting in a rejected draft with no option to resubmit. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 15:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Good to know about the possibility of rejection on resubmission, thanks! [[User:Friendbelittler|Friendbelittler]] ([[User talk:Friendbelittler|talk]]) 15:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 16:03, 15 March 2024 review of submission by PratikPatel0795 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=PratikPatel0795|ts=16:03, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Pratik_Patel_(PC)}}<br /> Please let me know about modifications in this article. [[User:PratikPatel0795|PratikPatel0795]] ([[User talk:PratikPatel0795|talk]]) 16:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:PratikPatel0795|PratikPatel0795]]: this draft has been deleted as promotional. Please note that you should not be writing about yourself, see [[WP:AUTOBIO]]. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 16:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 17:18, 15 March 2024 review of submission by LRW123 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=LRW123|ts=17:18, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Swiss Diet and Health Foundation}}<br /> Article for creation rejected because sources are not considered notable. When I have used all the secondary sources that I could find on the subject, what else can be done to get the article published? ` [[User:LRW123|LRW123]] ([[User talk:LRW123|talk]]) 17:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:LRW123|LRW123]]: this was declined, not rejected; rejection would mean that you cannot resubmit, whereas declined drafts can be submitted again once you've addressed the decline reasons. That said, if you cannot find better sources, then the subject may be not notable enough to justify an article. There isn't anything else that can be done, as notability cannot be magically conjured out of thin air. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 17:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you for your quick action and clarification on the matter! [[User:LRW123|LRW123]] ([[User talk:LRW123|talk]]) 12:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Another question, why is there a note that says my article has paid contributions, when I go to edit the article? [[User:LRW123|LRW123]] ([[User talk:LRW123|talk]]) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:LRW123|LRW123]]: you've declared general COI in this subject, but should you have declared the more specific COI of paid editing? Which is another way of asking, what is your relationship with this organisation?<br /> :::The paid contributions template is just flagging up that the text may require editing for neutral POV etc. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 14:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 21:51, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Peanutlover2024 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Peanutlover2024|ts=21:51, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Yasunari Takeshima}}<br /> Why my page has declined?<br /> What is missing in my page? [[User:Peanutlover2024|Peanutlover2024]] ([[User talk:Peanutlover2024|talk]]) 21:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{u|Peanutlover2024}} I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft. Your draft has no sources to support its content. Please see [[WP:REFB|referencing for beginners]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 23:22, 15 March 2024 review of submission by Mazula258 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Mazula258|ts=23:22, 15 March 2024|draft=Draft:Brazão_Mazula}}<br /> Hello I am trying to add an information panel using Wikidata? Any help appreciated. [[User:Mazula258|Mazula258]] ([[User talk:Mazula258|talk]]) 23:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> = March 16 =<br /> <br /> == 04:21, 16 March 2024 review of submission by ScriptKKiddie ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=ScriptKKiddie|ts=04:21, 16 March 2024|draft=Draft:Fraud_Risk_Management}}<br /> I need help finding reliable sources and ensuring the accuracy of my article on Fraud Risk Management. Can I get feedback from other Wikipedians? [[User:ScriptKKiddie|ScriptKKiddie]] ([[User talk:ScriptKKiddie|talk]]) 04:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:ScriptKKiddie|scriptkkiddie]]: stop using chatgpt to write an article. [[user:ltbdl|ltb]][[user:ltbdl/d|&lt;span style=&quot;color:orange&quot;&gt;d&lt;/span&gt;]][[user:ltbdl|l]] ([[user talk:ltbdl|talk]]) 07:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 08:04, 16 March 2024 review of submission by LetsGetBotanical ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=LetsGetBotanical|ts=08:04, 16 March 2024|draft=Draft:Louisa_Grace_Fortescue}}<br /> Hi! I've just embarked on an a quest to create pages for overlooked female botanists. I've hit a hurdle with my first attempt.<br /> <br /> I have written about Louisa Grace Fortescue, Lady Clermont, who discovered a fern known as Lady Clermont's Spleenwort. It took me *days* of research to find out who Lady Clermont was and so I decided that no-one else should have to struggle like I did.<br /> <br /> I created a page, linked her to her husband and father, who both have pages, and added in her discovery - a fern that was thought to be a new species, and subsequently was one of the first ferns to be suspected (and then confirmed) as a hybrid. It has a hybrid binomial in her honour, Asplenium x clermontiae.<br /> <br /> Unfortunately my article has been rejected on notability grounds, but this feels a bit subjective. Her husband has a wikipedia page after all, and - if I was being facetious - I'd say that all he ever did was 'be born an artistocrat'. Lady Clermont actually *did* something!<br /> <br /> Checking notability guidelines, I see that one criteria is &quot;The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field&quot; - like discovering a fern named after you.<br /> <br /> Thanks,<br /> LetsGetBotanical [[User:LetsGetBotanical|LetsGetBotanical]] ([[User talk:LetsGetBotanical|talk]]) 08:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I have to say I'm rather surprised that this was rejected rather than declined, by an admin as well. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 08:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I think I see why he did- she discovered the fern, but the botany advances were made by others long after her death. In looking at the sources, they don't seem to extensively describe her influence on this. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks! Any idea what I can do? [[User:LetsGetBotanical|LetsGetBotanical]] ([[User talk:LetsGetBotanical|talk]]) 19:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Just because there exists an article on her husband is certainly no reason to create one on her. Especially as that article possibly shouldn't exist either, as notability isn't demonstrated by the cited sources (two cites of a book written by himself, one cite of a deprecated source, and one with only the briefest of passing mentions). -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 10:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::How do we get that deleted then? And on that point, how is an article like this: [[2021 Rugby World Cup squads]] notable, but the discoverer of a fern isn't? I *am* being facetious but it feels there is a lot of personal preference involved in this process. [[User:LetsGetBotanical|LetsGetBotanical]] ([[User talk:LetsGetBotanical|talk]]) 19:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Please see [[WP:AFD|Articles for Deletion]] to learn about the process. National rugby teams are usually extensively covered in independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. The main issue here is that sources do not give Lady Clermont extensive coverage. She could likely be mentioned in an article about the fern, she just doesn't seem to merit a standalone article. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 10:49, 16 March 2024 review of submission by Coco Adnan ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Coco Adnan|ts=10:49, 16 March 2024|draft=Draft:Nameer_Khan}}<br /> If I add more info on this budding actor with relevant sources, will I be able to continue editing? [[User:Coco Adnan|Coco Adnan]] ([[User talk:Coco Adnan|talk]]) 10:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Coco Adnan|Coco Adnan]]: technically speaking you can continue editing, but you cannot resubmit it for another review. If you can demonstrate notability clearly and unequivocally, you may appeal to the reviewer who rejected this, but that's only worth doing if notability is obviously there. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 10:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks for getting back. So, would it be better to just restart again? rather than editing this draft (which has already been rejected) [[User:Coco Adnan|Coco Adnan]] ([[User talk:Coco Adnan|talk]]) 10:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Coco Adnan|Coco Adnan]]: no, that could be interpreted as an attempt to game the system. Make your edits to this draft, and take your case (assuming notability is demonstrated) to the last reviewer. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 11:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::&quot;Budding actor&quot; almost certainly means they do not yet meet the [[WP:NACTOR|definition of a notable actor]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 11:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::so how does this work? If I re-edit the article and cannot resubmit it for another review, how will I get it reviewed then? [[User:Coco Adnan|Coco Adnan]] ([[User talk:Coco Adnan|talk]]) 11:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Coco Adnan|Coco Adnan]]: for the ''third'' time, you need to make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft. That's how this works.<br /> :::But as 331dot points out, &quot;budding&quot;, as well as &quot;actor who recently made his acting debut&quot;, etc. imply pretty much the polar opposite of notable, so you may well be on a hiding to nothing here. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 11:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::will circle back once the actor has more body of work. can this page pls be deleted till then? thanks. [[User:Coco Adnan|Coco Adnan]] ([[User talk:Coco Adnan|talk]]) 11:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::It can be, but it can also remain so that there is a starting point for later; other than by request, drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 11:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 16:28, 16 March 2024 review of submission by Kchoose2 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Kchoose2|ts=16:28, 16 March 2024|draft=Draft:Valeriya_Gogunskaya}}<br /> Brand new to contributing. I believe this person is worthy of an entry, because I came here looking for information on her and, finding none, tried to start a page that others could contribute to. Two tries came up short and I am wondering what I can do next. Thanks! [[User:Kchoose2|Kchoose2]] ([[User talk:Kchoose2|talk]]) 16:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{u|Kchoose2}} You have only two sources; to pass this process most reviewers look for at least three sources to be summarized. And as noted, one of the two sources is an interview, which does not contribute to notability, and the other just mentions her video. These are not significant coverage of this person, showing how they meet [[WP:BIO]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 19:17, 16 March 2024 review of submission by Mr Francesco Miranda ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Mr Francesco Miranda|ts=19:17, 16 March 2024|draft=Draft:Ludwig_Albert}}<br /> I sent the article for review two times, but I think that I did not really understand what is wrong. So could anyone tell me how to fix it?<br /> Thanks! [[User:Mr Francesco Miranda|Mr Francesco Miranda]] ([[User talk:Mr Francesco Miranda|talk]]) 19:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Part of the issue is that your citations are not next to the information they are citing. See [[WP:REFB|referencing for beginners]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 22:00, 16 March 2024 review of submission by Matttimings ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Matttimings|ts=22:00, 16 March 2024|draft=Draft:Liam Turnbull}}<br /> Hi there,<br /> <br /> Hoping for some pointers on what more would be required here, the individual is what I believe qualifies as &quot;notable&quot; as he's a multiple world record holder in powerlifting and I provided references to rankings, however, this is my first Wiki creation so I appreciate that I could have done something wrong. Any pointers would be much appreciated.<br /> <br /> Many thanks,<br /> Matt T [[User:Matttimings|Matttimings]] ([[User talk:Matttimings|talk]]) 22:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{u|Matttimings}} I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. He may be notable, but most if not all of the sources you have do not have significant coverage of him. Some sources are just his businesses, which are not independent sources.<br /> <br /> :If you work for him, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see [[WP:PAID]]. You did declare a COI, but the paid editing declaration is stricter. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 22:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Many thanks for the suggestions, I do not work for him although I have used his mentorship service previously. I've added some more references in, hoping that'll be enough [[User:Matttimings|Matttimings]] ([[User talk:Matttimings|talk]]) 23:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> = March 17 =<br /> <br /> == 05:57, 17 March 2024 review of submission by Jaclyn.v108 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Jaclyn.v108|ts=05:57, 17 March 2024|draft=Draft:River_Faught}}<br /> My article was declined for lacking enough references but I have quite a few, 41 total, most of which are not published by the subject. Can you please elaborate or give me any tips on how to add enough references? What else do you see that I can reference? I’ve seen other wiki pages with way fewer references than mine. Please assist. [[User:Jaclyn.v108|Jaclyn.v108]] ([[User talk:Jaclyn.v108|talk]]) 05:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Jaclyn.v108|Jaclyn.v108]]: the sources you're citing are user-generated or otherwise of poor quality, failing both the core requirements of [[WP:verifiability|verifiability]] and [[WP:notability|notability]]. Meanwhile, almost the entire body text is unreferenced: the referencing only appears in the 'Filmography' and later sections. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Please see [[WP:OSE|other stuff exists]]; what happens on other articles(that themselves could be problematic, and you wouldn't be aware of this) is not that relevant. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are [[WP:GOODARTICLE|classified as good articles]], which have received community vetting. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 09:47, 17 March 2024 review of submission by Vis-Techeditor ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Vis-Techeditor|ts=09:47, 17 March 2024|draft=Draft:Sam_Beklik}}<br /> Could you please clarify exactly what you tagged for deletion on this article? The last feedback and review, in August 2023 by Johannes, suggested that the article requires stronger references and improvement in terms of its unencyclopedic tone. There is no promotion in this article. it is solely the biography of the artist. [[User:Vis-Techeditor|Vis-Techeditor]] ([[User talk:Vis-Techeditor|talk]]) 09:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Vis-Techeditor|vis-techeditor]]: oh ''come'' on.<br /> :{{tqb|Beklik embarked on his artistic journey with a focus on photography at MTF Tehran. He further honed his skills at the International Summer Academy for Fine Arts in Salzburg, Austria. Seeking a more comprehensive artistic foundation, he pursued studies in stage and costume design, film, and exhibition architecture at Mozarteum University Salzburg.}} [[user:ltbdl|ltb]][[user:ltbdl/d|&lt;span style=&quot;color:orange&quot;&gt;d&lt;/span&gt;]][[user:ltbdl|l]] ([[user talk:ltbdl|talk]]) 11:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you, [[User:Ltbdl|ltb]][[User:Ltbdl/d|d]][[User:Ltbdl|l]], for the feedback! But I'm still confused about how this is written in a promotional tone. Do you have any suggestions for improving this paragraph? [[User:Vis-Techeditor|Vis-Techeditor]] ([[User talk:Vis-Techeditor|talk]]) 13:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::You declared a conflict of interest with regards to this individual, what is the general nature of the conflict? I'm just wondering if you have a marketing background and perhaps are unable to see how you are being promotional.<br /> :::Language like &quot;journey&quot; and &quot;honed his skills&quot; is just promotional fluff. Articles should be written as dry and matter-of-fact as possible [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thank you [[User:331dot|331dot]] for the feedback. is it now better now? <br /> ::::Beklik studied photography at MTF Tehran before continuing his education at the International Summer Academy for Fine Arts in Salzburg, Austria. He then pursued studies in stage and costume design, film, and exhibition architecture at Mozarteum University Salzburg. [[User:Vis-Techeditor|Vis-Techeditor]] ([[User talk:Vis-Techeditor|talk]]) 13:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I ask again, what is the general nature of your conflict of interest? I see that you took a picture of this individual, how do you know him?<br /> :::::There are still many promotional areas of the text; the last reviewer has rejected the draft and nominated it for speedy deletion. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 13:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::I'm writing as the artist's assistant, and I want to confirm that I have this photo directly from the artist. Yes i see and that makes me confused because on the last review, in August 2023 by Johannes, suggested that the article requires stronger references and improvement in terms of its unencyclopedic tone, as i did but today another reviewer has rejected the draft. is there any way to fix it? [[User:Vis-Techeditor|Vis-Techeditor]] ([[User talk:Vis-Techeditor|talk]]) 13:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Thank you; if by being his assistant you mean he employs you, the Terms of Use require you to make the [[WP:PAID|paid editing disclosure]], which is stricter that the COI disclosure.<br /> :::::::You may discuss the rejection with the reviewer that rejected it, that's the first step. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 14:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::Thank you [[User:Vis-Techeditor|Vis-Techeditor]] ([[User talk:Vis-Techeditor|talk]]) 14:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 11:45, 17 March 2024 review of submission by MasterOfNone67 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=MasterOfNone67|ts=11:45, 17 March 2024|draft=Draft:Watchlist_(play)}}<br /> I'm a first time Wikipedia page creator / editor and need assistance creating a page. Any advice on how to improve my current draft would be much appreciated. [[User:MasterOfNone67|MasterOfNone67]] ([[User talk:MasterOfNone67|talk]]) 11:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 15:36, 17 March 2024 review of submission by KülTegin.Alp ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=KülTegin.Alp|ts=15:36, 17 March 2024|draft=Draft:World_Alpagut_Federation}}<br /> We want to publish this page, please review the page and help if there are any errors. [[User:KülTegin.Alp|KülTegin.Alp]] ([[User talk:KülTegin.Alp|talk]]) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :You have submitted the article for review. Please be patient. <br /> :But while you are waiting, you should do what the comment says, and remove all [[WP:external link|external link]]s from the text. <br /> :You should also review all your cited sources against the criteria in the [[WP:golden rule|golden rule]], and remove most of those which are not [[WP:IS|indepedent]] of the WAF (such as anything based on interview and press releases). {{HD/WINI}} [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 09:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 16:37, 17 March 2024 review of submission by 1Mamalujo ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=1Mamalujo|ts=16:37, 17 March 2024|draft=Draft:Columbia_30}}<br /> I'm a bit confused why this article was denied based on sourcing. The type of sourcing used is typical for articles on production sailboats: owners association pages, manufacturer data, and sailboat data guides like https://sailboatdata.com, https://sailboat.guide, and https://sailboatlab.com. See this article as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_34. Same sources.Now, I understand that the formatting for the citations was a bit screwy, but that can easily be fixed by an editor proficient in such things. There may be boats which sold in the thousands like the Catalina 30 which have broad press coverage, but that is not the case with most boats and most of such articles on Wikipedia. The sources cited are reliable. Most of the facts are boat spec and dimensions, matters about which owners associations, sailboat data sites, and manufacturer sites give reliable info. This isn't some controversial political subject where reported facts are controversial and varying and super rigorous sourcing is needed. It seems a shame to deny the readers an article on a boat made by a highly notable manufacturer. Also, the article was denied puportedly based on sourcing, not notability. [[User:1Mamalujo|1Mamalujo]] ([[User talk:1Mamalujo|talk]]) 16:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Not every individual model of boat merits an article. It depends on the coverage. Please see [[WP:OSE|other stuff exists]] as to why the existence of other articles that themselves may be problematic cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. Please point out these other articles so action can be taken. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 17:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The boat was reviewed, upon its debut, in the New York Times, and noted for its &quot;'years ahead' innovations in yacht design&quot;, citing three specific such &quot;design breakthrough(s)&quot;. Sounds a bit more notable than just &quot;other stuff&quot;. Thousands of production yacht models have been made. Few of them are even reviewed, much less given accolades for multiple &quot;design breakthroughs&quot; in one of the Anglophone world's papers of record such as the New York times. I've now cited the NYT article in the draft. [[User:1Mamalujo|1Mamalujo]] ([[User talk:1Mamalujo|talk]]) 18:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::The NYT article reads to me as &quot;these are the wonderful things that Tripp says he has done&quot;, not as an independent review. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 09:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 19:12, 17 March 2024 review of submission by Itsarnovnm ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Itsarnovnm|ts=19:12, 17 March 2024|draft=Draft:Arno_Vanmassenhove}}<br /> Dear Wikipedia Editorial Team,<br /> <br /> We noticed the cancellation of our client Arno Vanmassenhove's Wikipedia page and would appreciate clarification on the decision. Arno's significant contributions to entrepreneurship and personal development warrant recognition on Wikipedia. We are eager to address any concerns and ensure the accuracy of his page.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your attention.<br /> <br /> Sincerely,<br /> <br /> Cris Cawley<br /> Game Changer Publishing [[User:Itsarnovnm|Itsarnovnm]] ([[User talk:Itsarnovnm|talk]]) 19:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :First, only a single person should be operating your account. <br /> :Your draft was wholly promotional and has no place on Wikipedia. If you were specifically paid to edit Wikipedia, I suggest you return his money. You have much to learn before you can write in the area of your conflict of interest. Please see [[WP:PROMO]], [[WP:BIO]], and [[WP:YFA|Your first article]]. Wikipedia is not a form of recognition or means to honor someone. Our only interest is in summarizing independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 20:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> <br /> = March 18 =<br /> <br /> == 00:06, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Shadokp ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Shadokp|ts=00:06, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Glenda Allen}}<br /> I have worked very hard compiling so much information about this under appreciated actress and model but with IMDB not a reliable source there is really no way to prove that this actress was in any movie even ones she is credited it. In Dracula AD 1972 multiple sources have her and another model named Flannagan uncredited in the movie but there is a Flannagan article in Wikipedia that lists her uncredited for the movie. how is it possible for any uncredited listing in Wikipedia if there is no evidence. Also much of the proof is available in photos and movie posters but none of that is available because of copyright. There are people who have less credits who have pages. It is most frustrating. Thank you for you time in helping me. [[User:Shadokp|Shadokp]] ([[User talk:Shadokp|talk]]) 00:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{u|Shadokp}} I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. &quot;Under appreciated actress&quot; is a strong indicator that [[WP:TOOSOON|she does not yet]] meet the [[WP:NACTOR|special Wikipedia definition of a notable actress]]. Credits are sufficient to establish participation in a film, but Wikipedia articles need more, they need independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage of her that are summarized in the article. Wikipedia is not a place to pubilcize someone or otherwise ensure that they are appreciated- they must first be noticed and get the coverage needed for an article, not the other way around. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows the coverage.<br /> :Please see [[WP:OSE|other stuff exists]]; there are likely many inappropriate articles on Wikipedia(especially about actors) and volunteers don't have time to get around to addressing them all; this cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. If you would like to help us, please identify other inappropriate articles you see for possible action. We need the help. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Shadokp|Shadokp]]: even if you could find proof that this person had uncredited roles in some films, that would almost certainly not be enough to make her notable. Your task is to demonstrate notability by either the [[WP:GNG]] or [[WP:NACTOR]] guidelines, and that does require much more than simply proving that she existed and did a bit of acting or modelling work. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 08:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks - I guess there are other places to archive this type of information. Wikipedia becomes less accurate due to the lack of information that is not allowed. So much is going to be lost to history because of no proof. I understand the concept and reasons given but I have to imagine most of what is listed on Wikipedia is taken from other sites or common knowledge. Proving someone existed is a bit odd. [[User:Shadokp|Shadokp]] ([[User talk:Shadokp|talk]]) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::No one is asking you to prove someone existed? Wikipedia is not a directory of everyone who has lived, acted or whatever.[[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Thanks - it was worth a try [[User:Shadokp|Shadokp]] ([[User talk:Shadokp|talk]]) 21:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> == 02:57, 18 March 2024 review of submission by RealmUnknown ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=RealmUnknown|ts=02:57, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:André_Armenante}}<br /> Looking to improve this article, mainly with focus on sourcing. Several of the sources provided are from old magazines and articles I've come across, such as numbers 5, 9 &amp; 10. Perhaps these physical publications ones need to be scanned and uploaded? I've cut and stripped a few items out of the article due to this very issue, as I realize they had no key sources. [[User:RealmUnknown|RealmUnknown]] ([[User talk:RealmUnknown|talk]]) 02:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:RealmUnknown|RealmUnknown]]: you do not need to scan and upload offline sources, in fact you shouldn't as they're likely to be in copyright; you just need to cite them with sufficient details to enable the sources to be reliably identified for verification purposes (see [[WP:OFFLINE]] for advice). If it's not obvious from the title what the source is and what it says about and/or how extensively it covers the subject, you should also consider including a short quotation. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 08:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks a bunch, hadn't considered a quotation, that may help out a bit. [[User:RealmUnknown|RealmUnknown]] ([[User talk:RealmUnknown|talk]]) 15:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 09:39, 18 March 2024 review of submission by 194.223.23.148 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=194.223.23.148|ts=09:39, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:How To Train Your Dragon: Snoggletog Log}}<br /> I'm requesting to find help to see if someone can help improve the article for me. Plus, it's hard for me to find any other sources by myself. I'll need someone to update the draft for me. [[Special:Contributions/194.223.23.148|194.223.23.148]] ([[User talk:194.223.23.148|talk]]) 09:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :This encyclopaedia is created by volunteers like you. Why do you think somebody might want to come and work on your pet project? (They might - but why would they?) <br /> :The heart and soul of a Wikipedia article is its sources. If you have looked, and can't find enough, that is a very good reason for thinking that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for [[WP:notability|notability]]. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 09:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 09:49, 18 March 2024 review of submission by JulioHo ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=JulioHo|ts=09:49, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Ifm_group}}<br /> Hello all, I just submitted a draft about German company ifm Group and it was rejected due to lack of independent references. Could you please specify what I need to do now as the four independent references I cited seem fine to me. I would be happy for help about this article to provide quality on articles on big German companies as I noticed a lack of relevant references in similar articles, such as: <br /> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilz_(company)<br /> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turck<br /> <br /> Would a translation/link to the German article be helpful and are German references (there are plenty) helpful? Thanks for your help! [[User:JulioHo|JulioHo]] ([[User talk:JulioHo|talk]]) 09:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :References can be in German. The main issue is that you have only summarized the activities of the company, and not significant coverage in independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that go into detail about what they see as important about the company and how it meets [[WP:ORG|the definition of a notable company]].<br /> :Note that the German Wikipedia has different policies, what is acceptable there is not necessarily so here. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:JulioHo|JulioHo]]: sources 5 &amp; 6 are just routine business reporting, and 7 &amp; 8 are mere passing mentions. Source 3 is debatable, in that it is more about the CEO than the business, but in any case it alone wouldn't be enough to establish notability.<br /> :If you have found other articles without sufficient evidence of notability, you're very welcome to improve them, or if this cannot be done, to initiate deletion proceedings. Either way, the existence of such articles is no reason to create more similar problems. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 10:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] Thank you for clarifying! I'll dive into that matter and will search for other more reliable sources! [[User:JulioHo|JulioHo]] ([[User talk:JulioHo|talk]]) 12:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 11:15, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Nihimba ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Nihimba|ts=11:15, 18 March 2024|draft=HEBO Consult}}<br /> Why has this been rejected? [[User:Nihimba|Nihimba]] ([[User talk:Nihimba|talk]]) 11:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Nihimba|Nihimba]]: [[User:Nihimba/sandbox/HEBO Consult]] wasn't rejected. It was declined (two years ago!) for being promotional, and deleted six months later, either for the same reason or for having been not edited for 6 months (I'm not quite sure which). -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 11:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 12:39, 18 March 2024 review of submission by 4Bt'tjes ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=4Bt'tjes|ts=12:39, 18 March 2024|draft=User:4Bt'tjes/sandbox}}<br /> I would really want this to be published, this is a very dum reason but i get bullied and maybe they will find this funny, I hope? Thank you very much for taking this in to consideration.<br /> Ps it did not include any false information regarding the subject. [[User:4Bt&amp;#39;tjes|4Bt&amp;#39;tjes]] ([[User talk:4Bt&amp;#39;tjes|talk]]) 12:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:4Bt'tjes|4Bt'tjes]]: please understand that this is an encyclopaedia, not a place to tell the world about your mates. Try a social media platform or similar. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::But what if I really made a honest page about him? Not as a joke, it would still be information about somthing/someone. I would write about him in a profesional way. No jokes, just a life story about him. Just like there are enough story's about Kanye West and so on. I would really appreciate you taking this into considiration. I see this as a chance to change some things on the internet. Not everybody has to make a video on tiktok or a Reel on instagram. Just a honest story on here. Now that I tought about it u could actually make a different app about my idea. U could call it My Story or somthing like that. Ps my first submission really didn't include any fals information. [[User:4Bt&amp;#39;tjes|4Bt&amp;#39;tjes]] ([[User talk:4Bt&amp;#39;tjes|talk]]) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Please have a look at [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] and then [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]]. – [[User:DreamRimmer|&lt;b style=&quot;color:black; font-family: Tahoma&quot;&gt;DreamRimmer&lt;/b&gt;]] ('''[[User talk:DreamRimmer|talk]]''') 15:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::It really didn't help [[User:4Bt&amp;#39;tjes|4Bt&amp;#39;tjes]] ([[User talk:4Bt&amp;#39;tjes|talk]]) 16:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::A Wikipedia article summarises what [[WP:42|independent reliable sources]] have published about a subject. That is all. If there are such sources about your subject, then an article may be possible: if there are not, then no article is possible. <br /> :::::The purposes you have mentioned above have nothing to do with Wikipedia, as explained in various sections of the first page linked above. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 18:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 12:47, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Viveliot ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Viveliot|ts=12:47, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Lingvanex_Translator}}<br /> hello, i need more information about reliable sources. [[User:Viveliot|Viveliot]] ([[User talk:Viveliot|talk]]) 12:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Viveliot|Viveliot]]: click on the 'reliable sources' link in the decline notice. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 12:59, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Sadikul Masduq ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Sadikul Masduq|ts=12:59, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Salman_Habib}}<br /> How can I solve this? [[User:Sadikul Masduq|Sadikul Masduq]] ([[User talk:Sadikul Masduq|talk]]) 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Sadikul Masduq|Sadikul Masduq]]: you cannot 'solve this'; the draft has been rejected, and won't therefore be considered further. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 13:27, 18 March 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A312:C43C:7680:45A5:7113:623F:425C ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=2A02:A312:C43C:7680:45A5:7113:623F:425C|ts=13:27, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Aniket_Bharti}}<br /> Hi! I would like to improve the draft and resubmit it for Aniket Bharti. The draft was declined on March 12, 2024, by Randompersonediting (talk) due to insufficient references that demonstrate the subject's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:A312:C43C:7680:45A5:7113:623F:425C|2A02:A312:C43C:7680:45A5:7113:623F:425C]] ([[User talk:2A02:A312:C43C:7680:45A5:7113:623F:425C|talk]]) 13:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Yes, you're welcome to improve this draft, as it hasn't been rejected. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 16:04, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Christiana Stanley ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Christiana Stanley|ts=16:04, 18 March 2024|draft=ABUBAKAR SANI}}<br /> Hello, I wanted to let you know that I've recreated the draft for [[Abubakar Sani]]. <br /> I noticed it was deleted for potential advertising - I apologize for that, as I'm new to Wiki. I've made some changes to address this concern by removing questionable material and the citation to the website. Additionally, I've added some extra information that I believe could be helpful. I'd like more specific advice on how to go about successfully getting this article published in the main space. [[User:Christiana Stanley|&amp;#126;Ana]] ([[User talk:Christiana Stanley|talk]]) 16:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Christiana Stanley|Christiana Stanley]]: where have you created it? I can't see anything in your contributions. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 16:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you for your swift response, Please find a link to the draft below. <br /> ::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._Abubakar_Sani [[User:Christiana Stanley|&amp;#126;Ana]] ([[User talk:Christiana Stanley|talk]]) 16:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 16:39, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Ganisario ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Ganisario|ts=16:39, 18 March 2024|draft=https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Ganisario/Sandbox}}<br /> Could you kindly tell me why article was rejected. Also, please provide some quick advice [[User:Ganisario|Ganisario]] ([[User talk:Ganisario|talk]]) 16:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Your draft is located at [[User:Ganisario/sandbox]]. Your draft is in Italian, this is the English Wikipedia, a different project. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Ganisario|Ganisario]]: presumably you mean [[User:Ganisario/sandbox]]? It was declined because it's not in English, as it says in the decline notice. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::I got no traction with the Italia wiki, deafening silence, not even a rejection. With you I got prompt replies. Any suggestion? What if I change the page to English? [[User:Ganisario|Ganisario]] ([[User talk:Ganisario|talk]]) 16:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Being in English is a must; but the standards here are likely stricter than the Italian Wikipedia. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 17:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Ganisario|Ganisario]]: it looks like you've tried to submit your sandbox draft on the Italian Wikipedia, but haven't done it correctly (I don't know for sure, but I expect they don't use the same &lt;code&gt;subst:submit&lt;/code&gt; template as we do here). That might explain why you didn't get any response. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 17:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 18:58, 18 March 2024 review of submission by AlanP93 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=AlanP93|ts=18:58, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Gravic, Inc.}}<br /> I was immediately denied after clicking submit for a new page. I believe this was for citation reasons. I'd love any feedback on how to make the page better and meet Wikipedia's guidelines. [[User:AlanP93|AlanP93]] ([[User talk:AlanP93|talk]]) 18:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :{{u|AlanP93}} I fixed your post, the whole url is not needed. You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?<br /> : The draft just tells about the business and its offerings. Wikipedia articles should primarily summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:ORG|a notable business]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Hey 331Dot. Regarding the conflict of interest declaration, I am currently employed by the company in question. I understand the importance of maintaining neutrality and adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines for content creation. I understand that I was supposed to disclose this beforehand, so I added a tag to my profile. Regarding the draft, I also understand that it needs improvement to meet Wikipedia's standards. I am thankful for your response, I am new at this, and I will work on revising the draft to ensure it summarizes information from only from independent sources. I added the products offered mainly because that's what the company was famous for in particular. I will review the guidelines more thoroughly and make the necessary revisions to ensure the draft meets Wikipedia's standards. Could you please (if able) tell me what else you would have on the page? I sort of just copied the formats of other Wikipages I saw of Gravic's partners Scantron and HPE. I'd take any and all advice. I don't wish to break any rules, nor do I want to publish a subpar page. [[User:AlanP93|AlanP93]] ([[User talk:AlanP93|talk]]) 19:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Thank you. As an employee, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter [[WP:PAID|paid editing disclosure]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::In terms of the draft, quite frankly it needs to be largely rewritten. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like [[Academy Award]] or [[Nobel Peace Prize]]). Products shouldn't be discussed that in depth. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Also be advised it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, as these too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of this. See [[WP:OSE]]. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are [[WP:GOODARTICLE|classified as good articles]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::This is all really great feedback! I saved it all. Thank you. Would you mind if I rewrite it and show it to you first? Probably won't be ready for a week or so. [[User:AlanP93|AlanP93]] ([[User talk:AlanP93|talk]]) 20:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::Please understand that {{HD/WINI}}<br /> :::::Evaluate every one of your sources against [[WP:42|42]]: pretty well all of them will fail. <br /> :::::Absolutely the first task in creating an article is to find several sources that do meet those criteria, because if they don't exist (as is the case for most companies), then it does not meet [[WP:NORG|NORG]], and no article is possible.<br /> :::::If you can find suitable sources, a good way to proceed (especially if you are connected with the subject) is to ''forget absolutely everything you know about the subject'' and write a summary of what those independent sources say. <br /> :::::Your draft is highly promotional, in that it says what Gravic wants people to know. Wikipedia does not care in the slightest what Gravic wants people to know. [[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 18:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 19:32, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Some random account on this website ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Some random account on this website|ts=19:32, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:2030 Russian presidential election}}<br /> Need help improving the article if by any means nessecary to be accepted. [[User:Some random account on this website|ＲＡＮＤＯＭ]] [[User talk:Some random account on this website|ａｃｃｏｕｎｔ]] 19:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Why does it need to be worked on &quot;by any means necessary&quot;?<br /> :Prior reviews must remain on the draft. It's going to be difficult for you to overcome [[WP:TOOSOON]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 20:58, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Toxopid ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Toxopid|ts=20:58, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Bianticupola}}<br /> I am having trouble finding even just one source for this polyhedron. So far, the only mention I've seen of it anywhere on the internet is in the Wikipedia article for cupolae. I would love to get some help finding a good source. [[User:Toxopid|Toxopid]] ([[User talk:Toxopid|talk]]) 20:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Toxopid|Toxopid]] the Help Desk does not generally assist with deveoping drafts. We are here to mostly to answer questions about the process or if a draft is declined or rejected. If you don't have access to scholarly journals, it will likely be difficult but you can try Google Books or Google Scholar. You can also ask for help at [[WP:WikiProject Mathematics]]. [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 21:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks. I will make sure to check that out. [[User:Toxopid|Toxopid]] ([[User talk:Toxopid|talk]]) 21:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 21:03, 18 March 2024 review of submission by Wikiwriterhippo ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Wikiwriterhippo|ts=21:03, 18 March 2024|draft=Draft:Rudolf_Gonzalez}}<br /> It was not approved because &quot;This draft is a copyright violation collection.&quot; Can someone please help me understand what exactly the violation is? [[User:Wikiwriterhippo|Wikiwriterhippo]] ([[User talk:Wikiwriterhippo|talk]]) 21:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Wikiwriterhippo|Wikiwriterhippo]] pinging @[[User:Johannes Maximilian|Johannes Maximilian]] to explain but I think it might be because the images violate copyright unless you are the artist. [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 21:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It's the pictures. Very obvious copyvio. --[[User:Johannes Maximilian|Johannes]] ([[User_Talk:Johannes Maximilian|Talk]]) &lt;small&gt;([[Special:Contribs/Johannes Maximilian|Contribs]]) ([[User:Johannes Maximilian/Articles2|Articles]])&lt;/small&gt; 00:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == After I published an article through Article Wizards, how can I know whether it's in review? ==<br /> <br /> I just published an article through Article Wizards, however I didn't see the yellow box that shows '''Review waiting, please be patient. Do this mean I didn't submit successfully or it take time to be reviewed.''' [[User:Alicey2121|Alicey2121]] ([[User talk:Alicey2121|talk]]) 23:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Your attempt to submit [[Draft:Daniel Seah]] failed, because you inserted the &quot;subst:submit&quot; formula within &amp;lt;nowiki&gt; ... &amp;lt;/nowiki&gt; tags, so it was not effective. <br /> :You then [[WP:moved|moved]] the draft to [[Daniel Seah]], which you are entitled to do, but it is not recommended for inexperienced editors. <br /> :I suspect that very soon it will get either deleted, or moved back to draft, for the reasons which another editor has already put at the top. The most obvious problems I see are:<br /> :# It can't decide whether it is about Seah or about Digital Domain. It needs to be about one or the other<br /> :# It is highly promotional. {{HD/WINI}}<br /> :# Few of the sources appear to be independent of Digital Domain.<br /> :[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 18:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> = March 19 =<br /> <br /> == 01:16, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Kim alice film ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Kim alice film|ts=01:16, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Wash My Soul In The River's Flow}}<br /> Hello I am a new user and dont have coding experience so am using the visual editor field. I made a submission for a film 'Wash My Soul In The River's Flow' and it was rejected because I had external links to IMDB which I didn't realise weren't allowed. I have removed them and tried to resubmit the draft. I am not sure if I have resubmitted it properly. I hit the resubmit button but nothing seemed to happen so i hit the publish button which seemed to do something. I am not sure if other editors can see the new draft and will be alerted to checking it. How can I best check if it is in the wait pile to be reviewed and is it possible to check in on this progress? thanks, kim alice film<br /> [[User:Kim alice film|Kim alice film]] ([[User talk:Kim alice film|talk]]) 01:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Kim alice film|Kim alice film]]: it looks like the draft wasn't resubmitted, but rather the AfC template was manually edited, resulting in the same ie. the draft now awaiting review.<br /> :Please don't tamper with the templates, they need to remain there and intact until the draft is accepted. Thanks, -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 08:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 02:59, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Matt46665 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Matt46665|ts=02:59, 19 March 2024|draft=User:Matt46665/sandbox}}<br /> Why was my article rejected so quickly? The article name is Called 'What is Hidden Parable Theory&quot;. [[User:Matt46665|Matt46665]] ([[User talk:Matt46665|talk]]) 02:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 03:02, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Matt46665 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Matt46665|ts=03:02, 19 March 2024|draft=User:Matt46665/sandbox}}<br /> How is this article contrary to wikipedia? It's a new theory based on scientific concepts. [[User:Matt46665|Matt46665]] ([[User talk:Matt46665|talk]]) 03:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is also unsourced nonsense. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 08:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 04:06, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Pratik Girish Karwade ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Pratik Girish Karwade|ts=04:06, 19 March 2024|draft=User:Pratik_Girish_Karwade/sandbox}}<br /> Hello, <br /> Wonder why I can create my wikipedia, I work as an Photographer and have achieved a lot in the field working with giant production house in Bollywood, India.<br /> I have seen a lot of cinematographers page on wikipedia and thought of building one of mine. <br /> please help me so I could create a page here of me. <br /> Thank You<br /> Pratik Karwade [[User:Pratik Girish Karwade|Pratik Girish Karwade]] ([[User talk:Pratik Girish Karwade|talk]]) 04:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]]. While not forbidden, writing an autobiographical article is highly discouraged. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:N|notability]], such as [[WP:BIO|a notable person]] or more narrowly in your case a [[WP:NARTIST|notable creative professional]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 05:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 06:11, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Microbeai3.0 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Microbeai3.0|ts=06:11, 19 March 2024|draft=User:Microbeai3.0/sandbox}}<br /> Could you help me to publish page. [[User:Microbeai3.0|Microbeai3.0]] ([[User talk:Microbeai3.0|talk]]) 06:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please see the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]]. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or publish their resume. Please use social media for that. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 06:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 06:56, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Me.Autem.Minui ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Me.Autem.Minui|ts=06:56, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Blackfriars, Kings Lynn}}<br /> How do I update the articles title? It should read “Blackfriars, King’s Lynn” rather than Kings Lynn [[User:Me.Autem.Minui|Me.Autem.Minui]] ([[User talk:Me.Autem.Minui|talk]]) 06:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Me.Autem.Minui|Me.Autem.Minui]]: you don't; there is no way of changing page titles, this is achieved by moving the page to a new title. But don't worry about that for now, if/when the draft is accepted it gets moved anyway. I'll put a note on it to mention this. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 08:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thank you very much - very helpful and prompt reply. [[User:Me.Autem.Minui|Me.Autem.Minui]] ([[User talk:Me.Autem.Minui|talk]]) 08:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I have accepted the draft and changed the title for you. Great work. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 08:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Yay - thank you so so much!!! I’m genuinely a bit moved. Watch this space for lots more monastic and mendicant history from medieval England! [[User:Me.Autem.Minui|Me.Autem.Minui]] ([[User talk:Me.Autem.Minui|talk]]) 08:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 09:46, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Talchu ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Talchu|ts=09:46, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Eli Shamir}}<br /> The article (my first) was declined due to number of sources? I'd request to better understand whether my sources are not good, or whether I should just add a few more notable mentions. The artist has a Hebrew page, and I volunteered to add his page in English, and expand it a bit. I also referred to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals [[User:Talchu|Talchu]] ([[User talk:Talchu|talk]]) 09:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please note that the Hebrew Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> {{courtesy link|Draft:Elie Shamir}} --[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 18:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 10:45, 19 March 2024 review of submission by FlorinCornianu ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=FlorinCornianu|ts=10:45, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:123FormBuilder}}<br /> Hello, <br /> <br /> Sorry, I cannot understand why my page gets rejected every time. It doesn't sound like an advertisement, you can check also our competitor pages, they are just the same and they quote their own website resources.<br /> <br /> Please explain your point of view.<br /> <br /> Thanks!<br /> Florin<br /> [[User:FlorinCornianu|FlorinCornianu]] ([[User talk:FlorinCornianu|talk]]) 10:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:FlorinCornianu|FlorinCornianu]]: your draft was declined, not rejected, and the reason is that there isn't any evidence that your business is [[WP:notable|notable]] in the Wikipedia sense of the term.<br /> :Also, please disclose your paid editing, as requested on your talk page twice now. This is a hard requirement under our T&amp;Cs, not just an optional extra. Thank you. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 10:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Please see [[WP:OSE|other stuff exists]]. Other inappropriate articles existing does not mean that more can be added, it only means we haven't gotten around to renoving them, as this is a volunteer project. If you would like to help us, please identify the articles about your competitors so action can be taken. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :Your competitors meriting articles does not automatically mean your company does too. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 12:51, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Eva Verplaetse ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Eva Verplaetse|ts=12:51, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Unifiedpost_Group}}<br /> I submitted this article 4 times - it's just a listing of what happened to the company over the years and which solutions we give - I added a lot of independent, reliable sources and still I get declined because it would be more like an advertisement. the article contains 3 blocks: history (just a list of facts), our offer (what is it) and some facts regarding our IPO - everything is checkable by the sources.<br /> Can you please show the parts that are &quot;more like an advertisement&quot;? Because I want this article live but I don't know what to change anymore. [[User:Eva Verplaetse|Eva Verplaetse]] ([[User talk:Eva Verplaetse|talk]]) 12:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Wikipedia articles are not for companies to tell the world about themselves, what they do, and their offerings. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company and what makes it important/significant/influential as the source sees it- how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of [[WP:ORG|a notable company]]. <br /> :You may be too close to your company to write about it. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 12:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :@[[User:Eva Verplaetse|Eva Verplaetse]]: you're citing only primary sources and some 'capsule profiles' as your sources, these do not establish notability per [[WP:NCORP]], and instead are (and this is where promotionality comes in) essentially just the company telling the world about itself. You need to find a few sources that clearly meet the NCORP standard, and summarise what they have said about the business. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 12:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 14:42, 19 March 2024 review of submission by TheGreatestLuvofAll ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=TheGreatestLuvofAll|ts=14:42, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Zonnique}}<br /> I actually had did a research of reliable sources on this draft, and however my draft's topic was not just about music.. They also did reality TV and acting, as shown [[Draft:Zonnique#Filmography|here]]. A example of a reality TV star and singer is [[Tammy Rivera]] and [[Masika Kalysha]], however they are mostly notable through reality TV, like the subject. I am asking help because I want to make sure how can I know that my draft is eligible for an encyclopedia article? [[User:TheGreatestLuvofAll|TheGreatestLuvofAll]] ([[User talk:TheGreatestLuvofAll|talk]]) 14:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :[http://www.itunescharts.net/us/artists/music/zonnique/ See this chart website] which says that they might have had a position on a chart, which may meet the criteria of [[WP:SINGER]]. [[User:TheGreatestLuvofAll|TheGreatestLuvofAll]] ([[User talk:TheGreatestLuvofAll|talk]]) 14:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::@[[User:TheGreatestLuvofAll|TheGreatestLuvofAll]]: per [[WP:BADCHARTS]], iTunes does not qualify, and in any case that source doesn't seem too reliable.<br /> ::I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but basically you need to show that this person meets either the general [[WP:GNG]] or one of the special ([[WP:SINGER]], [[WP:NACTOR]], etc.) notability standards. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 14:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Okay. [[User:TheGreatestLuvofAll|TheGreatestLuvofAll]] ([[User talk:TheGreatestLuvofAll|talk]]) 14:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::There is already [[Zonnique|a redirect]] to the group she worked with before her solo career. I put it in draftspace to work on it there to make it into an article. [[User:TheGreatestLuvofAll|TheGreatestLuvofAll]] ([[User talk:TheGreatestLuvofAll|talk]]) 15:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::I requested deletion. [[User:TheGreatestLuvofAll|TheGreatestLuvofAll]] ([[User talk:TheGreatestLuvofAll|talk]]) 17:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 15:16, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Suhit72 ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Suhit72|ts=15:16, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Suhit_Nagam}}<br /> How can I make it not able. [[User:Suhit72|Suhit72]] ([[User talk:Suhit72|talk]]) 15:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :There is nothing more you can do, the draft was rejected. Please read the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]]. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves; this is not social media. Please use actual social media to tell the world about yourself and your accomplishments. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 16:26, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Jmarquette ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Jmarquette|ts=16:26, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Bucks_Quarterly_Meeting}}<br /> Greetings - looking to ensure that I've hit all the marks for this work. [[User:Jmarquette|Jmarquette]] ([[User talk:Jmarquette|talk]]) 16:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Jmarquette|Jmarquette]]: we don't provide pre-reviews here at the help desk, you need to submit the draft to get a review. That said, I can tell you already now that this would be declined, as the referencing is woefully inadequate, and does not establish notability of any sort.<br /> :Also, you will need to remove all the inline external links from the body text. If you can use any of them as references, do so by citing them instead. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 16:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::That's the help I needed. Thank you. [[User:Jmarquette|Jmarquette]] ([[User talk:Jmarquette|talk]]) 16:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == 18:59, 19 March 2024 review of submission by Delbatros ==<br /> {{Lafc|username=Delbatros|ts=18:59, 19 March 2024|draft=Draft:Nazillispor}}<br /> How can I save a page belonging to a former Turkish football club that closed in 1975 from draft status? Unfortunately, there is no reference on behalf of a club that has operated for 8 years. I tried to edit the page here according to its [[:tr:Nazillispor|page]] on tr:wiki. At first, the page was created a long time ago based on incorrect guidance, but since such a club was active in the past but not today, I tried to translate it and added it here with the same order, but it was put in draft status. How to remove this page from draft status? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]] ([[User talk:Delbatros|talk]]) 18:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delbatros&diff=1214385958 2024-03-18T17:05:27Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Nazillispor moved to draftspace */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --&gt;<br /> ==Welcome!==<br /> [[File:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|[[Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''']]]]<br /> Hello, Delbatros, and '''''[[Help:Getting started|welcome to Wikipedia]]'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:<br /> * [[Help:Introduction|Introduction]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]<br /> * [[Help:Editing|How to edit a page]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]]<br /> * [[Help:Your first article|Your first article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community]]<br /> * Feel free to [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|make test edits in the sandbox]]<br /> * and check out the [[Wikipedia:Task Center|Task Center]], for ideas about what to work on.<br /> <br /> I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]] using four [[tilde]]s (&lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our [[Help:Contents|'''help pages''']], and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on [[User talk:Randykitty|my talk page]] or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!&lt;!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --&gt; [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 12:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Excuse me, I want to create an article, but it has been saved as a draft. Can you help me?<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == About [[Mersin İdman Yurdu]] ==<br /> <br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hi, and thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Delbatros|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Mersin İdman Yurdu]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into [[:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]. This is known as a &quot;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves|cut-and-paste move]]&quot;, and it is undesirable because it splits the [[Help:Page history|page history]], which is [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|legally required for attribution]]. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.<br /> <br /> In most cases for registered users, once your account is [[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed|four days old and has ten edits]], you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|&quot;Move&quot; tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at [[Wikipedia:Requests for history merge]]. Thank you. &lt;!-- Template:uw-c&amp;pmove --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Storchy|Storchy]] ([[User talk:Storchy|talk]]) 05:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. Since the page belongs to the Turkish football club, I am doing this according to the information in Turkish Wikipedia. Can you help me? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == esenlikler ==<br /> <br /> tr viki'de son değişikliklerde dolaşırken bazı olmamış maddelere denk geldim. sizi de [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metehan_%C3%96LMEZ&amp;diff=28770562&amp;oldid=28770548 şurda] gördüğüm için yazayım diye düşündüm.<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_K%C3%BCr%C5%9Fad_YILMAZ<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahit_Ergene_Ortaokulu<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkan_a%C5%9Fireti<br /> <br /> bunlara hızlı sil etiketi koyar mısınız? ----[[User:Modern primat|modern_primat]] [[Special:Contributions/Modern_primat|ඞඞඞ]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Modern primat|TALK]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)<br /> ==Concern regarding [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, Delbatros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months [[WP:G13|may be deleted]], so if you wish to retain the page, please [[Special:EditPage/Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit it]] again&amp;#32;or [[WP:USERFY|request]] that it be moved to your userspace.<br /> <br /> If the page has already been deleted, you can [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13|request it be undeleted]] so you can continue working on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. [[User:FireflyBot|FireflyBot]] ([[User talk:FireflyBot|talk]]) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)<br /> ==Your draft article, [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]<br /> <br /> Hello, Delbatros. It has been over six months since you last edited the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] submission or [[WP:Drafts|draft]] page you started, &quot;[[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|Mersin Talim Yurdu]]&quot;. <br /> <br /> In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]], the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code. <br /> <br /> If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at [[WP:REFUND/G13|this link]]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! &lt;!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <br /> <br /> '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&amp;mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&amp;mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&amp;mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.&lt;!-- Template:uw-3rr --&gt; [[Special:Contributions/105.8.2.55|105.8.2.55]] ([[User talk:105.8.2.55|talk]]) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please stop now! The revision you reverted contains copyright, why do you still insist on adding it back to the article? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{U|Hey man im josh}}, Please help me, There is a persistent copyright violation in the [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] article, please intervene. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, thank you so much. Please do not allow copyrighted images to be added to articles. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You have not answered the questions below. Please answer below. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Copyright?==<br /> OK, what's the problem?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214013229] [[:File:KSK logo.png]] and [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]], what's the difference? What is your copyright problem? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The problem is he's an idiot and he has no idea (if he can say &quot;son of a bitch&quot; without repercussion, I can say idiot). And if you're protecting the article, at least revert it to stable. [[Special:Contributions/102.182.46.145|102.182.46.145]] ([[User talk:102.182.46.145|talk]]) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If anyone calls anyone else an idiot or son of a bitch they're going to get blocked without any further warning, so we're clear. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You call me idiot and make me angry. Anyway, instead of causing a war, why didn't you send a message and tell me that you were trying to bring back the copyright violating image? Why do you continue to vandalize with different IP numbers? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is not allowed to upload copyrighted visual materials on Commons and there is already a logo available here. It is not nice to try to upload it in a way that will damage the article by violating the copyright rule. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The copyright rules allow something called [[:c:Commons:Licensing#Simple_design]], and we could always claim fair use, so the logo is allowed, but the thing I don't understand is why are you inserting an almost identical image? There has been a logo on that page for years. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I cannot write in the article, can you write please? The club's president has recently changed. Name of the new president: İlker Mehmet Ergüllü<br /> :Reference: [https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953], [https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598] [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You're on the verge of being blocked for [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], and abuse, and you don't seem to get it. You really need to stick to the point. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] You won't get good answers to any of your questions. I told you, he has no idea. Battleground mentality and lack of competence is all he is. And you're giving him the impression that he won a war here right now and he's having an orgasm over it. He thinks he's the best warrior in the wikiworld, and he defeated his enemy with 22 reverts and he got no repercussions for it, and it's even protected with his desired version, so warring like crazy with 20+ edits for 2 hours must be the correct thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/197.184.161.74|197.184.161.74]] ([[User talk:197.184.161.74|talk]]) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Please answer the question I asked and stop causing tension. You're the one who caused the war, not me. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Look, I have been trying to bring back the logo that has been around for years, in accordance with the rules. An anonymous user tried to vandalize add an image uploaded to commons that causes copyright violation to the article. I am doing the right thing.<br /> :::This is the logo I'm trying to bring back:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_Spor_Kul%C3%BCb%C3%BC_(logo).png<br /> :::An anonymous vandal user tried to add: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSK_logo.png<br /> :::Now I ask you: Is the revision that I have been trying to bring back to the article for years more accurate? Or is the revision that includes the copyrighted image that the anonymous user tried to add by vandalism more accurate?<br /> :::In fact, the logo was uploaded to en:wiki in accordance with the rules in 2021, and there is no copyright problem, but why would the image uploaded to commons be added to the article in a way that would cause a copyright problem?<br /> :::It was deleted again from commons in the past due to copyright reasons. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Someone tried to update the logo to the current one the club uses. There's no copyright difference between the two, and it's not removed from Commons, instead of edit warring here, try to remove it from Commons first if you can. You have no idea what you're doing, and nothing justifies 22 reverts and all the things you've done in just a few hours. You just need to &quot;win a war&quot;, that's all you think about. [[Special:Contributions/41.150.252.84|41.150.252.84]] ([[User talk:41.150.252.84|talk]]) 14:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm going to agree with the IP user. There's no meaningful differences between these logos in terms of copyright, which makes the copyright claim spurious. You should resolve the deletion process at commons first. Edit-warring like that is out of order, and will get you blocked. Even after the protection expires, even if you're reverted. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, The nomination for deletion in the Commons will be concluded on the same grounds. The anonymous user's incessant vandalism is completely damaging to the article and a waste of users' time. I'm trying to prevent and stop vandalism. I made a long statement, I think I did the right thing. I think that I will not be blocked or victimized because I am trying to stop and prevent vandalism. Because according to the rules, the necessary intervention against vandalism does not require any obstacle, and since I am trying to stop the vandalism, logically I should not be blocked. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::You have failed to demonstrate how this was vandalism. If it was a doctored image, or the wrong image, or even if there was a meaningful difference for the purposes of copyright, then you could argue that. But this is not vandalism. It's edit-warring, and that's you've been doing. Going forward you need to not do that. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In the past, it was deleted from commons due to copyright reasons and it was re-uploaded in the same way. There is no explanation for the vandalism you did. You are the one who started a war by vandalizing instead of talking about the issue. Do not think that you can escape the damage you caused with different IP numbers. I told you to stop and you didn't stop, even though I replied to you in the message thread above, you did not respond. First, explain the damage you caused, and I made my comment on the subject with a long explanation. You are just trying to create tension and cover up your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Updating an image is not vandalism. Updating an image is usually considered a good thing. Where is the evidence it was previously deleted due to copyright? And I ask again, why is the image you restored so different that it follows different rules? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Please review the revisions here.<br /> :::::::An attempt was made to add visual here: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20827359]<br /> :::::::Here, the revision was removed for the same reason: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20837090]<br /> :::::::I have been interested in this article for a long time and I have patrol rights on tr:wiki. It has been withdrawn due to copyright reasons. Wait, I will bring you 2 users and let them make the necessary explanation. I'm not doing anything wrong, you can confirm that. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::You will need to explain why you think [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]] is so different, when it is more or less identical. Either both of these are public domain due to their simplicity, or neither of them are public domain. If both are available then we could use either of the images. If neither is free then we could use a fair use rationale, and retain the apparently updated [[:File:KSK logo.png]] through a local upload. However arguing that one is a copyright violation and the other isn't doesn't make any sense. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please stop this anonymous vandalism, this is getting very annoying. &gt;:(<br /> :::::::::Considering that my long explanation is now more understandable, I expect you not to allow the copyrighted image added during the deletion candidacy period in the commons to be included in the article. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] he continues to edit war, you see the failure to get the point and the competence and disruption issues here? If someone gets away with 20+ reverts in an hour, they will think they are on the right path and continue doing it, just like what is happening here. [[Special:Contributions/102.141.68.251|102.141.68.251]] ([[User talk:102.141.68.251|talk]]) 21:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::The president of the club has changed and what is your aim? While I, who follow this club closely, have added a reference to the fact that the club president has changed, you have no right to take back this correctly added revision. There is no war. I just added a reference information and you still continue your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Delbatros is in a war of change everywhere, including trwiki. For this reason, it was also blocked on trwiki. The ban period should be extended and the message page should be closed. This idiot is tarnishing the name of us Turks. Such people should be blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] The ban needs to be extended, you know this idiot got into World War II. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Referring to anyone as an idiot is unlikely to get me to side with you in any discussion. I'm unwilling to modify the block once its been placed without the need to do so. Show me conclusive proof of block evasion or other negative behaviours after the block and well review. They'll either learn or they wont and will review it from there. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Hello {{u|Amortias}} good morning, first of all, thank you for bringing back the correct revision. An anonymous vandal is trying to cause damage by removing information I added with reference, first he violated the copyright infringement rule and then he started a war. I managed to save the article from the copyright issue, although it was difficult, but hours later the anonymous user started vandalizing again. Now he is insistently trying to remove the information I added as a reference, and the reason why I was blocked was to prevent the damage he had caused to the article. Attempting to remove any information added by reference in a damaging way is considered vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == March 2024 ==<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;user-block uw-block&quot; style=&quot;padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px&quot;&gt;[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''36 hours''' for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]], as you did at [[:Karşıyaka S.K.]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: &lt;!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --&gt;&lt;code&gt;&lt;nowiki&gt;{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/code&gt;. &amp;nbsp;[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 21:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- Template:uw-ewblock --&gt;<br /> {{unblock reviewed|reason=Hello {{u|Amortias}} good morning, first of all, thank you for bringing back the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=1214090512 correct revision]. An anonymous vandal is trying to cause damage by removing information I added with reference, first he violated the copyright infringement rule and then he started a war. I managed to save the article from the copyright issue, although it was difficult, but hours later the anonymous user started vandalizing again. Now he is insistently trying to remove the information I added as a reference, and the reason why I was blocked was to prevent the damage he had caused to the article. Attempting to remove any information added by reference in a damaging way is considered vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)|decline=You addressed this comment to the blocking admin, but unblock requests are to ask for a third party to review the block. If you wish to discuss this with the blocking admin, you don't need to make an unblock request. That being said, the edits at issue do not seem to be vandalism, which would mean that edit warring is not acceptable. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> <br /> == [[Draft:Nazillispor|Nazillispor]] moved to draftspace ==<br /> <br /> Thanks for your contributions to [[Draft:Nazillispor|Nazillispor]]. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because '''it has no sources'''.<br /> I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.<br /> <br /> Please see more information at [[Help:Unreviewed new page]].<br /> When the article is ready for publication, please click on the &quot;Submit your draft for review!&quot; button at the top of the page OR move the page back. [[User:Boleyn|Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Boleyn|talk]]) 16:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Excuse me, the club closed 49 years ago. It doesn't have much history and there are no references about it so I can't add it. There is no source on tr:wiki either, I tried to create the page here as it is, but I don't think the page can be in draft form. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delbatros&diff=1214385896 2024-03-18T17:05:04Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Nazillispor moved to draftspace */ Reply</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --&gt;<br /> ==Welcome!==<br /> [[File:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|[[Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''']]]]<br /> Hello, Delbatros, and '''''[[Help:Getting started|welcome to Wikipedia]]'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:<br /> * [[Help:Introduction|Introduction]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]<br /> * [[Help:Editing|How to edit a page]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]]<br /> * [[Help:Your first article|Your first article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community]]<br /> * Feel free to [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|make test edits in the sandbox]]<br /> * and check out the [[Wikipedia:Task Center|Task Center]], for ideas about what to work on.<br /> <br /> I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]] using four [[tilde]]s (&lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our [[Help:Contents|'''help pages''']], and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on [[User talk:Randykitty|my talk page]] or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!&lt;!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --&gt; [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 12:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Excuse me, I want to create an article, but it has been saved as a draft. Can you help me?<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == About [[Mersin İdman Yurdu]] ==<br /> <br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hi, and thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Delbatros|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Mersin İdman Yurdu]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into [[:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]. This is known as a &quot;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves|cut-and-paste move]]&quot;, and it is undesirable because it splits the [[Help:Page history|page history]], which is [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|legally required for attribution]]. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.<br /> <br /> In most cases for registered users, once your account is [[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed|four days old and has ten edits]], you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|&quot;Move&quot; tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at [[Wikipedia:Requests for history merge]]. Thank you. &lt;!-- Template:uw-c&amp;pmove --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Storchy|Storchy]] ([[User talk:Storchy|talk]]) 05:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. Since the page belongs to the Turkish football club, I am doing this according to the information in Turkish Wikipedia. Can you help me? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == esenlikler ==<br /> <br /> tr viki'de son değişikliklerde dolaşırken bazı olmamış maddelere denk geldim. sizi de [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metehan_%C3%96LMEZ&amp;diff=28770562&amp;oldid=28770548 şurda] gördüğüm için yazayım diye düşündüm.<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_K%C3%BCr%C5%9Fad_YILMAZ<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahit_Ergene_Ortaokulu<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkan_a%C5%9Fireti<br /> <br /> bunlara hızlı sil etiketi koyar mısınız? ----[[User:Modern primat|modern_primat]] [[Special:Contributions/Modern_primat|ඞඞඞ]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Modern primat|TALK]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)<br /> ==Concern regarding [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, Delbatros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months [[WP:G13|may be deleted]], so if you wish to retain the page, please [[Special:EditPage/Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit it]] again&amp;#32;or [[WP:USERFY|request]] that it be moved to your userspace.<br /> <br /> If the page has already been deleted, you can [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13|request it be undeleted]] so you can continue working on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. [[User:FireflyBot|FireflyBot]] ([[User talk:FireflyBot|talk]]) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)<br /> ==Your draft article, [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]<br /> <br /> Hello, Delbatros. It has been over six months since you last edited the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] submission or [[WP:Drafts|draft]] page you started, &quot;[[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|Mersin Talim Yurdu]]&quot;. <br /> <br /> In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]], the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code. <br /> <br /> If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at [[WP:REFUND/G13|this link]]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! &lt;!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <br /> <br /> '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&amp;mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&amp;mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&amp;mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.&lt;!-- Template:uw-3rr --&gt; [[Special:Contributions/105.8.2.55|105.8.2.55]] ([[User talk:105.8.2.55|talk]]) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please stop now! The revision you reverted contains copyright, why do you still insist on adding it back to the article? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{U|Hey man im josh}}, Please help me, There is a persistent copyright violation in the [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] article, please intervene. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, thank you so much. Please do not allow copyrighted images to be added to articles. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You have not answered the questions below. Please answer below. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Copyright?==<br /> OK, what's the problem?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214013229] [[:File:KSK logo.png]] and [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]], what's the difference? What is your copyright problem? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The problem is he's an idiot and he has no idea (if he can say &quot;son of a bitch&quot; without repercussion, I can say idiot). And if you're protecting the article, at least revert it to stable. [[Special:Contributions/102.182.46.145|102.182.46.145]] ([[User talk:102.182.46.145|talk]]) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If anyone calls anyone else an idiot or son of a bitch they're going to get blocked without any further warning, so we're clear. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You call me idiot and make me angry. Anyway, instead of causing a war, why didn't you send a message and tell me that you were trying to bring back the copyright violating image? Why do you continue to vandalize with different IP numbers? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is not allowed to upload copyrighted visual materials on Commons and there is already a logo available here. It is not nice to try to upload it in a way that will damage the article by violating the copyright rule. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The copyright rules allow something called [[:c:Commons:Licensing#Simple_design]], and we could always claim fair use, so the logo is allowed, but the thing I don't understand is why are you inserting an almost identical image? There has been a logo on that page for years. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I cannot write in the article, can you write please? The club's president has recently changed. Name of the new president: İlker Mehmet Ergüllü<br /> :Reference: [https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953], [https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598] [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You're on the verge of being blocked for [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], and abuse, and you don't seem to get it. You really need to stick to the point. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] You won't get good answers to any of your questions. I told you, he has no idea. Battleground mentality and lack of competence is all he is. And you're giving him the impression that he won a war here right now and he's having an orgasm over it. He thinks he's the best warrior in the wikiworld, and he defeated his enemy with 22 reverts and he got no repercussions for it, and it's even protected with his desired version, so warring like crazy with 20+ edits for 2 hours must be the correct thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/197.184.161.74|197.184.161.74]] ([[User talk:197.184.161.74|talk]]) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Please answer the question I asked and stop causing tension. You're the one who caused the war, not me. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Look, I have been trying to bring back the logo that has been around for years, in accordance with the rules. An anonymous user tried to vandalize add an image uploaded to commons that causes copyright violation to the article. I am doing the right thing.<br /> :::This is the logo I'm trying to bring back:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_Spor_Kul%C3%BCb%C3%BC_(logo).png<br /> :::An anonymous vandal user tried to add: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSK_logo.png<br /> :::Now I ask you: Is the revision that I have been trying to bring back to the article for years more accurate? Or is the revision that includes the copyrighted image that the anonymous user tried to add by vandalism more accurate?<br /> :::In fact, the logo was uploaded to en:wiki in accordance with the rules in 2021, and there is no copyright problem, but why would the image uploaded to commons be added to the article in a way that would cause a copyright problem?<br /> :::It was deleted again from commons in the past due to copyright reasons. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Someone tried to update the logo to the current one the club uses. There's no copyright difference between the two, and it's not removed from Commons, instead of edit warring here, try to remove it from Commons first if you can. You have no idea what you're doing, and nothing justifies 22 reverts and all the things you've done in just a few hours. You just need to &quot;win a war&quot;, that's all you think about. [[Special:Contributions/41.150.252.84|41.150.252.84]] ([[User talk:41.150.252.84|talk]]) 14:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm going to agree with the IP user. There's no meaningful differences between these logos in terms of copyright, which makes the copyright claim spurious. You should resolve the deletion process at commons first. Edit-warring like that is out of order, and will get you blocked. Even after the protection expires, even if you're reverted. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, The nomination for deletion in the Commons will be concluded on the same grounds. The anonymous user's incessant vandalism is completely damaging to the article and a waste of users' time. I'm trying to prevent and stop vandalism. I made a long statement, I think I did the right thing. I think that I will not be blocked or victimized because I am trying to stop and prevent vandalism. Because according to the rules, the necessary intervention against vandalism does not require any obstacle, and since I am trying to stop the vandalism, logically I should not be blocked. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::You have failed to demonstrate how this was vandalism. If it was a doctored image, or the wrong image, or even if there was a meaningful difference for the purposes of copyright, then you could argue that. But this is not vandalism. It's edit-warring, and that's you've been doing. Going forward you need to not do that. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In the past, it was deleted from commons due to copyright reasons and it was re-uploaded in the same way. There is no explanation for the vandalism you did. You are the one who started a war by vandalizing instead of talking about the issue. Do not think that you can escape the damage you caused with different IP numbers. I told you to stop and you didn't stop, even though I replied to you in the message thread above, you did not respond. First, explain the damage you caused, and I made my comment on the subject with a long explanation. You are just trying to create tension and cover up your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Updating an image is not vandalism. Updating an image is usually considered a good thing. Where is the evidence it was previously deleted due to copyright? And I ask again, why is the image you restored so different that it follows different rules? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Please review the revisions here.<br /> :::::::An attempt was made to add visual here: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20827359]<br /> :::::::Here, the revision was removed for the same reason: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20837090]<br /> :::::::I have been interested in this article for a long time and I have patrol rights on tr:wiki. It has been withdrawn due to copyright reasons. Wait, I will bring you 2 users and let them make the necessary explanation. I'm not doing anything wrong, you can confirm that. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::You will need to explain why you think [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]] is so different, when it is more or less identical. Either both of these are public domain due to their simplicity, or neither of them are public domain. If both are available then we could use either of the images. If neither is free then we could use a fair use rationale, and retain the apparently updated [[:File:KSK logo.png]] through a local upload. However arguing that one is a copyright violation and the other isn't doesn't make any sense. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please stop this anonymous vandalism, this is getting very annoying. &gt;:(<br /> :::::::::Considering that my long explanation is now more understandable, I expect you not to allow the copyrighted image added during the deletion candidacy period in the commons to be included in the article. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] he continues to edit war, you see the failure to get the point and the competence and disruption issues here? If someone gets away with 20+ reverts in an hour, they will think they are on the right path and continue doing it, just like what is happening here. [[Special:Contributions/102.141.68.251|102.141.68.251]] ([[User talk:102.141.68.251|talk]]) 21:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::The president of the club has changed and what is your aim? While I, who follow this club closely, have added a reference to the fact that the club president has changed, you have no right to take back this correctly added revision. There is no war. I just added a reference information and you still continue your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Delbatros is in a war of change everywhere, including trwiki. For this reason, it was also blocked on trwiki. The ban period should be extended and the message page should be closed. This idiot is tarnishing the name of us Turks. Such people should be blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] The ban needs to be extended, you know this idiot got into World War II. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Referring to anyone as an idiot is unlikely to get me to side with you in any discussion. I'm unwilling to modify the block once its been placed without the need to do so. Show me conclusive proof of block evasion or other negative behaviours after the block and well review. They'll either learn or they wont and will review it from there. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Hello {{u|Amortias}} good morning, first of all, thank you for bringing back the correct revision. An anonymous vandal is trying to cause damage by removing information I added with reference, first he violated the copyright infringement rule and then he started a war. I managed to save the article from the copyright issue, although it was difficult, but hours later the anonymous user started vandalizing again. Now he is insistently trying to remove the information I added as a reference, and the reason why I was blocked was to prevent the damage he had caused to the article. Attempting to remove any information added by reference in a damaging way is considered vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == March 2024 ==<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;user-block uw-block&quot; style=&quot;padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px&quot;&gt;[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''36 hours''' for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]], as you did at [[:Karşıyaka S.K.]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: &lt;!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --&gt;&lt;code&gt;&lt;nowiki&gt;{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/code&gt;. &amp;nbsp;[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 21:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- Template:uw-ewblock --&gt;<br /> {{unblock reviewed|reason=Hello {{u|Amortias}} good morning, first of all, thank you for bringing back the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=1214090512 correct revision]. An anonymous vandal is trying to cause damage by removing information I added with reference, first he violated the copyright infringement rule and then he started a war. I managed to save the article from the copyright issue, although it was difficult, but hours later the anonymous user started vandalizing again. Now he is insistently trying to remove the information I added as a reference, and the reason why I was blocked was to prevent the damage he had caused to the article. Attempting to remove any information added by reference in a damaging way is considered vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)|decline=You addressed this comment to the blocking admin, but unblock requests are to ask for a third party to review the block. If you wish to discuss this with the blocking admin, you don't need to make an unblock request. That being said, the edits at issue do not seem to be vandalism, which would mean that edit warring is not acceptable. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 08:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)}}<br /> <br /> == [[Draft:Nazillispor|Nazillispor]] moved to draftspace ==<br /> <br /> Thanks for your contributions to [[Draft:Nazillispor|Nazillispor]]. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because '''it has no sources'''.<br /> I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.<br /> <br /> Please see more information at [[Help:Unreviewed new page]].<br /> When the article is ready for publication, please click on the &quot;Submit your draft for review!&quot; button at the top of the page OR move the page back. [[User:Boleyn|Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Boleyn|talk]]) 16:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Excuse me, the club closed 49 years ago. It doesn't have much history and there are no references about it so I can't add it. There is no source on tr:wiki either, I tried to create the page here as it is, but I don't think the page can be in draft form. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]] ([[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]) 17:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tehonk&diff=1214384218 2024-03-18T16:53:14Z

<p>Delbatros: Yahu dur bişey diyoruz şurada</p> <hr /> <div>== Film posters ==<br /> <br /> The standard for infobox film posters is the film's original theatrical release poster (see [[WP:FILMPOSTER]]). We do not opt for English posters merely because this is English Wikipedia. [[User:Οἶδα|Οἶδα]] ([[User talk:Οἶδα|talk]]) 01:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Οἶδα|Οἶδα]] OK but I'm not sure about &quot;original poster&quot; in that case, French release comes first and that's also a country of origin, so should it be French then? Also I think that page is not a policy page and there is no policy on this matter actually. Plus that page does not actually forbid the use of posters not from the country of origin (quote: &quot;If the poster used is not from the film's country of origin, then the poster's language or country of origin can be specified&quot;)<br /> :Anyway, in the end, even if we go with &quot;original poster&quot;, I'm not sure which one it would be. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 02:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)<br /> ::Yes, the French poster does apply, I considered uploading it myself before but I decided to wait for news of a Turkish release. Considering the film is a Turkish film shot in Turkey in the Turkish language with an entire Turkish cast and the majority of its funding from Turkey. And in that the template &quot;{{green|does not actually forbid the use of posters not from the country of origin}}&quot;, that guideline is presented near the bottom for such unique exceptions when a film is first theatrically released in a country which was not attached to its production. It is not saying just upload an English poster if you want.<br /> ::And I wouldn't put too much stock in saying there is no &quot;policy&quot; on this matter. The template documentation exists for a reason, and purposely ignoring community standards is not going serve you well. In any case, the poster I uploaded is from the forthcoming theatrical release in Turkey by Bir Film, which is a more accurate poster and should not have been reverted to an English-language rendition of the same poster, which is completely unrelated to the relevant production and distribution of the film. It is my understanding that we do not tailor any foreign media to the details of its English edition simply due to this being English Wikipedia. Of course, rare exceptions can always be made with consensus but first editions are always the ideal for everything from films to books etc.<br /> ::Given the film's overwhelming Turkishness, should an exception be made for its Turkish poster? Unless you are interested in raising that issue on the talk page, I will be opting to upload the French poster. [[User:Οἶδα|Οἶδα]] ([[User talk:Οἶδα|talk]]) 05:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div class=&quot;ivmbox &quot; style=&quot;margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; &quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;ivmbox-image&quot; style=&quot;padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px&quot;&gt;[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]&lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;ivmbox-text&quot;&gt;<br /> Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2023|2023 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.<br /> <br /> The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.<br /> <br /> If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. &lt;small&gt;[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/06&amp;oldid=1187132321 --&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.&amp;nbsp;The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Inspection request|Inspection request]]. Thank you.&lt;!--Template:Discussion notice--&gt;&lt;!--Template:AN-notice--&gt; <br /> <br /> Mandatory notification, as the person who filed the report failed to complete this step. I believe the report is without merit and have commented as much. Cheers, [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 22:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Daniel|Daniel]] Thank you for the notification and for your comment there. Cheers. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 04:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[WP:G5]] ==<br /> <br /> only apples if the page was created by someone that was is evading a current block. We don't apply it retroactively. Please review [[WP:CSD]] carefully before again tagging for speedy deletion. Thanks. [[User:Deepfriedokra|&amp;#45;- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 08:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Deepfriedokra|Deepfriedokra]] Hi, I know that, that tag was meeting &quot;any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5&quot; part. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 08:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Deepfriedokra|&amp;#45;- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 08:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==AFD comments==<br /> Hello, Tehonk,<br /> <br /> I've seen several AFD discussions where you have made mild insults to me because I chose to relist an AFD discussion. I get your point, you don't want an AFD discussion where you have a strong opinion relisted, so you don't need to repeat it. <br /> <br /> But if I don't see a consensus among participants, especially if other closers have passed on closing a discussion (meaning they didn't see a consensus either), I often relist a discussion because I've seen discussions drastically change over the course of time. Even after three relists, I've seen 3 or 4 editors come in at the end and offer opinions that determined how the discussion should be closed. And I don't agree with your understanding of &quot;consensus&quot;....there was one comment where you said there were 3 editors voting to Delete but that wasn't true unless you were reading into the comments of other editors and guessed how they might vote if they chose to (but they didn't chooose to). I find that editors who make comments like yours are simply impatient with the time it takes to arrive at a consensus and want a discussion closed according to their point of view. Of course, you have a right to air your view, as long as it is civil, but it doesn't need to be said with every relist and it doesn't help move things along. What we really need to close more AFD discussions in a timely way is to have more editors participate in discussions but there is no quick solution for that. Any way, I just wanted to remark that I've seen your messages and I know where you stand. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;&quot;&gt;[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;&quot;&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Liz|Liz]] Hi, thanks for your message, sorry to hear you call it &quot;mild insults&quot; and I apologize if you felt that way, but I wouldn't call it that because that wasn't my intention. Also, I can only remember two times I made such a comment (maybe it's more), but again, sorry and let me clarify. My main frustration in those comments was actually with the socks, not with you, so please don't get me wrong. For the last one, &quot;be omitted&quot; was a delete vote (just a strange translation of the &quot;delete&quot; from his own language), and there was my vote, which makes it two, and you're right, counting the third vote could be my &quot;reading into the comment&quot; of the nominator, but I just wanted to express my opinion, and like I said, my frustration was actually because of the socks situation, so I saw it as a waste of time, because I thought it will most likely be a G5 eligible in the end anyway, so why waste time anyway, and I wanted to say that. The other time I remember criticizing a relist, there was just a sock attack with a lot of obvious socks with new accounts and I was frustrated by the fact that they could affect it like that when they should just be ignored and not affect the outcome or the process. So I don't really have a general problem with a relist like you thought, I just don't get it when socks affect it, that's the main part actually.<br /> :I also want to say something, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Golestaneh (2nd nomination)|In this]] I only commented on the content and sources and you felt the need to tell me &quot;let's not be adversarial here&quot; when the first comment of the other party called my nomination &quot;a waste of time&quot; (I would call that &quot;adversarial&quot;) when I tried to carefully start the nomination with a good reason, and then these socks wrote a personal attack, a nonsense accusation calling me a racist, on that user's talk page, the user could ignore the sock and remove the personal attack, but not only didn't they do that, they went to other users and referred to this nonsense personal attack of the sock accusing me of racism while trying to gather support for AfD. I would call that &quot;adversarial&quot; and offensive, but you didn't say anything to other user and felt the need to warn me when I was only trying to comment on content and not users. So in the end that was actually a &quot;work of a sock's disruption&quot; as well. So that's why I sometimes get frustrated when I see them having some effect and not just being ignored. Anyway, thanks for your comment and sorry again to hear you call it that way, I'll pay attention to everything you said. Have a good weekend. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 07:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Excuse me?==<br /> What do you mean by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:37.172.90.185&amp;oldid=1212519259 this edit summary]? I don't dislike you. And I'm no inclusionist, I've deleted over 500,000 pages on this project. An inclusionist would not have deleted half a million pages. I'm just strict about the speedy deletion criteria and I don't think some pages require deletion when the offending comments can simply be removed from the page. Do you really think any editor will go into the page history of an IP address's User talk page? I don't delete pages just because someone requests a deletion, they have to have a good reason and I didn't think you offered a good reason. Both editors are not active any more and the remark was posted years ago. I don't think there is a need to delete this particular page. I just wish you would refrain from making personal comments about me anywhere on this project and just let me do my work. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;&quot;&gt;[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;&quot;&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Liz|Liz]] Hi, OK, that was just my feeling, but if you say that's not the case, then OK, I'm sorry. I'm not &quot;making personal comments about you anywhere on this project&quot;, you making comments like that was the reason I got the impression you didn't like me. When did I make personal comments about you? If you're referring to the conversation above, I explained to you that it was about the socks, not about you, and honestly I can only remember two times and I don't think I made any personal comments in either of them. In the last case I just said there were 3 deleted votes and I felt it would be G5 in the end and I just wanted to say that, it was not about you. In the other older case, I just said that I didn't think a sock attack should have that effect. And I clarified that your assumptions about me weren't really correct and that I don't have a problem with relists or I don't &quot;want a discussion closed according to my point of view&quot;. I even sent you a message to show my appreciation for all you do with AfD closures, you didn't reply to my above message or my attempt to show my good will so I thought you really disliked me, but OK, sorry for saying that, that wasn't OK, I just didn't understand the insistence on keeping an attack page. That page is &quot;a page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject&quot; with &quot;material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person&quot;. That fits the G10 criteria exactly, that's the reason G10 exists, there is really no reason to keep this page. I found it while looking for remnants of a cross-wiki spam and cleaning it up, so &quot;Do you really think any editor will go into the page history of an IP address's User talk page?&quot; is not a good reason to keep it, it can be found via a random search etc, it can be found after all. It's an attack page with an attack edit summary and attack content with insults directed at someone with their real name, there was no other revision &quot;to revert to&quot; and there was nothing else. G10 specially exists for things like that. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 09:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] ==<br /> <br /> Kaynaklı bilgiyi kaldırmandaki mantık neydi? Madem geri alacaktın kaynaklı bilgiyi neden siliyorsun? Mesaj sayfamda gerekli hizmetliye 2 referans sunmuştum o zaman koruma olduğu için düzenleme yapamamıştım Kulüp formalarını düzenlemiştim onu bile geri almışsın koruma olduğu için forma ve başkan etiketine müdahale bile edemiyorum onları geri getir bari [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tehonk&diff=1214383503 2024-03-18T16:48:58Z

<p>Delbatros: Öfff</p> <hr /> <div>== Film posters ==<br /> <br /> The standard for infobox film posters is the film's original theatrical release poster (see [[WP:FILMPOSTER]]). We do not opt for English posters merely because this is English Wikipedia. [[User:Οἶδα|Οἶδα]] ([[User talk:Οἶδα|talk]]) 01:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Οἶδα|Οἶδα]] OK but I'm not sure about &quot;original poster&quot; in that case, French release comes first and that's also a country of origin, so should it be French then? Also I think that page is not a policy page and there is no policy on this matter actually. Plus that page does not actually forbid the use of posters not from the country of origin (quote: &quot;If the poster used is not from the film's country of origin, then the poster's language or country of origin can be specified&quot;)<br /> :Anyway, in the end, even if we go with &quot;original poster&quot;, I'm not sure which one it would be. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 02:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)<br /> ::Yes, the French poster does apply, I considered uploading it myself before but I decided to wait for news of a Turkish release. Considering the film is a Turkish film shot in Turkey in the Turkish language with an entire Turkish cast and the majority of its funding from Turkey. And in that the template &quot;{{green|does not actually forbid the use of posters not from the country of origin}}&quot;, that guideline is presented near the bottom for such unique exceptions when a film is first theatrically released in a country which was not attached to its production. It is not saying just upload an English poster if you want.<br /> ::And I wouldn't put too much stock in saying there is no &quot;policy&quot; on this matter. The template documentation exists for a reason, and purposely ignoring community standards is not going serve you well. In any case, the poster I uploaded is from the forthcoming theatrical release in Turkey by Bir Film, which is a more accurate poster and should not have been reverted to an English-language rendition of the same poster, which is completely unrelated to the relevant production and distribution of the film. It is my understanding that we do not tailor any foreign media to the details of its English edition simply due to this being English Wikipedia. Of course, rare exceptions can always be made with consensus but first editions are always the ideal for everything from films to books etc.<br /> ::Given the film's overwhelming Turkishness, should an exception be made for its Turkish poster? Unless you are interested in raising that issue on the talk page, I will be opting to upload the French poster. [[User:Οἶδα|Οἶδα]] ([[User talk:Οἶδα|talk]]) 05:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div class=&quot;ivmbox &quot; style=&quot;margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; &quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;ivmbox-image&quot; style=&quot;padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px&quot;&gt;[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]&lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;ivmbox-text&quot;&gt;<br /> Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2023|2023 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.<br /> <br /> The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.<br /> <br /> If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. &lt;small&gt;[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/06&amp;oldid=1187132321 --&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.&amp;nbsp;The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Inspection request|Inspection request]]. Thank you.&lt;!--Template:Discussion notice--&gt;&lt;!--Template:AN-notice--&gt; <br /> <br /> Mandatory notification, as the person who filed the report failed to complete this step. I believe the report is without merit and have commented as much. Cheers, [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 22:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Daniel|Daniel]] Thank you for the notification and for your comment there. Cheers. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 04:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[WP:G5]] ==<br /> <br /> only apples if the page was created by someone that was is evading a current block. We don't apply it retroactively. Please review [[WP:CSD]] carefully before again tagging for speedy deletion. Thanks. [[User:Deepfriedokra|&amp;#45;- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 08:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Deepfriedokra|Deepfriedokra]] Hi, I know that, that tag was meeting &quot;any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5&quot; part. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 08:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Deepfriedokra|&amp;#45;- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 08:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==AFD comments==<br /> Hello, Tehonk,<br /> <br /> I've seen several AFD discussions where you have made mild insults to me because I chose to relist an AFD discussion. I get your point, you don't want an AFD discussion where you have a strong opinion relisted, so you don't need to repeat it. <br /> <br /> But if I don't see a consensus among participants, especially if other closers have passed on closing a discussion (meaning they didn't see a consensus either), I often relist a discussion because I've seen discussions drastically change over the course of time. Even after three relists, I've seen 3 or 4 editors come in at the end and offer opinions that determined how the discussion should be closed. And I don't agree with your understanding of &quot;consensus&quot;....there was one comment where you said there were 3 editors voting to Delete but that wasn't true unless you were reading into the comments of other editors and guessed how they might vote if they chose to (but they didn't chooose to). I find that editors who make comments like yours are simply impatient with the time it takes to arrive at a consensus and want a discussion closed according to their point of view. Of course, you have a right to air your view, as long as it is civil, but it doesn't need to be said with every relist and it doesn't help move things along. What we really need to close more AFD discussions in a timely way is to have more editors participate in discussions but there is no quick solution for that. Any way, I just wanted to remark that I've seen your messages and I know where you stand. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;&quot;&gt;[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;&quot;&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Liz|Liz]] Hi, thanks for your message, sorry to hear you call it &quot;mild insults&quot; and I apologize if you felt that way, but I wouldn't call it that because that wasn't my intention. Also, I can only remember two times I made such a comment (maybe it's more), but again, sorry and let me clarify. My main frustration in those comments was actually with the socks, not with you, so please don't get me wrong. For the last one, &quot;be omitted&quot; was a delete vote (just a strange translation of the &quot;delete&quot; from his own language), and there was my vote, which makes it two, and you're right, counting the third vote could be my &quot;reading into the comment&quot; of the nominator, but I just wanted to express my opinion, and like I said, my frustration was actually because of the socks situation, so I saw it as a waste of time, because I thought it will most likely be a G5 eligible in the end anyway, so why waste time anyway, and I wanted to say that. The other time I remember criticizing a relist, there was just a sock attack with a lot of obvious socks with new accounts and I was frustrated by the fact that they could affect it like that when they should just be ignored and not affect the outcome or the process. So I don't really have a general problem with a relist like you thought, I just don't get it when socks affect it, that's the main part actually.<br /> :I also want to say something, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Golestaneh (2nd nomination)|In this]] I only commented on the content and sources and you felt the need to tell me &quot;let's not be adversarial here&quot; when the first comment of the other party called my nomination &quot;a waste of time&quot; (I would call that &quot;adversarial&quot;) when I tried to carefully start the nomination with a good reason, and then these socks wrote a personal attack, a nonsense accusation calling me a racist, on that user's talk page, the user could ignore the sock and remove the personal attack, but not only didn't they do that, they went to other users and referred to this nonsense personal attack of the sock accusing me of racism while trying to gather support for AfD. I would call that &quot;adversarial&quot; and offensive, but you didn't say anything to other user and felt the need to warn me when I was only trying to comment on content and not users. So in the end that was actually a &quot;work of a sock's disruption&quot; as well. So that's why I sometimes get frustrated when I see them having some effect and not just being ignored. Anyway, thanks for your comment and sorry again to hear you call it that way, I'll pay attention to everything you said. Have a good weekend. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 07:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Excuse me?==<br /> What do you mean by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:37.172.90.185&amp;oldid=1212519259 this edit summary]? I don't dislike you. And I'm no inclusionist, I've deleted over 500,000 pages on this project. An inclusionist would not have deleted half a million pages. I'm just strict about the speedy deletion criteria and I don't think some pages require deletion when the offending comments can simply be removed from the page. Do you really think any editor will go into the page history of an IP address's User talk page? I don't delete pages just because someone requests a deletion, they have to have a good reason and I didn't think you offered a good reason. Both editors are not active any more and the remark was posted years ago. I don't think there is a need to delete this particular page. I just wish you would refrain from making personal comments about me anywhere on this project and just let me do my work. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;&quot;&gt;[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;&quot;&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Liz|Liz]] Hi, OK, that was just my feeling, but if you say that's not the case, then OK, I'm sorry. I'm not &quot;making personal comments about you anywhere on this project&quot;, you making comments like that was the reason I got the impression you didn't like me. When did I make personal comments about you? If you're referring to the conversation above, I explained to you that it was about the socks, not about you, and honestly I can only remember two times and I don't think I made any personal comments in either of them. In the last case I just said there were 3 deleted votes and I felt it would be G5 in the end and I just wanted to say that, it was not about you. In the other older case, I just said that I didn't think a sock attack should have that effect. And I clarified that your assumptions about me weren't really correct and that I don't have a problem with relists or I don't &quot;want a discussion closed according to my point of view&quot;. I even sent you a message to show my appreciation for all you do with AfD closures, you didn't reply to my above message or my attempt to show my good will so I thought you really disliked me, but OK, sorry for saying that, that wasn't OK, I just didn't understand the insistence on keeping an attack page. That page is &quot;a page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject&quot; with &quot;material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person&quot;. That fits the G10 criteria exactly, that's the reason G10 exists, there is really no reason to keep this page. I found it while looking for remnants of a cross-wiki spam and cleaning it up, so &quot;Do you really think any editor will go into the page history of an IP address's User talk page?&quot; is not a good reason to keep it, it can be found via a random search etc, it can be found after all. It's an attack page with an attack edit summary and attack content with insults directed at someone with their real name, there was no other revision &quot;to revert to&quot; and there was nothing else. G10 specially exists for things like that. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 09:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] ==<br /> <br /> Kaynaklı bilgiyi kaldırmandaki mantık neydi? Madem geri alacaktın kaynaklı bilgiyi neden siliyorsun? Mesaj sayfamda gerekli hizmetliye 2 referans sunmuştum o zaman koruma olduğu için düzenleme yapamamıştım Kulüp formalarını düzenlemiştim onu bile geri almışsın koruma olduğu için forma ve başkan etiketine müdahale bile edemiyorum onları geri getir bari [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tehonk&diff=1214338993 2024-03-18T10:12:44Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Karşıyaka S.K. */</p> <hr /> <div>== Film posters ==<br /> <br /> The standard for infobox film posters is the film's original theatrical release poster (see [[WP:FILMPOSTER]]). We do not opt for English posters merely because this is English Wikipedia. [[User:Οἶδα|Οἶδα]] ([[User talk:Οἶδα|talk]]) 01:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Οἶδα|Οἶδα]] OK but I'm not sure about &quot;original poster&quot; in that case, French release comes first and that's also a country of origin, so should it be French then? Also I think that page is not a policy page and there is no policy on this matter actually. Plus that page does not actually forbid the use of posters not from the country of origin (quote: &quot;If the poster used is not from the film's country of origin, then the poster's language or country of origin can be specified&quot;)<br /> :Anyway, in the end, even if we go with &quot;original poster&quot;, I'm not sure which one it would be. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 02:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)<br /> ::Yes, the French poster does apply, I considered uploading it myself before but I decided to wait for news of a Turkish release. Considering the film is a Turkish film shot in Turkey in the Turkish language with an entire Turkish cast and the majority of its funding from Turkey. And in that the template &quot;{{green|does not actually forbid the use of posters not from the country of origin}}&quot;, that guideline is presented near the bottom for such unique exceptions when a film is first theatrically released in a country which was not attached to its production. It is not saying just upload an English poster if you want.<br /> ::And I wouldn't put too much stock in saying there is no &quot;policy&quot; on this matter. The template documentation exists for a reason, and purposely ignoring community standards is not going serve you well. In any case, the poster I uploaded is from the forthcoming theatrical release in Turkey by Bir Film, which is a more accurate poster and should not have been reverted to an English-language rendition of the same poster, which is completely unrelated to the relevant production and distribution of the film. It is my understanding that we do not tailor any foreign media to the details of its English edition simply due to this being English Wikipedia. Of course, rare exceptions can always be made with consensus but first editions are always the ideal for everything from films to books etc.<br /> ::Given the film's overwhelming Turkishness, should an exception be made for its Turkish poster? Unless you are interested in raising that issue on the talk page, I will be opting to upload the French poster. [[User:Οἶδα|Οἶδα]] ([[User talk:Οἶδα|talk]]) 05:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div class=&quot;ivmbox &quot; style=&quot;margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; &quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;ivmbox-image&quot; style=&quot;padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px&quot;&gt;[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]&lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;ivmbox-text&quot;&gt;<br /> Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2023|2023 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.<br /> <br /> The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.<br /> <br /> If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. &lt;small&gt;[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/06&amp;oldid=1187132321 --&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.&amp;nbsp;The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Inspection request|Inspection request]]. Thank you.&lt;!--Template:Discussion notice--&gt;&lt;!--Template:AN-notice--&gt; <br /> <br /> Mandatory notification, as the person who filed the report failed to complete this step. I believe the report is without merit and have commented as much. Cheers, [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 22:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Daniel|Daniel]] Thank you for the notification and for your comment there. Cheers. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 04:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[WP:G5]] ==<br /> <br /> only apples if the page was created by someone that was is evading a current block. We don't apply it retroactively. Please review [[WP:CSD]] carefully before again tagging for speedy deletion. Thanks. [[User:Deepfriedokra|&amp;#45;- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 08:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Deepfriedokra|Deepfriedokra]] Hi, I know that, that tag was meeting &quot;any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5&quot; part. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 08:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Deepfriedokra|&amp;#45;- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 08:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==AFD comments==<br /> Hello, Tehonk,<br /> <br /> I've seen several AFD discussions where you have made mild insults to me because I chose to relist an AFD discussion. I get your point, you don't want an AFD discussion where you have a strong opinion relisted, so you don't need to repeat it. <br /> <br /> But if I don't see a consensus among participants, especially if other closers have passed on closing a discussion (meaning they didn't see a consensus either), I often relist a discussion because I've seen discussions drastically change over the course of time. Even after three relists, I've seen 3 or 4 editors come in at the end and offer opinions that determined how the discussion should be closed. And I don't agree with your understanding of &quot;consensus&quot;....there was one comment where you said there were 3 editors voting to Delete but that wasn't true unless you were reading into the comments of other editors and guessed how they might vote if they chose to (but they didn't chooose to). I find that editors who make comments like yours are simply impatient with the time it takes to arrive at a consensus and want a discussion closed according to their point of view. Of course, you have a right to air your view, as long as it is civil, but it doesn't need to be said with every relist and it doesn't help move things along. What we really need to close more AFD discussions in a timely way is to have more editors participate in discussions but there is no quick solution for that. Any way, I just wanted to remark that I've seen your messages and I know where you stand. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;&quot;&gt;[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;&quot;&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Liz|Liz]] Hi, thanks for your message, sorry to hear you call it &quot;mild insults&quot; and I apologize if you felt that way, but I wouldn't call it that because that wasn't my intention. Also, I can only remember two times I made such a comment (maybe it's more), but again, sorry and let me clarify. My main frustration in those comments was actually with the socks, not with you, so please don't get me wrong. For the last one, &quot;be omitted&quot; was a delete vote (just a strange translation of the &quot;delete&quot; from his own language), and there was my vote, which makes it two, and you're right, counting the third vote could be my &quot;reading into the comment&quot; of the nominator, but I just wanted to express my opinion, and like I said, my frustration was actually because of the socks situation, so I saw it as a waste of time, because I thought it will most likely be a G5 eligible in the end anyway, so why waste time anyway, and I wanted to say that. The other time I remember criticizing a relist, there was just a sock attack with a lot of obvious socks with new accounts and I was frustrated by the fact that they could affect it like that when they should just be ignored and not affect the outcome or the process. So I don't really have a general problem with a relist like you thought, I just don't get it when socks affect it, that's the main part actually.<br /> :I also want to say something, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Golestaneh (2nd nomination)|In this]] I only commented on the content and sources and you felt the need to tell me &quot;let's not be adversarial here&quot; when the first comment of the other party called my nomination &quot;a waste of time&quot; (I would call that &quot;adversarial&quot;) when I tried to carefully start the nomination with a good reason, and then these socks wrote a personal attack, a nonsense accusation calling me a racist, on that user's talk page, the user could ignore the sock and remove the personal attack, but not only didn't they do that, they went to other users and referred to this nonsense personal attack of the sock accusing me of racism while trying to gather support for AfD. I would call that &quot;adversarial&quot; and offensive, but you didn't say anything to other user and felt the need to warn me when I was only trying to comment on content and not users. So in the end that was actually a &quot;work of a sock's disruption&quot; as well. So that's why I sometimes get frustrated when I see them having some effect and not just being ignored. Anyway, thanks for your comment and sorry again to hear you call it that way, I'll pay attention to everything you said. Have a good weekend. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 07:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Excuse me?==<br /> What do you mean by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:37.172.90.185&amp;oldid=1212519259 this edit summary]? I don't dislike you. And I'm no inclusionist, I've deleted over 500,000 pages on this project. An inclusionist would not have deleted half a million pages. I'm just strict about the speedy deletion criteria and I don't think some pages require deletion when the offending comments can simply be removed from the page. Do you really think any editor will go into the page history of an IP address's User talk page? I don't delete pages just because someone requests a deletion, they have to have a good reason and I didn't think you offered a good reason. Both editors are not active any more and the remark was posted years ago. I don't think there is a need to delete this particular page. I just wish you would refrain from making personal comments about me anywhere on this project and just let me do my work. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;&quot;&gt;[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;&quot;&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Liz|Liz]] Hi, OK, that was just my feeling, but if you say that's not the case, then OK, I'm sorry. I'm not &quot;making personal comments about you anywhere on this project&quot;, you making comments like that was the reason I got the impression you didn't like me. When did I make personal comments about you? If you're referring to the conversation above, I explained to you that it was about the socks, not about you, and honestly I can only remember two times and I don't think I made any personal comments in either of them. In the last case I just said there were 3 deleted votes and I felt it would be G5 in the end and I just wanted to say that, it was not about you. In the other older case, I just said that I didn't think a sock attack should have that effect. And I clarified that your assumptions about me weren't really correct and that I don't have a problem with relists or I don't &quot;want a discussion closed according to my point of view&quot;. I even sent you a message to show my appreciation for all you do with AfD closures, you didn't reply to my above message or my attempt to show my good will so I thought you really disliked me, but OK, sorry for saying that, that wasn't OK, I just didn't understand the insistence on keeping an attack page. That page is &quot;a page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject&quot; with &quot;material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person&quot;. That fits the G10 criteria exactly, that's the reason G10 exists, there is really no reason to keep this page. I found it while looking for remnants of a cross-wiki spam and cleaning it up, so &quot;Do you really think any editor will go into the page history of an IP address's User talk page?&quot; is not a good reason to keep it, it can be found via a random search etc, it can be found after all. It's an attack page with an attack edit summary and attack content with insults directed at someone with their real name, there was no other revision &quot;to revert to&quot; and there was nothing else. G10 specially exists for things like that. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 09:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] ==<br /> <br /> Kaynaklı bilgiyi kaldırmandaki mantık neydi? Madem geri alacaktın kaynaklı bilgiyi neden siliyorsun? Mesaj sayfamda gerekli hizmetliye 2 referans sunmuştum o zaman koruma olduğu için düzenleme yapamamıştım Kulüp formalarını düzenlemiştim onu bile geri almışsın koruma olduğu için forma ve başkan etiketine müdahale bile edemiyorum onları geri getir bari [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tehonk&diff=1214338967 2024-03-18T10:12:24Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Karşıyaka S.K. */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>== Film posters ==<br /> <br /> The standard for infobox film posters is the film's original theatrical release poster (see [[WP:FILMPOSTER]]). We do not opt for English posters merely because this is English Wikipedia. [[User:Οἶδα|Οἶδα]] ([[User talk:Οἶδα|talk]]) 01:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Οἶδα|Οἶδα]] OK but I'm not sure about &quot;original poster&quot; in that case, French release comes first and that's also a country of origin, so should it be French then? Also I think that page is not a policy page and there is no policy on this matter actually. Plus that page does not actually forbid the use of posters not from the country of origin (quote: &quot;If the poster used is not from the film's country of origin, then the poster's language or country of origin can be specified&quot;)<br /> :Anyway, in the end, even if we go with &quot;original poster&quot;, I'm not sure which one it would be. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 02:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)<br /> ::Yes, the French poster does apply, I considered uploading it myself before but I decided to wait for news of a Turkish release. Considering the film is a Turkish film shot in Turkey in the Turkish language with an entire Turkish cast and the majority of its funding from Turkey. And in that the template &quot;{{green|does not actually forbid the use of posters not from the country of origin}}&quot;, that guideline is presented near the bottom for such unique exceptions when a film is first theatrically released in a country which was not attached to its production. It is not saying just upload an English poster if you want.<br /> ::And I wouldn't put too much stock in saying there is no &quot;policy&quot; on this matter. The template documentation exists for a reason, and purposely ignoring community standards is not going serve you well. In any case, the poster I uploaded is from the forthcoming theatrical release in Turkey by Bir Film, which is a more accurate poster and should not have been reverted to an English-language rendition of the same poster, which is completely unrelated to the relevant production and distribution of the film. It is my understanding that we do not tailor any foreign media to the details of its English edition simply due to this being English Wikipedia. Of course, rare exceptions can always be made with consensus but first editions are always the ideal for everything from films to books etc.<br /> ::Given the film's overwhelming Turkishness, should an exception be made for its Turkish poster? Unless you are interested in raising that issue on the talk page, I will be opting to upload the French poster. [[User:Οἶδα|Οἶδα]] ([[User talk:Οἶδα|talk]]) 05:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==<br /> <br /> &lt;div class=&quot;ivmbox &quot; style=&quot;margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; &quot;&gt;<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;ivmbox-image&quot; style=&quot;padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px&quot;&gt;[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|40px]]&lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;ivmbox-text&quot;&gt;<br /> Hello! Voting in the '''[[WP:ACE2023|2023 Arbitration Committee elections]]''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Election timeline|eligible users]]''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.<br /> <br /> The [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration|Wikipedia arbitration process]]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose [[WP:BAN|site bans]], [[WP:TBAN|topic bans]], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy|arbitration policy]] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.<br /> <br /> If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates|the candidates]] and submit your choices on the '''[[Special:SecurePoll/vote/{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|poll}}|voting page]]'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. &lt;small&gt;[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)&lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;/div&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/06&amp;oldid=1187132321 --&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.&amp;nbsp;The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Inspection request|Inspection request]]. Thank you.&lt;!--Template:Discussion notice--&gt;&lt;!--Template:AN-notice--&gt; <br /> <br /> Mandatory notification, as the person who filed the report failed to complete this step. I believe the report is without merit and have commented as much. Cheers, [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 22:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Daniel|Daniel]] Thank you for the notification and for your comment there. Cheers. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 04:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[WP:G5]] ==<br /> <br /> only apples if the page was created by someone that was is evading a current block. We don't apply it retroactively. Please review [[WP:CSD]] carefully before again tagging for speedy deletion. Thanks. [[User:Deepfriedokra|&amp;#45;- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 08:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Deepfriedokra|Deepfriedokra]] Hi, I know that, that tag was meeting &quot;any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5&quot; part. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 08:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::Thanks for clearing that up. [[User:Deepfriedokra|&amp;#45;- Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 08:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==AFD comments==<br /> Hello, Tehonk,<br /> <br /> I've seen several AFD discussions where you have made mild insults to me because I chose to relist an AFD discussion. I get your point, you don't want an AFD discussion where you have a strong opinion relisted, so you don't need to repeat it. <br /> <br /> But if I don't see a consensus among participants, especially if other closers have passed on closing a discussion (meaning they didn't see a consensus either), I often relist a discussion because I've seen discussions drastically change over the course of time. Even after three relists, I've seen 3 or 4 editors come in at the end and offer opinions that determined how the discussion should be closed. And I don't agree with your understanding of &quot;consensus&quot;....there was one comment where you said there were 3 editors voting to Delete but that wasn't true unless you were reading into the comments of other editors and guessed how they might vote if they chose to (but they didn't chooose to). I find that editors who make comments like yours are simply impatient with the time it takes to arrive at a consensus and want a discussion closed according to their point of view. Of course, you have a right to air your view, as long as it is civil, but it doesn't need to be said with every relist and it doesn't help move things along. What we really need to close more AFD discussions in a timely way is to have more editors participate in discussions but there is no quick solution for that. Any way, I just wanted to remark that I've seen your messages and I know where you stand. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;&quot;&gt;[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;&quot;&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]&lt;/sup&gt; 06:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Liz|Liz]] Hi, thanks for your message, sorry to hear you call it &quot;mild insults&quot; and I apologize if you felt that way, but I wouldn't call it that because that wasn't my intention. Also, I can only remember two times I made such a comment (maybe it's more), but again, sorry and let me clarify. My main frustration in those comments was actually with the socks, not with you, so please don't get me wrong. For the last one, &quot;be omitted&quot; was a delete vote (just a strange translation of the &quot;delete&quot; from his own language), and there was my vote, which makes it two, and you're right, counting the third vote could be my &quot;reading into the comment&quot; of the nominator, but I just wanted to express my opinion, and like I said, my frustration was actually because of the socks situation, so I saw it as a waste of time, because I thought it will most likely be a G5 eligible in the end anyway, so why waste time anyway, and I wanted to say that. The other time I remember criticizing a relist, there was just a sock attack with a lot of obvious socks with new accounts and I was frustrated by the fact that they could affect it like that when they should just be ignored and not affect the outcome or the process. So I don't really have a general problem with a relist like you thought, I just don't get it when socks affect it, that's the main part actually.<br /> :I also want to say something, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan Golestaneh (2nd nomination)|In this]] I only commented on the content and sources and you felt the need to tell me &quot;let's not be adversarial here&quot; when the first comment of the other party called my nomination &quot;a waste of time&quot; (I would call that &quot;adversarial&quot;) when I tried to carefully start the nomination with a good reason, and then these socks wrote a personal attack, a nonsense accusation calling me a racist, on that user's talk page, the user could ignore the sock and remove the personal attack, but not only didn't they do that, they went to other users and referred to this nonsense personal attack of the sock accusing me of racism while trying to gather support for AfD. I would call that &quot;adversarial&quot; and offensive, but you didn't say anything to other user and felt the need to warn me when I was only trying to comment on content and not users. So in the end that was actually a &quot;work of a sock's disruption&quot; as well. So that's why I sometimes get frustrated when I see them having some effect and not just being ignored. Anyway, thanks for your comment and sorry again to hear you call it that way, I'll pay attention to everything you said. Have a good weekend. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 07:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Excuse me?==<br /> What do you mean by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:37.172.90.185&amp;oldid=1212519259 this edit summary]? I don't dislike you. And I'm no inclusionist, I've deleted over 500,000 pages on this project. An inclusionist would not have deleted half a million pages. I'm just strict about the speedy deletion criteria and I don't think some pages require deletion when the offending comments can simply be removed from the page. Do you really think any editor will go into the page history of an IP address's User talk page? I don't delete pages just because someone requests a deletion, they have to have a good reason and I didn't think you offered a good reason. Both editors are not active any more and the remark was posted years ago. I don't think there is a need to delete this particular page. I just wish you would refrain from making personal comments about me anywhere on this project and just let me do my work. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;&quot;&gt;[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]&lt;/span&gt; &lt;sup style=&quot;font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;&quot;&gt;[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]&lt;/sup&gt; 08:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :@[[User:Liz|Liz]] Hi, OK, that was just my feeling, but if you say that's not the case, then OK, I'm sorry. I'm not &quot;making personal comments about you anywhere on this project&quot;, you making comments like that was the reason I got the impression you didn't like me. When did I make personal comments about you? If you're referring to the conversation above, I explained to you that it was about the socks, not about you, and honestly I can only remember two times and I don't think I made any personal comments in either of them. In the last case I just said there were 3 deleted votes and I felt it would be G5 in the end and I just wanted to say that, it was not about you. In the other older case, I just said that I didn't think a sock attack should have that effect. And I clarified that your assumptions about me weren't really correct and that I don't have a problem with relists or I don't &quot;want a discussion closed according to my point of view&quot;. I even sent you a message to show my appreciation for all you do with AfD closures, you didn't reply to my above message or my attempt to show my good will so I thought you really disliked me, but OK, sorry for saying that, that wasn't OK, I just didn't understand the insistence on keeping an attack page. That page is &quot;a page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject&quot; with &quot;material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person&quot;. That fits the G10 criteria exactly, that's the reason G10 exists, there is really no reason to keep this page. I found it while looking for remnants of a cross-wiki spam and cleaning it up, so &quot;Do you really think any editor will go into the page history of an IP address's User talk page?&quot; is not a good reason to keep it, it can be found via a random search etc, it can be found after all. It's an attack page with an attack edit summary and attack content with insults directed at someone with their real name, there was no other revision &quot;to revert to&quot; and there was nothing else. G10 specially exists for things like that. [[User:Tehonk|Tehonk]] ([[User talk:Tehonk#top|talk]]) 09:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] ==<br /> <br /> Kaynaklı bilgiyi kaldırmandaki mantık neydi? Madem geri alacaktın kaynaklı bilgiyi neden siliyorsun? Mesaj sayfamda gerekli hizmetliye 2 referans sunmuştum o zaman koruma olduğu için düzenleme yapamamıştım Kulüp formalarını düzenlemiştim onu bile geri almışsın koruma olduğu için forma ve başkan etiketine müdahale bile edemiyorum onları geri getir bari [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]] ([[User talk:Delbatros|talk]]) 10:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delbatros&diff=1214141224 2024-03-17T05:24:11Z

<p>Delbatros: /* March 2024 */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --&gt;<br /> ==Welcome!==<br /> [[File:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|[[Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''']]]]<br /> Hello, Delbatros, and '''''[[Help:Getting started|welcome to Wikipedia]]'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:<br /> * [[Help:Introduction|Introduction]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]<br /> * [[Help:Editing|How to edit a page]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]]<br /> * [[Help:Your first article|Your first article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community]]<br /> * Feel free to [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|make test edits in the sandbox]]<br /> * and check out the [[Wikipedia:Task Center|Task Center]], for ideas about what to work on.<br /> <br /> I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]] using four [[tilde]]s (&lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our [[Help:Contents|'''help pages''']], and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on [[User talk:Randykitty|my talk page]] or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!&lt;!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --&gt; [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 12:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Excuse me, I want to create an article, but it has been saved as a draft. Can you help me?<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == About [[Mersin İdman Yurdu]] ==<br /> <br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hi, and thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Delbatros|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Mersin İdman Yurdu]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into [[:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]. This is known as a &quot;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves|cut-and-paste move]]&quot;, and it is undesirable because it splits the [[Help:Page history|page history]], which is [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|legally required for attribution]]. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.<br /> <br /> In most cases for registered users, once your account is [[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed|four days old and has ten edits]], you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|&quot;Move&quot; tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at [[Wikipedia:Requests for history merge]]. Thank you. &lt;!-- Template:uw-c&amp;pmove --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Storchy|Storchy]] ([[User talk:Storchy|talk]]) 05:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. Since the page belongs to the Turkish football club, I am doing this according to the information in Turkish Wikipedia. Can you help me? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == esenlikler ==<br /> <br /> tr viki'de son değişikliklerde dolaşırken bazı olmamış maddelere denk geldim. sizi de [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metehan_%C3%96LMEZ&amp;diff=28770562&amp;oldid=28770548 şurda] gördüğüm için yazayım diye düşündüm.<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_K%C3%BCr%C5%9Fad_YILMAZ<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahit_Ergene_Ortaokulu<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkan_a%C5%9Fireti<br /> <br /> bunlara hızlı sil etiketi koyar mısınız? ----[[User:Modern primat|modern_primat]] [[Special:Contributions/Modern_primat|ඞඞඞ]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Modern primat|TALK]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)<br /> ==Concern regarding [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, Delbatros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months [[WP:G13|may be deleted]], so if you wish to retain the page, please [[Special:EditPage/Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit it]] again&amp;#32;or [[WP:USERFY|request]] that it be moved to your userspace.<br /> <br /> If the page has already been deleted, you can [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13|request it be undeleted]] so you can continue working on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. [[User:FireflyBot|FireflyBot]] ([[User talk:FireflyBot|talk]]) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)<br /> ==Your draft article, [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]<br /> <br /> Hello, Delbatros. It has been over six months since you last edited the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] submission or [[WP:Drafts|draft]] page you started, &quot;[[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|Mersin Talim Yurdu]]&quot;. <br /> <br /> In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]], the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code. <br /> <br /> If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at [[WP:REFUND/G13|this link]]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! &lt;!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <br /> <br /> '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&amp;mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&amp;mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&amp;mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.&lt;!-- Template:uw-3rr --&gt; [[Special:Contributions/105.8.2.55|105.8.2.55]] ([[User talk:105.8.2.55|talk]]) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please stop now! The revision you reverted contains copyright, why do you still insist on adding it back to the article? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{U|Hey man im josh}}, Please help me, There is a persistent copyright violation in the [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] article, please intervene. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, thank you so much. Please do not allow copyrighted images to be added to articles. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You have not answered the questions below. Please answer below. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Copyright?==<br /> OK, what's the problem?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214013229] [[:File:KSK logo.png]] and [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]], what's the difference? What is your copyright problem? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The problem is he's an idiot and he has no idea (if he can say &quot;son of a bitch&quot; without repercussion, I can say idiot). And if you're protecting the article, at least revert it to stable. [[Special:Contributions/102.182.46.145|102.182.46.145]] ([[User talk:102.182.46.145|talk]]) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If anyone calls anyone else an idiot or son of a bitch they're going to get blocked without any further warning, so we're clear. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You call me idiot and make me angry. Anyway, instead of causing a war, why didn't you send a message and tell me that you were trying to bring back the copyright violating image? Why do you continue to vandalize with different IP numbers? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is not allowed to upload copyrighted visual materials on Commons and there is already a logo available here. It is not nice to try to upload it in a way that will damage the article by violating the copyright rule. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The copyright rules allow something called [[:c:Commons:Licensing#Simple_design]], and we could always claim fair use, so the logo is allowed, but the thing I don't understand is why are you inserting an almost identical image? There has been a logo on that page for years. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I cannot write in the article, can you write please? The club's president has recently changed. Name of the new president: İlker Mehmet Ergüllü<br /> :Reference: [https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953], [https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598] [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You're on the verge of being blocked for [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], and abuse, and you don't seem to get it. You really need to stick to the point. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] You won't get good answers to any of your questions. I told you, he has no idea. Battleground mentality and lack of competence is all he is. And you're giving him the impression that he won a war here right now and he's having an orgasm over it. He thinks he's the best warrior in the wikiworld, and he defeated his enemy with 22 reverts and he got no repercussions for it, and it's even protected with his desired version, so warring like crazy with 20+ edits for 2 hours must be the correct thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/197.184.161.74|197.184.161.74]] ([[User talk:197.184.161.74|talk]]) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Please answer the question I asked and stop causing tension. You're the one who caused the war, not me. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Look, I have been trying to bring back the logo that has been around for years, in accordance with the rules. An anonymous user tried to vandalize add an image uploaded to commons that causes copyright violation to the article. I am doing the right thing.<br /> :::This is the logo I'm trying to bring back:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_Spor_Kul%C3%BCb%C3%BC_(logo).png<br /> :::An anonymous vandal user tried to add: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSK_logo.png<br /> :::Now I ask you: Is the revision that I have been trying to bring back to the article for years more accurate? Or is the revision that includes the copyrighted image that the anonymous user tried to add by vandalism more accurate?<br /> :::In fact, the logo was uploaded to en:wiki in accordance with the rules in 2021, and there is no copyright problem, but why would the image uploaded to commons be added to the article in a way that would cause a copyright problem?<br /> :::It was deleted again from commons in the past due to copyright reasons. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Someone tried to update the logo to the current one the club uses. There's no copyright difference between the two, and it's not removed from Commons, instead of edit warring here, try to remove it from Commons first if you can. You have no idea what you're doing, and nothing justifies 22 reverts and all the things you've done in just a few hours. You just need to &quot;win a war&quot;, that's all you think about. [[Special:Contributions/41.150.252.84|41.150.252.84]] ([[User talk:41.150.252.84|talk]]) 14:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm going to agree with the IP user. There's no meaningful differences between these logos in terms of copyright, which makes the copyright claim spurious. You should resolve the deletion process at commons first. Edit-warring like that is out of order, and will get you blocked. Even after the protection expires, even if you're reverted. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, The nomination for deletion in the Commons will be concluded on the same grounds. The anonymous user's incessant vandalism is completely damaging to the article and a waste of users' time. I'm trying to prevent and stop vandalism. I made a long statement, I think I did the right thing. I think that I will not be blocked or victimized because I am trying to stop and prevent vandalism. Because according to the rules, the necessary intervention against vandalism does not require any obstacle, and since I am trying to stop the vandalism, logically I should not be blocked. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::You have failed to demonstrate how this was vandalism. If it was a doctored image, or the wrong image, or even if there was a meaningful difference for the purposes of copyright, then you could argue that. But this is not vandalism. It's edit-warring, and that's you've been doing. Going forward you need to not do that. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In the past, it was deleted from commons due to copyright reasons and it was re-uploaded in the same way. There is no explanation for the vandalism you did. You are the one who started a war by vandalizing instead of talking about the issue. Do not think that you can escape the damage you caused with different IP numbers. I told you to stop and you didn't stop, even though I replied to you in the message thread above, you did not respond. First, explain the damage you caused, and I made my comment on the subject with a long explanation. You are just trying to create tension and cover up your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Updating an image is not vandalism. Updating an image is usually considered a good thing. Where is the evidence it was previously deleted due to copyright? And I ask again, why is the image you restored so different that it follows different rules? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Please review the revisions here.<br /> :::::::An attempt was made to add visual here: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20827359]<br /> :::::::Here, the revision was removed for the same reason: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20837090]<br /> :::::::I have been interested in this article for a long time and I have patrol rights on tr:wiki. It has been withdrawn due to copyright reasons. Wait, I will bring you 2 users and let them make the necessary explanation. I'm not doing anything wrong, you can confirm that. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::You will need to explain why you think [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]] is so different, when it is more or less identical. Either both of these are public domain due to their simplicity, or neither of them are public domain. If both are available then we could use either of the images. If neither is free then we could use a fair use rationale, and retain the apparently updated [[:File:KSK logo.png]] through a local upload. However arguing that one is a copyright violation and the other isn't doesn't make any sense. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please stop this anonymous vandalism, this is getting very annoying. &gt;:(<br /> :::::::::Considering that my long explanation is now more understandable, I expect you not to allow the copyrighted image added during the deletion candidacy period in the commons to be included in the article. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] he continues to edit war, you see the failure to get the point and the competence and disruption issues here? If someone gets away with 20+ reverts in an hour, they will think they are on the right path and continue doing it, just like what is happening here. [[Special:Contributions/102.141.68.251|102.141.68.251]] ([[User talk:102.141.68.251|talk]]) 21:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::The president of the club has changed and what is your aim? While I, who follow this club closely, have added a reference to the fact that the club president has changed, you have no right to take back this correctly added revision. There is no war. I just added a reference information and you still continue your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Delbatros is in a war of change everywhere, including trwiki. For this reason, it was also blocked on trwiki. The ban period should be extended and the message page should be closed. This idiot is tarnishing the name of us Turks. Such people should be blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] The ban needs to be extended, you know this idiot got into World War II. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Referring to anyone as an idiot is unlikely to get me to side with you in any discussion. I'm unwilling to modify the block once its been placed without the need to do so. Show me conclusive proof of block evasion or other negative behaviours after the block and well review. They'll either learn or they wont and will review it from there. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Hello {{u|Amortias}} good morning, first of all, thank you for bringing back the correct revision. An anonymous vandal is trying to cause damage by removing information I added with reference, first he violated the copyright infringement rule and then he started a war. I managed to save the article from the copyright issue, although it was difficult, but hours later the anonymous user started vandalizing again. Now he is insistently trying to remove the information I added as a reference, and the reason why I was blocked was to prevent the damage he had caused to the article. Attempting to remove any information added by reference in a damaging way is considered vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == March 2024 ==<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;user-block uw-block&quot; style=&quot;padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px&quot;&gt;[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''36 hours''' for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]], as you did at [[:Karşıyaka S.K.]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: &lt;!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --&gt;&lt;code&gt;&lt;nowiki&gt;{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/code&gt;. &amp;nbsp;[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 21:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- Template:uw-ewblock --&gt;<br /> {{unblock|reason=Hello {{u|Amortias}} good morning, first of all, thank you for bringing back the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=1214090512 correct revision]. An anonymous vandal is trying to cause damage by removing information I added with reference, first he violated the copyright infringement rule and then he started a war. I managed to save the article from the copyright issue, although it was difficult, but hours later the anonymous user started vandalizing again. Now he is insistently trying to remove the information I added as a reference, and the reason why I was blocked was to prevent the damage he had caused to the article. Attempting to remove any information added by reference in a damaging way is considered vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)}}</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delbatros&diff=1214141066 2024-03-17T05:22:23Z

<p>Delbatros: /* March 2024 */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --&gt;<br /> ==Welcome!==<br /> [[File:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|[[Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''']]]]<br /> Hello, Delbatros, and '''''[[Help:Getting started|welcome to Wikipedia]]'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:<br /> * [[Help:Introduction|Introduction]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]<br /> * [[Help:Editing|How to edit a page]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]]<br /> * [[Help:Your first article|Your first article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community]]<br /> * Feel free to [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|make test edits in the sandbox]]<br /> * and check out the [[Wikipedia:Task Center|Task Center]], for ideas about what to work on.<br /> <br /> I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]] using four [[tilde]]s (&lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our [[Help:Contents|'''help pages''']], and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on [[User talk:Randykitty|my talk page]] or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!&lt;!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --&gt; [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 12:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Excuse me, I want to create an article, but it has been saved as a draft. Can you help me?<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == About [[Mersin İdman Yurdu]] ==<br /> <br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hi, and thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Delbatros|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Mersin İdman Yurdu]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into [[:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]. This is known as a &quot;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves|cut-and-paste move]]&quot;, and it is undesirable because it splits the [[Help:Page history|page history]], which is [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|legally required for attribution]]. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.<br /> <br /> In most cases for registered users, once your account is [[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed|four days old and has ten edits]], you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|&quot;Move&quot; tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at [[Wikipedia:Requests for history merge]]. Thank you. &lt;!-- Template:uw-c&amp;pmove --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Storchy|Storchy]] ([[User talk:Storchy|talk]]) 05:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. Since the page belongs to the Turkish football club, I am doing this according to the information in Turkish Wikipedia. Can you help me? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == esenlikler ==<br /> <br /> tr viki'de son değişikliklerde dolaşırken bazı olmamış maddelere denk geldim. sizi de [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metehan_%C3%96LMEZ&amp;diff=28770562&amp;oldid=28770548 şurda] gördüğüm için yazayım diye düşündüm.<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_K%C3%BCr%C5%9Fad_YILMAZ<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahit_Ergene_Ortaokulu<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkan_a%C5%9Fireti<br /> <br /> bunlara hızlı sil etiketi koyar mısınız? ----[[User:Modern primat|modern_primat]] [[Special:Contributions/Modern_primat|ඞඞඞ]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Modern primat|TALK]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)<br /> ==Concern regarding [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, Delbatros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months [[WP:G13|may be deleted]], so if you wish to retain the page, please [[Special:EditPage/Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit it]] again&amp;#32;or [[WP:USERFY|request]] that it be moved to your userspace.<br /> <br /> If the page has already been deleted, you can [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13|request it be undeleted]] so you can continue working on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. [[User:FireflyBot|FireflyBot]] ([[User talk:FireflyBot|talk]]) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)<br /> ==Your draft article, [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]<br /> <br /> Hello, Delbatros. It has been over six months since you last edited the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] submission or [[WP:Drafts|draft]] page you started, &quot;[[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|Mersin Talim Yurdu]]&quot;. <br /> <br /> In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]], the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code. <br /> <br /> If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at [[WP:REFUND/G13|this link]]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! &lt;!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <br /> <br /> '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&amp;mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&amp;mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&amp;mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.&lt;!-- Template:uw-3rr --&gt; [[Special:Contributions/105.8.2.55|105.8.2.55]] ([[User talk:105.8.2.55|talk]]) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please stop now! The revision you reverted contains copyright, why do you still insist on adding it back to the article? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{U|Hey man im josh}}, Please help me, There is a persistent copyright violation in the [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] article, please intervene. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, thank you so much. Please do not allow copyrighted images to be added to articles. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You have not answered the questions below. Please answer below. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Copyright?==<br /> OK, what's the problem?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214013229] [[:File:KSK logo.png]] and [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]], what's the difference? What is your copyright problem? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The problem is he's an idiot and he has no idea (if he can say &quot;son of a bitch&quot; without repercussion, I can say idiot). And if you're protecting the article, at least revert it to stable. [[Special:Contributions/102.182.46.145|102.182.46.145]] ([[User talk:102.182.46.145|talk]]) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If anyone calls anyone else an idiot or son of a bitch they're going to get blocked without any further warning, so we're clear. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You call me idiot and make me angry. Anyway, instead of causing a war, why didn't you send a message and tell me that you were trying to bring back the copyright violating image? Why do you continue to vandalize with different IP numbers? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is not allowed to upload copyrighted visual materials on Commons and there is already a logo available here. It is not nice to try to upload it in a way that will damage the article by violating the copyright rule. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The copyright rules allow something called [[:c:Commons:Licensing#Simple_design]], and we could always claim fair use, so the logo is allowed, but the thing I don't understand is why are you inserting an almost identical image? There has been a logo on that page for years. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I cannot write in the article, can you write please? The club's president has recently changed. Name of the new president: İlker Mehmet Ergüllü<br /> :Reference: [https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953], [https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598] [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You're on the verge of being blocked for [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], and abuse, and you don't seem to get it. You really need to stick to the point. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] You won't get good answers to any of your questions. I told you, he has no idea. Battleground mentality and lack of competence is all he is. And you're giving him the impression that he won a war here right now and he's having an orgasm over it. He thinks he's the best warrior in the wikiworld, and he defeated his enemy with 22 reverts and he got no repercussions for it, and it's even protected with his desired version, so warring like crazy with 20+ edits for 2 hours must be the correct thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/197.184.161.74|197.184.161.74]] ([[User talk:197.184.161.74|talk]]) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Please answer the question I asked and stop causing tension. You're the one who caused the war, not me. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Look, I have been trying to bring back the logo that has been around for years, in accordance with the rules. An anonymous user tried to vandalize add an image uploaded to commons that causes copyright violation to the article. I am doing the right thing.<br /> :::This is the logo I'm trying to bring back:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_Spor_Kul%C3%BCb%C3%BC_(logo).png<br /> :::An anonymous vandal user tried to add: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSK_logo.png<br /> :::Now I ask you: Is the revision that I have been trying to bring back to the article for years more accurate? Or is the revision that includes the copyrighted image that the anonymous user tried to add by vandalism more accurate?<br /> :::In fact, the logo was uploaded to en:wiki in accordance with the rules in 2021, and there is no copyright problem, but why would the image uploaded to commons be added to the article in a way that would cause a copyright problem?<br /> :::It was deleted again from commons in the past due to copyright reasons. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Someone tried to update the logo to the current one the club uses. There's no copyright difference between the two, and it's not removed from Commons, instead of edit warring here, try to remove it from Commons first if you can. You have no idea what you're doing, and nothing justifies 22 reverts and all the things you've done in just a few hours. You just need to &quot;win a war&quot;, that's all you think about. [[Special:Contributions/41.150.252.84|41.150.252.84]] ([[User talk:41.150.252.84|talk]]) 14:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm going to agree with the IP user. There's no meaningful differences between these logos in terms of copyright, which makes the copyright claim spurious. You should resolve the deletion process at commons first. Edit-warring like that is out of order, and will get you blocked. Even after the protection expires, even if you're reverted. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, The nomination for deletion in the Commons will be concluded on the same grounds. The anonymous user's incessant vandalism is completely damaging to the article and a waste of users' time. I'm trying to prevent and stop vandalism. I made a long statement, I think I did the right thing. I think that I will not be blocked or victimized because I am trying to stop and prevent vandalism. Because according to the rules, the necessary intervention against vandalism does not require any obstacle, and since I am trying to stop the vandalism, logically I should not be blocked. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::You have failed to demonstrate how this was vandalism. If it was a doctored image, or the wrong image, or even if there was a meaningful difference for the purposes of copyright, then you could argue that. But this is not vandalism. It's edit-warring, and that's you've been doing. Going forward you need to not do that. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In the past, it was deleted from commons due to copyright reasons and it was re-uploaded in the same way. There is no explanation for the vandalism you did. You are the one who started a war by vandalizing instead of talking about the issue. Do not think that you can escape the damage you caused with different IP numbers. I told you to stop and you didn't stop, even though I replied to you in the message thread above, you did not respond. First, explain the damage you caused, and I made my comment on the subject with a long explanation. You are just trying to create tension and cover up your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Updating an image is not vandalism. Updating an image is usually considered a good thing. Where is the evidence it was previously deleted due to copyright? And I ask again, why is the image you restored so different that it follows different rules? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Please review the revisions here.<br /> :::::::An attempt was made to add visual here: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20827359]<br /> :::::::Here, the revision was removed for the same reason: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20837090]<br /> :::::::I have been interested in this article for a long time and I have patrol rights on tr:wiki. It has been withdrawn due to copyright reasons. Wait, I will bring you 2 users and let them make the necessary explanation. I'm not doing anything wrong, you can confirm that. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::You will need to explain why you think [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]] is so different, when it is more or less identical. Either both of these are public domain due to their simplicity, or neither of them are public domain. If both are available then we could use either of the images. If neither is free then we could use a fair use rationale, and retain the apparently updated [[:File:KSK logo.png]] through a local upload. However arguing that one is a copyright violation and the other isn't doesn't make any sense. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please stop this anonymous vandalism, this is getting very annoying. &gt;:(<br /> :::::::::Considering that my long explanation is now more understandable, I expect you not to allow the copyrighted image added during the deletion candidacy period in the commons to be included in the article. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] he continues to edit war, you see the failure to get the point and the competence and disruption issues here? If someone gets away with 20+ reverts in an hour, they will think they are on the right path and continue doing it, just like what is happening here. [[Special:Contributions/102.141.68.251|102.141.68.251]] ([[User talk:102.141.68.251|talk]]) 21:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::The president of the club has changed and what is your aim? While I, who follow this club closely, have added a reference to the fact that the club president has changed, you have no right to take back this correctly added revision. There is no war. I just added a reference information and you still continue your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Delbatros is in a war of change everywhere, including trwiki. For this reason, it was also blocked on trwiki. The ban period should be extended and the message page should be closed. This idiot is tarnishing the name of us Turks. Such people should be blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] The ban needs to be extended, you know this idiot got into World War II. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Referring to anyone as an idiot is unlikely to get me to side with you in any discussion. I'm unwilling to modify the block once its been placed without the need to do so. Show me conclusive proof of block evasion or other negative behaviours after the block and well review. They'll either learn or they wont and will review it from there. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Hello {{u|Amortias}} good morning, first of all, thank you for bringing back the correct revision. An anonymous vandal is trying to cause damage by removing information I added with reference, first he violated the copyright infringement rule and then he started a war. I managed to save the article from the copyright issue, although it was difficult, but hours later the anonymous user started vandalizing again. Now he is insistently trying to remove the information I added as a reference, and the reason why I was blocked was to prevent the damage he had caused to the article. Attempting to remove any information added by reference in a damaging way is considered vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == March 2024 ==<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;user-block uw-block&quot; style=&quot;padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px&quot;&gt;[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''36 hours''' for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]], as you did at [[:Karşıyaka S.K.]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: &lt;!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --&gt;&lt;code&gt;&lt;nowiki&gt;{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/code&gt;. &amp;nbsp;[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 21:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- Template:uw-ewblock --&gt;<br /> {{unblock|reason=Hello {{u|Amortias}} good morning, first of all, thank you for bringing back the correct revision. An anonymous vandal is trying to cause damage by removing information I added with reference, first he violated the copyright infringement rule and then he started a war. I managed to save the article from the copyright issue, although it was difficult, but hours later the anonymous user started vandalizing again. Now he is insistently trying to remove the information I added as a reference, and the reason why I was blocked was to prevent the damage he had caused to the article. Attempting to remove any information added by reference in a damaging way is considered vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)}}</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delbatros&diff=1214140761 2024-03-17T05:18:41Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Copyright? */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --&gt;<br /> ==Welcome!==<br /> [[File:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|[[Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''']]]]<br /> Hello, Delbatros, and '''''[[Help:Getting started|welcome to Wikipedia]]'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:<br /> * [[Help:Introduction|Introduction]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]<br /> * [[Help:Editing|How to edit a page]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]]<br /> * [[Help:Your first article|Your first article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community]]<br /> * Feel free to [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|make test edits in the sandbox]]<br /> * and check out the [[Wikipedia:Task Center|Task Center]], for ideas about what to work on.<br /> <br /> I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]] using four [[tilde]]s (&lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our [[Help:Contents|'''help pages''']], and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on [[User talk:Randykitty|my talk page]] or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!&lt;!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --&gt; [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 12:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Excuse me, I want to create an article, but it has been saved as a draft. Can you help me?<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == About [[Mersin İdman Yurdu]] ==<br /> <br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hi, and thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Delbatros|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Mersin İdman Yurdu]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into [[:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]. This is known as a &quot;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves|cut-and-paste move]]&quot;, and it is undesirable because it splits the [[Help:Page history|page history]], which is [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|legally required for attribution]]. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.<br /> <br /> In most cases for registered users, once your account is [[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed|four days old and has ten edits]], you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|&quot;Move&quot; tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at [[Wikipedia:Requests for history merge]]. Thank you. &lt;!-- Template:uw-c&amp;pmove --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Storchy|Storchy]] ([[User talk:Storchy|talk]]) 05:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. Since the page belongs to the Turkish football club, I am doing this according to the information in Turkish Wikipedia. Can you help me? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == esenlikler ==<br /> <br /> tr viki'de son değişikliklerde dolaşırken bazı olmamış maddelere denk geldim. sizi de [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metehan_%C3%96LMEZ&amp;diff=28770562&amp;oldid=28770548 şurda] gördüğüm için yazayım diye düşündüm.<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_K%C3%BCr%C5%9Fad_YILMAZ<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahit_Ergene_Ortaokulu<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkan_a%C5%9Fireti<br /> <br /> bunlara hızlı sil etiketi koyar mısınız? ----[[User:Modern primat|modern_primat]] [[Special:Contributions/Modern_primat|ඞඞඞ]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Modern primat|TALK]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)<br /> ==Concern regarding [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, Delbatros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months [[WP:G13|may be deleted]], so if you wish to retain the page, please [[Special:EditPage/Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit it]] again&amp;#32;or [[WP:USERFY|request]] that it be moved to your userspace.<br /> <br /> If the page has already been deleted, you can [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13|request it be undeleted]] so you can continue working on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. [[User:FireflyBot|FireflyBot]] ([[User talk:FireflyBot|talk]]) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)<br /> ==Your draft article, [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]<br /> <br /> Hello, Delbatros. It has been over six months since you last edited the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] submission or [[WP:Drafts|draft]] page you started, &quot;[[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|Mersin Talim Yurdu]]&quot;. <br /> <br /> In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]], the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code. <br /> <br /> If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at [[WP:REFUND/G13|this link]]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! &lt;!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <br /> <br /> '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&amp;mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&amp;mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&amp;mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.&lt;!-- Template:uw-3rr --&gt; [[Special:Contributions/105.8.2.55|105.8.2.55]] ([[User talk:105.8.2.55|talk]]) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please stop now! The revision you reverted contains copyright, why do you still insist on adding it back to the article? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{U|Hey man im josh}}, Please help me, There is a persistent copyright violation in the [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] article, please intervene. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, thank you so much. Please do not allow copyrighted images to be added to articles. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You have not answered the questions below. Please answer below. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Copyright?==<br /> OK, what's the problem?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214013229] [[:File:KSK logo.png]] and [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]], what's the difference? What is your copyright problem? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The problem is he's an idiot and he has no idea (if he can say &quot;son of a bitch&quot; without repercussion, I can say idiot). And if you're protecting the article, at least revert it to stable. [[Special:Contributions/102.182.46.145|102.182.46.145]] ([[User talk:102.182.46.145|talk]]) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If anyone calls anyone else an idiot or son of a bitch they're going to get blocked without any further warning, so we're clear. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You call me idiot and make me angry. Anyway, instead of causing a war, why didn't you send a message and tell me that you were trying to bring back the copyright violating image? Why do you continue to vandalize with different IP numbers? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is not allowed to upload copyrighted visual materials on Commons and there is already a logo available here. It is not nice to try to upload it in a way that will damage the article by violating the copyright rule. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The copyright rules allow something called [[:c:Commons:Licensing#Simple_design]], and we could always claim fair use, so the logo is allowed, but the thing I don't understand is why are you inserting an almost identical image? There has been a logo on that page for years. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I cannot write in the article, can you write please? The club's president has recently changed. Name of the new president: İlker Mehmet Ergüllü<br /> :Reference: [https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953], [https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598] [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You're on the verge of being blocked for [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], and abuse, and you don't seem to get it. You really need to stick to the point. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] You won't get good answers to any of your questions. I told you, he has no idea. Battleground mentality and lack of competence is all he is. And you're giving him the impression that he won a war here right now and he's having an orgasm over it. He thinks he's the best warrior in the wikiworld, and he defeated his enemy with 22 reverts and he got no repercussions for it, and it's even protected with his desired version, so warring like crazy with 20+ edits for 2 hours must be the correct thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/197.184.161.74|197.184.161.74]] ([[User talk:197.184.161.74|talk]]) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Please answer the question I asked and stop causing tension. You're the one who caused the war, not me. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Look, I have been trying to bring back the logo that has been around for years, in accordance with the rules. An anonymous user tried to vandalize add an image uploaded to commons that causes copyright violation to the article. I am doing the right thing.<br /> :::This is the logo I'm trying to bring back:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_Spor_Kul%C3%BCb%C3%BC_(logo).png<br /> :::An anonymous vandal user tried to add: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSK_logo.png<br /> :::Now I ask you: Is the revision that I have been trying to bring back to the article for years more accurate? Or is the revision that includes the copyrighted image that the anonymous user tried to add by vandalism more accurate?<br /> :::In fact, the logo was uploaded to en:wiki in accordance with the rules in 2021, and there is no copyright problem, but why would the image uploaded to commons be added to the article in a way that would cause a copyright problem?<br /> :::It was deleted again from commons in the past due to copyright reasons. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Someone tried to update the logo to the current one the club uses. There's no copyright difference between the two, and it's not removed from Commons, instead of edit warring here, try to remove it from Commons first if you can. You have no idea what you're doing, and nothing justifies 22 reverts and all the things you've done in just a few hours. You just need to &quot;win a war&quot;, that's all you think about. [[Special:Contributions/41.150.252.84|41.150.252.84]] ([[User talk:41.150.252.84|talk]]) 14:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm going to agree with the IP user. There's no meaningful differences between these logos in terms of copyright, which makes the copyright claim spurious. You should resolve the deletion process at commons first. Edit-warring like that is out of order, and will get you blocked. Even after the protection expires, even if you're reverted. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, The nomination for deletion in the Commons will be concluded on the same grounds. The anonymous user's incessant vandalism is completely damaging to the article and a waste of users' time. I'm trying to prevent and stop vandalism. I made a long statement, I think I did the right thing. I think that I will not be blocked or victimized because I am trying to stop and prevent vandalism. Because according to the rules, the necessary intervention against vandalism does not require any obstacle, and since I am trying to stop the vandalism, logically I should not be blocked. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::You have failed to demonstrate how this was vandalism. If it was a doctored image, or the wrong image, or even if there was a meaningful difference for the purposes of copyright, then you could argue that. But this is not vandalism. It's edit-warring, and that's you've been doing. Going forward you need to not do that. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In the past, it was deleted from commons due to copyright reasons and it was re-uploaded in the same way. There is no explanation for the vandalism you did. You are the one who started a war by vandalizing instead of talking about the issue. Do not think that you can escape the damage you caused with different IP numbers. I told you to stop and you didn't stop, even though I replied to you in the message thread above, you did not respond. First, explain the damage you caused, and I made my comment on the subject with a long explanation. You are just trying to create tension and cover up your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Updating an image is not vandalism. Updating an image is usually considered a good thing. Where is the evidence it was previously deleted due to copyright? And I ask again, why is the image you restored so different that it follows different rules? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Please review the revisions here.<br /> :::::::An attempt was made to add visual here: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20827359]<br /> :::::::Here, the revision was removed for the same reason: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20837090]<br /> :::::::I have been interested in this article for a long time and I have patrol rights on tr:wiki. It has been withdrawn due to copyright reasons. Wait, I will bring you 2 users and let them make the necessary explanation. I'm not doing anything wrong, you can confirm that. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::You will need to explain why you think [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]] is so different, when it is more or less identical. Either both of these are public domain due to their simplicity, or neither of them are public domain. If both are available then we could use either of the images. If neither is free then we could use a fair use rationale, and retain the apparently updated [[:File:KSK logo.png]] through a local upload. However arguing that one is a copyright violation and the other isn't doesn't make any sense. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please stop this anonymous vandalism, this is getting very annoying. &gt;:(<br /> :::::::::Considering that my long explanation is now more understandable, I expect you not to allow the copyrighted image added during the deletion candidacy period in the commons to be included in the article. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] he continues to edit war, you see the failure to get the point and the competence and disruption issues here? If someone gets away with 20+ reverts in an hour, they will think they are on the right path and continue doing it, just like what is happening here. [[Special:Contributions/102.141.68.251|102.141.68.251]] ([[User talk:102.141.68.251|talk]]) 21:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::The president of the club has changed and what is your aim? While I, who follow this club closely, have added a reference to the fact that the club president has changed, you have no right to take back this correctly added revision. There is no war. I just added a reference information and you still continue your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Delbatros is in a war of change everywhere, including trwiki. For this reason, it was also blocked on trwiki. The ban period should be extended and the message page should be closed. This idiot is tarnishing the name of us Turks. Such people should be blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] The ban needs to be extended, you know this idiot got into World War II. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Referring to anyone as an idiot is unlikely to get me to side with you in any discussion. I'm unwilling to modify the block once its been placed without the need to do so. Show me conclusive proof of block evasion or other negative behaviours after the block and well review. They'll either learn or they wont and will review it from there. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Hello {{u|Amortias}} good morning, first of all, thank you for bringing back the correct revision. An anonymous vandal is trying to cause damage by removing information I added with reference, first he violated the copyright infringement rule and then he started a war. I managed to save the article from the copyright issue, although it was difficult, but hours later the anonymous user started vandalizing again. Now he is insistently trying to remove the information I added as a reference, and the reason why I was blocked was to prevent the damage he had caused to the article. Attempting to remove any information added by reference in a damaging way is considered vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == March 2024 ==<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;user-block uw-block&quot; style=&quot;padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px&quot;&gt;[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''36 hours''' for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]], as you did at [[:Karşıyaka S.K.]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: &lt;!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --&gt;&lt;code&gt;&lt;nowiki&gt;{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/code&gt;. &amp;nbsp;[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 21:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- Template:uw-ewblock --&gt;</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delbatros&diff=1214140698 2024-03-17T05:18:08Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Copyright? */ Reply</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --&gt;<br /> ==Welcome!==<br /> [[File:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|[[Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''']]]]<br /> Hello, Delbatros, and '''''[[Help:Getting started|welcome to Wikipedia]]'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:<br /> * [[Help:Introduction|Introduction]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]<br /> * [[Help:Editing|How to edit a page]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]]<br /> * [[Help:Your first article|Your first article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community]]<br /> * Feel free to [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|make test edits in the sandbox]]<br /> * and check out the [[Wikipedia:Task Center|Task Center]], for ideas about what to work on.<br /> <br /> I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]] using four [[tilde]]s (&lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our [[Help:Contents|'''help pages''']], and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on [[User talk:Randykitty|my talk page]] or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!&lt;!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --&gt; [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 12:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Excuse me, I want to create an article, but it has been saved as a draft. Can you help me?<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == About [[Mersin İdman Yurdu]] ==<br /> <br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hi, and thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Delbatros|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Mersin İdman Yurdu]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into [[:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]. This is known as a &quot;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves|cut-and-paste move]]&quot;, and it is undesirable because it splits the [[Help:Page history|page history]], which is [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|legally required for attribution]]. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.<br /> <br /> In most cases for registered users, once your account is [[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed|four days old and has ten edits]], you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|&quot;Move&quot; tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at [[Wikipedia:Requests for history merge]]. Thank you. &lt;!-- Template:uw-c&amp;pmove --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Storchy|Storchy]] ([[User talk:Storchy|talk]]) 05:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. Since the page belongs to the Turkish football club, I am doing this according to the information in Turkish Wikipedia. Can you help me? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == esenlikler ==<br /> <br /> tr viki'de son değişikliklerde dolaşırken bazı olmamış maddelere denk geldim. sizi de [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metehan_%C3%96LMEZ&amp;diff=28770562&amp;oldid=28770548 şurda] gördüğüm için yazayım diye düşündüm.<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_K%C3%BCr%C5%9Fad_YILMAZ<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahit_Ergene_Ortaokulu<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkan_a%C5%9Fireti<br /> <br /> bunlara hızlı sil etiketi koyar mısınız? ----[[User:Modern primat|modern_primat]] [[Special:Contributions/Modern_primat|ඞඞඞ]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Modern primat|TALK]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)<br /> ==Concern regarding [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, Delbatros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months [[WP:G13|may be deleted]], so if you wish to retain the page, please [[Special:EditPage/Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit it]] again&amp;#32;or [[WP:USERFY|request]] that it be moved to your userspace.<br /> <br /> If the page has already been deleted, you can [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13|request it be undeleted]] so you can continue working on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. [[User:FireflyBot|FireflyBot]] ([[User talk:FireflyBot|talk]]) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)<br /> ==Your draft article, [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]<br /> <br /> Hello, Delbatros. It has been over six months since you last edited the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] submission or [[WP:Drafts|draft]] page you started, &quot;[[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|Mersin Talim Yurdu]]&quot;. <br /> <br /> In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]], the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code. <br /> <br /> If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at [[WP:REFUND/G13|this link]]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! &lt;!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <br /> <br /> '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&amp;mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&amp;mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&amp;mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.&lt;!-- Template:uw-3rr --&gt; [[Special:Contributions/105.8.2.55|105.8.2.55]] ([[User talk:105.8.2.55|talk]]) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please stop now! The revision you reverted contains copyright, why do you still insist on adding it back to the article? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{U|Hey man im josh}}, Please help me, There is a persistent copyright violation in the [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] article, please intervene. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, thank you so much. Please do not allow copyrighted images to be added to articles. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You have not answered the questions below. Please answer below. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Copyright?==<br /> OK, what's the problem?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214013229] [[:File:KSK logo.png]] and [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]], what's the difference? What is your copyright problem? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The problem is he's an idiot and he has no idea (if he can say &quot;son of a bitch&quot; without repercussion, I can say idiot). And if you're protecting the article, at least revert it to stable. [[Special:Contributions/102.182.46.145|102.182.46.145]] ([[User talk:102.182.46.145|talk]]) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If anyone calls anyone else an idiot or son of a bitch they're going to get blocked without any further warning, so we're clear. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You call me idiot and make me angry. Anyway, instead of causing a war, why didn't you send a message and tell me that you were trying to bring back the copyright violating image? Why do you continue to vandalize with different IP numbers? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is not allowed to upload copyrighted visual materials on Commons and there is already a logo available here. It is not nice to try to upload it in a way that will damage the article by violating the copyright rule. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The copyright rules allow something called [[:c:Commons:Licensing#Simple_design]], and we could always claim fair use, so the logo is allowed, but the thing I don't understand is why are you inserting an almost identical image? There has been a logo on that page for years. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I cannot write in the article, can you write please? The club's president has recently changed. Name of the new president: İlker Mehmet Ergüllü<br /> :Reference: [https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953], [https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598] [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You're on the verge of being blocked for [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], and abuse, and you don't seem to get it. You really need to stick to the point. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] You won't get good answers to any of your questions. I told you, he has no idea. Battleground mentality and lack of competence is all he is. And you're giving him the impression that he won a war here right now and he's having an orgasm over it. He thinks he's the best warrior in the wikiworld, and he defeated his enemy with 22 reverts and he got no repercussions for it, and it's even protected with his desired version, so warring like crazy with 20+ edits for 2 hours must be the correct thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/197.184.161.74|197.184.161.74]] ([[User talk:197.184.161.74|talk]]) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Please answer the question I asked and stop causing tension. You're the one who caused the war, not me. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Look, I have been trying to bring back the logo that has been around for years, in accordance with the rules. An anonymous user tried to vandalize add an image uploaded to commons that causes copyright violation to the article. I am doing the right thing.<br /> :::This is the logo I'm trying to bring back:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_Spor_Kul%C3%BCb%C3%BC_(logo).png<br /> :::An anonymous vandal user tried to add: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSK_logo.png<br /> :::Now I ask you: Is the revision that I have been trying to bring back to the article for years more accurate? Or is the revision that includes the copyrighted image that the anonymous user tried to add by vandalism more accurate?<br /> :::In fact, the logo was uploaded to en:wiki in accordance with the rules in 2021, and there is no copyright problem, but why would the image uploaded to commons be added to the article in a way that would cause a copyright problem?<br /> :::It was deleted again from commons in the past due to copyright reasons. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Someone tried to update the logo to the current one the club uses. There's no copyright difference between the two, and it's not removed from Commons, instead of edit warring here, try to remove it from Commons first if you can. You have no idea what you're doing, and nothing justifies 22 reverts and all the things you've done in just a few hours. You just need to &quot;win a war&quot;, that's all you think about. [[Special:Contributions/41.150.252.84|41.150.252.84]] ([[User talk:41.150.252.84|talk]]) 14:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm going to agree with the IP user. There's no meaningful differences between these logos in terms of copyright, which makes the copyright claim spurious. You should resolve the deletion process at commons first. Edit-warring like that is out of order, and will get you blocked. Even after the protection expires, even if you're reverted. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, The nomination for deletion in the Commons will be concluded on the same grounds. The anonymous user's incessant vandalism is completely damaging to the article and a waste of users' time. I'm trying to prevent and stop vandalism. I made a long statement, I think I did the right thing. I think that I will not be blocked or victimized because I am trying to stop and prevent vandalism. Because according to the rules, the necessary intervention against vandalism does not require any obstacle, and since I am trying to stop the vandalism, logically I should not be blocked. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::You have failed to demonstrate how this was vandalism. If it was a doctored image, or the wrong image, or even if there was a meaningful difference for the purposes of copyright, then you could argue that. But this is not vandalism. It's edit-warring, and that's you've been doing. Going forward you need to not do that. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In the past, it was deleted from commons due to copyright reasons and it was re-uploaded in the same way. There is no explanation for the vandalism you did. You are the one who started a war by vandalizing instead of talking about the issue. Do not think that you can escape the damage you caused with different IP numbers. I told you to stop and you didn't stop, even though I replied to you in the message thread above, you did not respond. First, explain the damage you caused, and I made my comment on the subject with a long explanation. You are just trying to create tension and cover up your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Updating an image is not vandalism. Updating an image is usually considered a good thing. Where is the evidence it was previously deleted due to copyright? And I ask again, why is the image you restored so different that it follows different rules? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Please review the revisions here.<br /> :::::::An attempt was made to add visual here: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20827359]<br /> :::::::Here, the revision was removed for the same reason: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20837090]<br /> :::::::I have been interested in this article for a long time and I have patrol rights on tr:wiki. It has been withdrawn due to copyright reasons. Wait, I will bring you 2 users and let them make the necessary explanation. I'm not doing anything wrong, you can confirm that. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::You will need to explain why you think [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]] is so different, when it is more or less identical. Either both of these are public domain due to their simplicity, or neither of them are public domain. If both are available then we could use either of the images. If neither is free then we could use a fair use rationale, and retain the apparently updated [[:File:KSK logo.png]] through a local upload. However arguing that one is a copyright violation and the other isn't doesn't make any sense. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please stop this anonymous vandalism, this is getting very annoying. &gt;:(<br /> :::::::::Considering that my long explanation is now more understandable, I expect you not to allow the copyrighted image added during the deletion candidacy period in the commons to be included in the article. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] he continues to edit war, you see the failure to get the point and the competence and disruption issues here? If someone gets away with 20+ reverts in an hour, they will think they are on the right path and continue doing it, just like what is happening here. [[Special:Contributions/102.141.68.251|102.141.68.251]] ([[User talk:102.141.68.251|talk]]) 21:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::The president of the club has changed and what is your aim? While I, who follow this club closely, have added a reference to the fact that the club president has changed, you have no right to take back this correctly added revision. There is no war. I just added a reference information and you still continue your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *Delbatros is in a war of change everywhere, including trwiki. For this reason, it was also blocked on trwiki. The ban period should be extended and the message page should be closed. This idiot is tarnishing the name of us Turks. Such people should be blocked from Wikipedia indefinitely. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:@[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] The ban needs to be extended, you know this idiot got into World War II. [[Special:Contributions/149.0.154.106|149.0.154.106]] ([[User talk:149.0.154.106|talk]]) 23:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *::Referring to anyone as an idiot is unlikely to get me to side with you in any discussion. I'm unwilling to modify the block once its been placed without the need to do so. Show me conclusive proof of block evasion or other negative behaviours after the block and well review. They'll either learn or they wont and will review it from there. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> *:::Hello {{u|Amortias}} good morning, first of all, thank you for bringing back the correct revision. An anonymous vandal is trying to cause damage by removing information I added with reference, first he violated the copyright infringement rule and then he started a war. I managed to save the article from the copyright issue, although it was difficult, but hours later the anonymous user started vandalizing again. Now he is insistently trying to remove the information I added as a reference, and the reason why I was blocked was to prevent the damage he had caused to the article. Attempting to remove any information added by reference in a damaging way is considered vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]] ([[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]) 05:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == March 2024 ==<br /> &lt;div class=&quot;user-block uw-block&quot; style=&quot;padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px&quot;&gt;[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''36 hours''' for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]], as you did at [[:Karşıyaka S.K.]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;margin-left:45px&quot;&gt;If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: &lt;!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --&gt;&lt;code&gt;&lt;nowiki&gt;{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}&lt;/nowiki&gt;&lt;/code&gt;. &amp;nbsp;[[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 21:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- Template:uw-ewblock --&gt;</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&diff=1214081468 2024-03-16T21:10:43Z

<p>Delbatros: Please help!!!!!!!!</p> <hr /> <div>{{pp|small=yes}}<br /> {{short description|Turkish sports club}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Karşıyaka<br /> | image = Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png<br /> | image_size = 170px<br /> | fullname = Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü<br /> | nickname = Kaf Kaf, Kaf Sin Kaf, The 35 and half<br /> | colours = {{colour box|#00FF00}}{{colour box|#FF0000}} Green&amp;nbsp;– Red<br /> | founded = {{Start date and years ago|df=yes|1912|11|1}}<br /> | ground = [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]]<br /> | capacity = 15,000|<br /> | chairman = İlker Mehmet Ergüllü&lt;ref&gt;https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> | manager = [[Erkan Sözeri]]<br /> | league = [[TFF Third League ]]<br /> | season = 2022-23<br /> | position = [[TFF Third League ]], Group 1, 7th<br /> | website = http://www.ksk.org.tr/<br /> |pattern_la1 =<br /> |pattern_b1 = _greenstripes<br /> |pattern_ra1 =<br /> |leftarm1 = FF0000<br /> |body1 = FF0000<br /> |rightarm1 = FF0000<br /> |shorts1 = FF0000<br /> |socks1 = FF0000<br /> |pattern_la2 =<br /> |pattern_b2 =<br /> |pattern_ra2 =<br /> |leftarm2 = FF0000<br /> |body2 = 00AA00<br /> |rightarm2 = FF0000<br /> |shorts2 = FF0000<br /> |socks2 = FF0000<br /> |pattern_la3 =<br /> |pattern_b3 =<br /> |pattern_ra3 =<br /> |leftarm3 = <br /> |body3 = <br /> |rightarm3 = <br /> |shorts3 = <br /> |socks3 = <br /> | current = 2023-24 [[TFF Third League]] Group 2<br /> | kit_alt1 = Red and Green vertical boxes with white shorts and socks<br /> }}<br /> '''Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü''' (English: Karşıyaka Sports Club) also known as '''Karşıyaka''' is a Turkish sports club located in [[Karşıyaka]], [[İzmir]]. Founded in 1912, they are İzmir's oldest club. Like all others in Turkey; the &quot;SK&quot; suffix refers to ''sports club'', as besides football the club has sports branches in [[Karşıyaka Basket|basketball]], [[Karşıyaka Women's Volleyball Team|volleyball]], [[handball]], [[tennis]], [[Swimming (sport)|swimming]], [[sailing (sport)|sailing]], [[billiards]], and [[bowling]]. The club's football team currently competes in the [[TFF Third League]], the fourth tier of the Turkish football league system. The basketball team currently competes in the [[Turkish Basketball League]] and the women's volleyball team in the Turkish Women's Second League.<br /> <br /> Karşıyaka has a very large fanbase in Northern İzmir, and have a fierce rivalry with [[Göztepe S.K.|Göztepe]]; the match between the two teams is collectively known as the [[Göztepe–Karşıyaka rivalry|İzmir Derby]]. Other rivalries are with [[Altay S.K.|Altay]] and [[Bucaspor]].<br /> [[File:Karsiyaka 1912.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Karşıyaka in 1912.]]<br /> <br /> ==European participations==<br /> {{updated|29 September 1992}}<br /> <br /> '''Statistics''':<br /> <br /> {|class=&quot;wikitable sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Competition!!Pld!!W!!D!!L!!GF!!GA!!GD<br /> |-<br /> |align=center|[[Balkans Cup]]<br /> |2||1||0||1||5||6||{{nowrap|–1}}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;'''Pld''' = Matches played; '''W''' = Matches won; '''D''' = Matches drawn; '''L''' = Matches lost; '''GF''' = Goals for; '''GA''' = Goals against; '''GD''' = Goal Difference. &lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> '''[[Balkans Cup]]:'''<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Season<br /> !Round<br /> !Club<br /> !Home<br /> !Away<br /> !Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1992–93 Balkans Cup|1992-93]]<br /> | '''Quarter-finals'''<br /> |{{flagicon|BUL}} [[FC Etar (Veliko Tarnovo)|Etar]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 4–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 1–5<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''5–6'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Current squad==<br /> {{updated|For the 2023-24 season [[TFF Third League]] Group 2|&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageID=535&amp;kulupID=3598 | title=KARŞIYAKA - Club Details TFF }}&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> {{fs start}}<br /> {{fs player|no=1|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=[[Haydar Yılmaz]]}}{{Football squad player|nat=TUR|pos=DF|name=Ferdi Burgaz|no=3}}<br /> {{fs player|no=4|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Erdi̇nç Çepoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=5|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Alpay Koldaş}}<br /> {{fs player|no=6|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Emre Keleşoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=8|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Efe Tatli|other={{small|on loan from [[Fatih Karagümrük S.K.]]}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=9|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Fatih Taşdelen}}<br /> {{fs player|no=10|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Emre Gemici}}<br /> {{fs player|no=11|pos=MF|nat=GER|name=Yasi̇n Ozan}}<br /> {{fs player|no=15|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=Hasan Sürmeli̇}}<br /> {{fs player|no=17|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Enes Nalbantoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=18|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=Enes Kalyoncu}}<br /> {{fs mid}}<br /> {{fs player|no=20|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Hakan Erçeli̇k}}<br /> {{fs player|no=21|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Mustafa Durgun}}<br /> {{fs player|no=22|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Bi̇lal Ceylan|other={{small|on loan from [[Beşiktaş J.K.]]}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=24|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Sefa Küpeli̇}}<br /> {{fs player|no=25|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Ömer Alper Tatlisu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=33|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Emre Can Heptazeler}}<br /> {{fs player|no=41|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Mertcan Koç}}<br /> {{fs player|no=77|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Fati̇h Çi̇plak}}<br /> {{fs player|no=80|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Adem Büyük|other=}}<br /> {{fs player|no=94|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Bariş Sağir}}<br /> {{fs player|no=99|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Cenk Ahmet Alkılıç}}<br /> {{fs end}}<br /> <br /> == League participations in football ==<br /> * [[Turkish Super League|Turkish Premier Division]]: 1958–64, 1966–67, 1970–72, 1987–91, 1992–94, 1995–96<br /> * [[TFF First League|Turkish First Division]]: 1964–66, 1967–70, 1972–73, 1980–87, 1991–92, 1994–95, 1996–01, 2003–2016<br /> * [[TFF Second League|Turkish Second Division]]: 1973–80, 2001–03, 2016–18<br /> * [[TFF Third League|Turkish Third Division]]: 2018–present<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> {{Commons category|Karşıyaka SK}}<br /> * [[Karşıyaka Basket|Pınar Karşıyaka]]<br /> * [[Karşıyaka Women's Volleyball Team]]<br /> * [[Göztepe-Karşıyaka rivalry]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *{{oweb|http://www.ksk.org.tr/}}<br /> *[http://www.tff.org.tr/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3598 Karşıyaka] on TFF.org<br /> <br /> {{Karşıyaka S.K.}}<br /> {{TFF Third League}}<br /> {{Football in Turkey}}<br /> <br /> {{Authority control}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=February 2021}}<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Karsiyaka S. K.}}<br /> [[Category:Karşıyaka S.K.| ]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1912]]<br /> [[Category:Multi-sport clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1912 establishments in the Ottoman Empire]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Turkey-footyclub-stub}}</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delbatros&diff=1214081275 2024-03-16T21:09:27Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Copyright? */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --&gt;<br /> ==Welcome!==<br /> [[File:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|[[Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''']]]]<br /> Hello, Delbatros, and '''''[[Help:Getting started|welcome to Wikipedia]]'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:<br /> * [[Help:Introduction|Introduction]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]<br /> * [[Help:Editing|How to edit a page]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]]<br /> * [[Help:Your first article|Your first article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community]]<br /> * Feel free to [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|make test edits in the sandbox]]<br /> * and check out the [[Wikipedia:Task Center|Task Center]], for ideas about what to work on.<br /> <br /> I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]] using four [[tilde]]s (&lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our [[Help:Contents|'''help pages''']], and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on [[User talk:Randykitty|my talk page]] or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!&lt;!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --&gt; [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 12:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Excuse me, I want to create an article, but it has been saved as a draft. Can you help me?<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == About [[Mersin İdman Yurdu]] ==<br /> <br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hi, and thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Delbatros|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Mersin İdman Yurdu]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into [[:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]. This is known as a &quot;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves|cut-and-paste move]]&quot;, and it is undesirable because it splits the [[Help:Page history|page history]], which is [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|legally required for attribution]]. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.<br /> <br /> In most cases for registered users, once your account is [[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed|four days old and has ten edits]], you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|&quot;Move&quot; tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at [[Wikipedia:Requests for history merge]]. Thank you. &lt;!-- Template:uw-c&amp;pmove --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Storchy|Storchy]] ([[User talk:Storchy|talk]]) 05:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. Since the page belongs to the Turkish football club, I am doing this according to the information in Turkish Wikipedia. Can you help me? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == esenlikler ==<br /> <br /> tr viki'de son değişikliklerde dolaşırken bazı olmamış maddelere denk geldim. sizi de [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metehan_%C3%96LMEZ&amp;diff=28770562&amp;oldid=28770548 şurda] gördüğüm için yazayım diye düşündüm.<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_K%C3%BCr%C5%9Fad_YILMAZ<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahit_Ergene_Ortaokulu<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkan_a%C5%9Fireti<br /> <br /> bunlara hızlı sil etiketi koyar mısınız? ----[[User:Modern primat|modern_primat]] [[Special:Contributions/Modern_primat|ඞඞඞ]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Modern primat|TALK]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)<br /> ==Concern regarding [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, Delbatros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months [[WP:G13|may be deleted]], so if you wish to retain the page, please [[Special:EditPage/Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit it]] again&amp;#32;or [[WP:USERFY|request]] that it be moved to your userspace.<br /> <br /> If the page has already been deleted, you can [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13|request it be undeleted]] so you can continue working on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. [[User:FireflyBot|FireflyBot]] ([[User talk:FireflyBot|talk]]) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)<br /> ==Your draft article, [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]<br /> <br /> Hello, Delbatros. It has been over six months since you last edited the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] submission or [[WP:Drafts|draft]] page you started, &quot;[[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|Mersin Talim Yurdu]]&quot;. <br /> <br /> In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]], the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code. <br /> <br /> If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at [[WP:REFUND/G13|this link]]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! &lt;!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <br /> <br /> '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&amp;mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&amp;mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&amp;mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.&lt;!-- Template:uw-3rr --&gt; [[Special:Contributions/105.8.2.55|105.8.2.55]] ([[User talk:105.8.2.55|talk]]) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please stop now! The revision you reverted contains copyright, why do you still insist on adding it back to the article? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{U|Hey man im josh}}, Please help me, There is a persistent copyright violation in the [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] article, please intervene. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, thank you so much. Please do not allow copyrighted images to be added to articles. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You have not answered the questions below. Please answer below. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Copyright?==<br /> OK, what's the problem?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214013229] [[:File:KSK logo.png]] and [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]], what's the difference? What is your copyright problem? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The problem is he's an idiot and he has no idea (if he can say &quot;son of a bitch&quot; without repercussion, I can say idiot). And if you're protecting the article, at least revert it to stable. [[Special:Contributions/102.182.46.145|102.182.46.145]] ([[User talk:102.182.46.145|talk]]) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If anyone calls anyone else an idiot or son of a bitch they're going to get blocked without any further warning, so we're clear. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You call me idiot and make me angry. Anyway, instead of causing a war, why didn't you send a message and tell me that you were trying to bring back the copyright violating image? Why do you continue to vandalize with different IP numbers? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is not allowed to upload copyrighted visual materials on Commons and there is already a logo available here. It is not nice to try to upload it in a way that will damage the article by violating the copyright rule. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The copyright rules allow something called [[:c:Commons:Licensing#Simple_design]], and we could always claim fair use, so the logo is allowed, but the thing I don't understand is why are you inserting an almost identical image? There has been a logo on that page for years. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I cannot write in the article, can you write please? The club's president has recently changed. Name of the new president: İlker Mehmet Ergüllü<br /> :Reference: [https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953], [https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598] [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You're on the verge of being blocked for [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], and abuse, and you don't seem to get it. You really need to stick to the point. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] You won't get good answers to any of your questions. I told you, he has no idea. Battleground mentality and lack of competence is all he is. And you're giving him the impression that he won a war here right now and he's having an orgasm over it. He thinks he's the best warrior in the wikiworld, and he defeated his enemy with 22 reverts and he got no repercussions for it, and it's even protected with his desired version, so warring like crazy with 20+ edits for 2 hours must be the correct thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/197.184.161.74|197.184.161.74]] ([[User talk:197.184.161.74|talk]]) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Please answer the question I asked and stop causing tension. You're the one who caused the war, not me. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Look, I have been trying to bring back the logo that has been around for years, in accordance with the rules. An anonymous user tried to vandalize add an image uploaded to commons that causes copyright violation to the article. I am doing the right thing.<br /> :::This is the logo I'm trying to bring back:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_Spor_Kul%C3%BCb%C3%BC_(logo).png<br /> :::An anonymous vandal user tried to add: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSK_logo.png<br /> :::Now I ask you: Is the revision that I have been trying to bring back to the article for years more accurate? Or is the revision that includes the copyrighted image that the anonymous user tried to add by vandalism more accurate?<br /> :::In fact, the logo was uploaded to en:wiki in accordance with the rules in 2021, and there is no copyright problem, but why would the image uploaded to commons be added to the article in a way that would cause a copyright problem?<br /> :::It was deleted again from commons in the past due to copyright reasons. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Someone tried to update the logo to the current one the club uses. There's no copyright difference between the two, and it's not removed from Commons, instead of edit warring here, try to remove it from Commons first if you can. You have no idea what you're doing, and nothing justifies 22 reverts and all the things you've done in just a few hours. You just need to &quot;win a war&quot;, that's all you think about. [[Special:Contributions/41.150.252.84|41.150.252.84]] ([[User talk:41.150.252.84|talk]]) 14:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm going to agree with the IP user. There's no meaningful differences between these logos in terms of copyright, which makes the copyright claim spurious. You should resolve the deletion process at commons first. Edit-warring like that is out of order, and will get you blocked. Even after the protection expires, even if you're reverted. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, The nomination for deletion in the Commons will be concluded on the same grounds. The anonymous user's incessant vandalism is completely damaging to the article and a waste of users' time. I'm trying to prevent and stop vandalism. I made a long statement, I think I did the right thing. I think that I will not be blocked or victimized because I am trying to stop and prevent vandalism. Because according to the rules, the necessary intervention against vandalism does not require any obstacle, and since I am trying to stop the vandalism, logically I should not be blocked. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::You have failed to demonstrate how this was vandalism. If it was a doctored image, or the wrong image, or even if there was a meaningful difference for the purposes of copyright, then you could argue that. But this is not vandalism. It's edit-warring, and that's you've been doing. Going forward you need to not do that. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In the past, it was deleted from commons due to copyright reasons and it was re-uploaded in the same way. There is no explanation for the vandalism you did. You are the one who started a war by vandalizing instead of talking about the issue. Do not think that you can escape the damage you caused with different IP numbers. I told you to stop and you didn't stop, even though I replied to you in the message thread above, you did not respond. First, explain the damage you caused, and I made my comment on the subject with a long explanation. You are just trying to create tension and cover up your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Updating an image is not vandalism. Updating an image is usually considered a good thing. Where is the evidence it was previously deleted due to copyright? And I ask again, why is the image you restored so different that it follows different rules? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Please review the revisions here.<br /> :::::::An attempt was made to add visual here: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20827359]<br /> :::::::Here, the revision was removed for the same reason: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20837090]<br /> :::::::I have been interested in this article for a long time and I have patrol rights on tr:wiki. It has been withdrawn due to copyright reasons. Wait, I will bring you 2 users and let them make the necessary explanation. I'm not doing anything wrong, you can confirm that. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::You will need to explain why you think [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]] is so different, when it is more or less identical. Either both of these are public domain due to their simplicity, or neither of them are public domain. If both are available then we could use either of the images. If neither is free then we could use a fair use rationale, and retain the apparently updated [[:File:KSK logo.png]] through a local upload. However arguing that one is a copyright violation and the other isn't doesn't make any sense. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please stop this anonymous vandalism, this is getting very annoying. &gt;:(<br /> :::::::::Considering that my long explanation is now more understandable, I expect you not to allow the copyrighted image added during the deletion candidacy period in the commons to be included in the article. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] he continues to edit war, you see the failure to get the point and the competence and disruption issues here? If someone gets away with 20+ reverts in an hour, they will think they are on the right path and continue doing it, just like what is happening here. [[Special:Contributions/102.141.68.251|102.141.68.251]] ([[User talk:102.141.68.251|talk]]) 21:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::The president of the club has changed and what is your aim? While I, who follow this club closely, have added a reference to the fact that the club president has changed, you have no right to take back this correctly added revision. There is no war. I just added a reference information and you still continue your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delbatros&diff=1214081059 2024-03-16T21:08:07Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Copyright? */ Reply</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --&gt;<br /> ==Welcome!==<br /> [[File:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|[[Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''']]]]<br /> Hello, Delbatros, and '''''[[Help:Getting started|welcome to Wikipedia]]'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:<br /> * [[Help:Introduction|Introduction]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]<br /> * [[Help:Editing|How to edit a page]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]]<br /> * [[Help:Your first article|Your first article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community]]<br /> * Feel free to [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|make test edits in the sandbox]]<br /> * and check out the [[Wikipedia:Task Center|Task Center]], for ideas about what to work on.<br /> <br /> I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]] using four [[tilde]]s (&lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our [[Help:Contents|'''help pages''']], and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on [[User talk:Randykitty|my talk page]] or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!&lt;!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --&gt; [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 12:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Excuse me, I want to create an article, but it has been saved as a draft. Can you help me?<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == About [[Mersin İdman Yurdu]] ==<br /> <br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hi, and thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Delbatros|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Mersin İdman Yurdu]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into [[:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]. This is known as a &quot;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves|cut-and-paste move]]&quot;, and it is undesirable because it splits the [[Help:Page history|page history]], which is [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|legally required for attribution]]. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.<br /> <br /> In most cases for registered users, once your account is [[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed|four days old and has ten edits]], you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|&quot;Move&quot; tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at [[Wikipedia:Requests for history merge]]. Thank you. &lt;!-- Template:uw-c&amp;pmove --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Storchy|Storchy]] ([[User talk:Storchy|talk]]) 05:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. Since the page belongs to the Turkish football club, I am doing this according to the information in Turkish Wikipedia. Can you help me? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == esenlikler ==<br /> <br /> tr viki'de son değişikliklerde dolaşırken bazı olmamış maddelere denk geldim. sizi de [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metehan_%C3%96LMEZ&amp;diff=28770562&amp;oldid=28770548 şurda] gördüğüm için yazayım diye düşündüm.<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_K%C3%BCr%C5%9Fad_YILMAZ<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahit_Ergene_Ortaokulu<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkan_a%C5%9Fireti<br /> <br /> bunlara hızlı sil etiketi koyar mısınız? ----[[User:Modern primat|modern_primat]] [[Special:Contributions/Modern_primat|ඞඞඞ]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Modern primat|TALK]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)<br /> ==Concern regarding [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, Delbatros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months [[WP:G13|may be deleted]], so if you wish to retain the page, please [[Special:EditPage/Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit it]] again&amp;#32;or [[WP:USERFY|request]] that it be moved to your userspace.<br /> <br /> If the page has already been deleted, you can [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13|request it be undeleted]] so you can continue working on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. [[User:FireflyBot|FireflyBot]] ([[User talk:FireflyBot|talk]]) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)<br /> ==Your draft article, [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]<br /> <br /> Hello, Delbatros. It has been over six months since you last edited the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] submission or [[WP:Drafts|draft]] page you started, &quot;[[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|Mersin Talim Yurdu]]&quot;. <br /> <br /> In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]], the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code. <br /> <br /> If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at [[WP:REFUND/G13|this link]]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! &lt;!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <br /> <br /> '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&amp;mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&amp;mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&amp;mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.&lt;!-- Template:uw-3rr --&gt; [[Special:Contributions/105.8.2.55|105.8.2.55]] ([[User talk:105.8.2.55|talk]]) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please stop now! The revision you reverted contains copyright, why do you still insist on adding it back to the article? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{U|Hey man im josh}}, Please help me, There is a persistent copyright violation in the [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] article, please intervene. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, thank you so much. Please do not allow copyrighted images to be added to articles. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You have not answered the questions below. Please answer below. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Copyright?==<br /> OK, what's the problem?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214013229] [[:File:KSK logo.png]] and [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]], what's the difference? What is your copyright problem? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The problem is he's an idiot and he has no idea (if he can say &quot;son of a bitch&quot; without repercussion, I can say idiot). And if you're protecting the article, at least revert it to stable. [[Special:Contributions/102.182.46.145|102.182.46.145]] ([[User talk:102.182.46.145|talk]]) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If anyone calls anyone else an idiot or son of a bitch they're going to get blocked without any further warning, so we're clear. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You call me idiot and make me angry. Anyway, instead of causing a war, why didn't you send a message and tell me that you were trying to bring back the copyright violating image? Why do you continue to vandalize with different IP numbers? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is not allowed to upload copyrighted visual materials on Commons and there is already a logo available here. It is not nice to try to upload it in a way that will damage the article by violating the copyright rule. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The copyright rules allow something called [[:c:Commons:Licensing#Simple_design]], and we could always claim fair use, so the logo is allowed, but the thing I don't understand is why are you inserting an almost identical image? There has been a logo on that page for years. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I cannot write in the article, can you write please? The club's president has recently changed. Name of the new president: İlker Mehmet Ergüllü<br /> :Reference: [https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953], [https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598] [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You're on the verge of being blocked for [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], and abuse, and you don't seem to get it. You really need to stick to the point. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] You won't get good answers to any of your questions. I told you, he has no idea. Battleground mentality and lack of competence is all he is. And you're giving him the impression that he won a war here right now and he's having an orgasm over it. He thinks he's the best warrior in the wikiworld, and he defeated his enemy with 22 reverts and he got no repercussions for it, and it's even protected with his desired version, so warring like crazy with 20+ edits for 2 hours must be the correct thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/197.184.161.74|197.184.161.74]] ([[User talk:197.184.161.74|talk]]) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Please answer the question I asked and stop causing tension. You're the one who caused the war, not me. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Look, I have been trying to bring back the logo that has been around for years, in accordance with the rules. An anonymous user tried to vandalize add an image uploaded to commons that causes copyright violation to the article. I am doing the right thing.<br /> :::This is the logo I'm trying to bring back:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_Spor_Kul%C3%BCb%C3%BC_(logo).png<br /> :::An anonymous vandal user tried to add: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSK_logo.png<br /> :::Now I ask you: Is the revision that I have been trying to bring back to the article for years more accurate? Or is the revision that includes the copyrighted image that the anonymous user tried to add by vandalism more accurate?<br /> :::In fact, the logo was uploaded to en:wiki in accordance with the rules in 2021, and there is no copyright problem, but why would the image uploaded to commons be added to the article in a way that would cause a copyright problem?<br /> :::It was deleted again from commons in the past due to copyright reasons. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Someone tried to update the logo to the current one the club uses. There's no copyright difference between the two, and it's not removed from Commons, instead of edit warring here, try to remove it from Commons first if you can. You have no idea what you're doing, and nothing justifies 22 reverts and all the things you've done in just a few hours. You just need to &quot;win a war&quot;, that's all you think about. [[Special:Contributions/41.150.252.84|41.150.252.84]] ([[User talk:41.150.252.84|talk]]) 14:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm going to agree with the IP user. There's no meaningful differences between these logos in terms of copyright, which makes the copyright claim spurious. You should resolve the deletion process at commons first. Edit-warring like that is out of order, and will get you blocked. Even after the protection expires, even if you're reverted. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, The nomination for deletion in the Commons will be concluded on the same grounds. The anonymous user's incessant vandalism is completely damaging to the article and a waste of users' time. I'm trying to prevent and stop vandalism. I made a long statement, I think I did the right thing. I think that I will not be blocked or victimized because I am trying to stop and prevent vandalism. Because according to the rules, the necessary intervention against vandalism does not require any obstacle, and since I am trying to stop the vandalism, logically I should not be blocked. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::You have failed to demonstrate how this was vandalism. If it was a doctored image, or the wrong image, or even if there was a meaningful difference for the purposes of copyright, then you could argue that. But this is not vandalism. It's edit-warring, and that's you've been doing. Going forward you need to not do that. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In the past, it was deleted from commons due to copyright reasons and it was re-uploaded in the same way. There is no explanation for the vandalism you did. You are the one who started a war by vandalizing instead of talking about the issue. Do not think that you can escape the damage you caused with different IP numbers. I told you to stop and you didn't stop, even though I replied to you in the message thread above, you did not respond. First, explain the damage you caused, and I made my comment on the subject with a long explanation. You are just trying to create tension and cover up your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Updating an image is not vandalism. Updating an image is usually considered a good thing. Where is the evidence it was previously deleted due to copyright? And I ask again, why is the image you restored so different that it follows different rules? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Please review the revisions here.<br /> :::::::An attempt was made to add visual here: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20827359]<br /> :::::::Here, the revision was removed for the same reason: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20837090]<br /> :::::::I have been interested in this article for a long time and I have patrol rights on tr:wiki. It has been withdrawn due to copyright reasons. Wait, I will bring you 2 users and let them make the necessary explanation. I'm not doing anything wrong, you can confirm that. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::You will need to explain why you think [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]] is so different, when it is more or less identical. Either both of these are public domain due to their simplicity, or neither of them are public domain. If both are available then we could use either of the images. If neither is free then we could use a fair use rationale, and retain the apparently updated [[:File:KSK logo.png]] through a local upload. However arguing that one is a copyright violation and the other isn't doesn't make any sense. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please stop this anonymous vandalism, this is getting very annoying. &gt;:(<br /> :::::::::Considering that my long explanation is now more understandable, I expect you not to allow the copyrighted image added during the deletion candidacy period in the commons to be included in the article. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] he continues to edit war, you see the failure to get the point and the competence and disruption issues here? If someone gets away with 20+ reverts in an hour, they will think they are on the right path and continue doing it, just like what is happening here. [[Special:Contributions/102.141.68.251|102.141.68.251]] ([[User talk:102.141.68.251|talk]]) 21:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::::The president of the club has changed and what is your aim? While I, who follow this club closely, have added a reference to the fact that the club president has changed, you have no right to take back this correctly added revision. There is no war. I just added a reference information and you still continue your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]] ([[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]) 21:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&diff=1214080672 2024-03-16T21:05:33Z

<p>Delbatros: The president of the club has changed and what is your aim? While I, who follow this club closely, have added a reference to the fact that the club president has changed, you have no right to take back this correctly added revision.</p> <hr /> <div>{{pp|small=yes}}<br /> {{short description|Turkish sports club}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Karşıyaka<br /> | image = Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png<br /> | image_size = 170px<br /> | fullname = Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü<br /> | nickname = Kaf Kaf, Kaf Sin Kaf, The 35 and half<br /> | colours = {{colour box|#00FF00}}{{colour box|#FF0000}} Green&amp;nbsp;– Red<br /> | founded = {{Start date and years ago|df=yes|1912|11|1}}<br /> | ground = [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]]<br /> | capacity = 15,000|<br /> | chairman = İlker Mehmet Ergüllü&lt;ref&gt;https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> | manager = [[Erkan Sözeri]]<br /> | league = [[TFF Third League ]]<br /> | season = 2022-23<br /> | position = [[TFF Third League ]], Group 1, 7th<br /> | website = http://www.ksk.org.tr/<br /> |pattern_la1 =<br /> |pattern_b1 = _greenstripes<br /> |pattern_ra1 =<br /> |leftarm1 = FF0000<br /> |body1 = FF0000<br /> |rightarm1 = FF0000<br /> |shorts1 = FF0000<br /> |socks1 = FF0000<br /> |pattern_la2 =<br /> |pattern_b2 =<br /> |pattern_ra2 =<br /> |leftarm2 = FF0000<br /> |body2 = 00AA00<br /> |rightarm2 = FF0000<br /> |shorts2 = FF0000<br /> |socks2 = FF0000<br /> |pattern_la3 =<br /> |pattern_b3 =<br /> |pattern_ra3 =<br /> |leftarm3 = <br /> |body3 = <br /> |rightarm3 = <br /> |shorts3 = <br /> |socks3 = <br /> | current = 2023-24 [[TFF Third League]] Group 2<br /> | kit_alt1 = Red and Green vertical boxes with white shorts and socks<br /> }}<br /> '''Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü''' (English: Karşıyaka Sports Club) also known as '''Karşıyaka''' is a Turkish sports club located in [[Karşıyaka]], [[İzmir]]. Founded in 1912, they are İzmir's oldest club. Like all others in Turkey; the &quot;SK&quot; suffix refers to ''sports club'', as besides football the club has sports branches in [[Karşıyaka Basket|basketball]], [[Karşıyaka Women's Volleyball Team|volleyball]], [[handball]], [[tennis]], [[Swimming (sport)|swimming]], [[sailing (sport)|sailing]], [[billiards]], and [[bowling]]. The club's football team currently competes in the [[TFF Third League]], the fourth tier of the Turkish football league system. The basketball team currently competes in the [[Turkish Basketball League]] and the women's volleyball team in the Turkish Women's Second League.<br /> <br /> Karşıyaka has a very large fanbase in Northern İzmir, and have a fierce rivalry with [[Göztepe S.K.|Göztepe]]; the match between the two teams is collectively known as the [[Göztepe–Karşıyaka rivalry|İzmir Derby]]. Other rivalries are with [[Altay S.K.|Altay]] and [[Bucaspor]].<br /> [[File:Karsiyaka 1912.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Karşıyaka in 1912.]]<br /> <br /> ==European participations==<br /> {{updated|29 September 1992}}<br /> <br /> '''Statistics''':<br /> <br /> {|class=&quot;wikitable sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Competition!!Pld!!W!!D!!L!!GF!!GA!!GD<br /> |-<br /> |align=center|[[Balkans Cup]]<br /> |2||1||0||1||5||6||{{nowrap|–1}}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;'''Pld''' = Matches played; '''W''' = Matches won; '''D''' = Matches drawn; '''L''' = Matches lost; '''GF''' = Goals for; '''GA''' = Goals against; '''GD''' = Goal Difference. &lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> '''[[Balkans Cup]]:'''<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Season<br /> !Round<br /> !Club<br /> !Home<br /> !Away<br /> !Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1992–93 Balkans Cup|1992-93]]<br /> | '''Quarter-finals'''<br /> |{{flagicon|BUL}} [[FC Etar (Veliko Tarnovo)|Etar]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 4–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 1–5<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''5–6'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Current squad==<br /> {{updated|For the 2023-24 season [[TFF Third League]] Group 2|&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageID=535&amp;kulupID=3598 | title=KARŞIYAKA - Club Details TFF }}&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> {{fs start}}<br /> {{fs player|no=1|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=[[Haydar Yılmaz]]}}{{Football squad player|nat=TUR|pos=DF|name=Ferdi Burgaz|no=3}}<br /> {{fs player|no=4|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Erdi̇nç Çepoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=5|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Alpay Koldaş}}<br /> {{fs player|no=6|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Emre Keleşoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=8|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Efe Tatli|other={{small|on loan from [[Fatih Karagümrük S.K.]]}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=9|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Fatih Taşdelen}}<br /> {{fs player|no=10|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Emre Gemici}}<br /> {{fs player|no=11|pos=MF|nat=GER|name=Yasi̇n Ozan}}<br /> {{fs player|no=15|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=Hasan Sürmeli̇}}<br /> {{fs player|no=17|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Enes Nalbantoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=18|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=Enes Kalyoncu}}<br /> {{fs mid}}<br /> {{fs player|no=20|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Hakan Erçeli̇k}}<br /> {{fs player|no=21|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Mustafa Durgun}}<br /> {{fs player|no=22|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Bi̇lal Ceylan|other={{small|on loan from [[Beşiktaş J.K.]]}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=24|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Sefa Küpeli̇}}<br /> {{fs player|no=25|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Ömer Alper Tatlisu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=33|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Emre Can Heptazeler}}<br /> {{fs player|no=41|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Mertcan Koç}}<br /> {{fs player|no=77|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Fati̇h Çi̇plak}}<br /> {{fs player|no=80|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Adem Büyük|other=}}<br /> {{fs player|no=94|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Bariş Sağir}}<br /> {{fs player|no=99|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Cenk Ahmet Alkılıç}}<br /> {{fs end}}<br /> <br /> == League participations in football ==<br /> * [[Turkish Super League|Turkish Premier Division]]: 1958–64, 1966–67, 1970–72, 1987–91, 1992–94, 1995–96<br /> * [[TFF First League|Turkish First Division]]: 1964–66, 1967–70, 1972–73, 1980–87, 1991–92, 1994–95, 1996–01, 2003–2016<br /> * [[TFF Second League|Turkish Second Division]]: 1973–80, 2001–03, 2016–18<br /> * [[TFF Third League|Turkish Third Division]]: 2018–present<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> {{Commons category|Karşıyaka SK}}<br /> * [[Karşıyaka Basket|Pınar Karşıyaka]]<br /> * [[Karşıyaka Women's Volleyball Team]]<br /> * [[Göztepe-Karşıyaka rivalry]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *{{oweb|http://www.ksk.org.tr/}}<br /> *[http://www.tff.org.tr/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3598 Karşıyaka] on TFF.org<br /> <br /> {{Karşıyaka S.K.}}<br /> {{TFF Third League}}<br /> {{Football in Turkey}}<br /> <br /> {{Authority control}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=February 2021}}<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Karsiyaka S. K.}}<br /> [[Category:Karşıyaka S.K.| ]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1912]]<br /> [[Category:Multi-sport clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1912 establishments in the Ottoman Empire]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Turkey-footyclub-stub}}</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gen%C3%A7lerbirli%C4%9Fi_S.K.&diff=1214080102 2024-03-16T21:01:38Z

<p>Delbatros: </p> <hr /> <div>{{short description|Turkish sports club}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=December 2020}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Gençlerbirliği<br /> | image = Gençlerbirliği_S.K._crest.svg<br /> | image_size = 170px<br /> | fullname = Gençlerbirliği Spor Kulübü<br /> | nickname = ''Gençler'' (The Youth)&lt;br&gt; ''Ankara Rüzgârı'' (The Wind of Ankara)&lt;br&gt; ''Alkaralar'' (The Red and Black)<br /> | founded = {{Start date and years ago|df=yes|1923|3|14}}<br /> | ground = [[Eryaman Stadium]]&lt;ref name=TFF&gt;[https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3606 Club details] tff.org. Retrieved 3 March 2024.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> | capacity = 20,560&lt;ref&gt;{{Cite web|url=https://stadyumlar.net/eryaman-stadi/|title = Eryaman Stadı - Türkiye Stadyumları ve Stadyum Projeleri|date = 31 May 2019}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> | chrtitle = President<br /> | chairman = Osman Sungur&lt;ref name=TFF/&gt;<br /> | mgrtitle = Head coach<br /> | manager = [[Sinan Kaloğlu]]<br /> | league = [[TFF First League]]<br /> | season = {{Turkish football updater|Gençlerbirliği2}}<br /> | position = {{Turkish football updater|Gençlerbirliği3}}<br /> | website = http://www.genclerbirligi.org.tr/<br /> | current = 2022–23 Gençlerbirliği S.K. season<br /> |pattern_b1 = _genclerbieligi2021h<br /> |pattern_la1 = _genclerbieligi2021h<br /> |pattern_ra1 = _genclerbieligi2021h<br /> |leftarm1 = 000000<br /> |body1 = 000000<br /> |rightarm1 = 000000<br /> |shorts1 = 000000<br /> |socks1 = 000000<br /> |pattern_la2 = _thinredborder<br /> |pattern_b2 = _nike_white<br /> |pattern_ra2 = _thinredborder<br /> |pattern_sh2 = _nikered<br /> |pattern_so2 = _nikered<br /> |leftarm2 = 000000<br /> |body2 = 000000<br /> |rightarm2 = 000000<br /> |shorts2 = 000000<br /> |socks2 = 000000<br /> |pattern_la3 = _thinredborder<br /> |pattern_b3 = _nike_white<br /> |pattern_ra3 = _thinredborder<br /> |pattern_sh3 = _nikered<br /> |pattern_so3 = _nikered<br /> |leftarm3 = 40E0D0<br /> |body3 = 40E0D0<br /> |rightarm3 = 40E0D0<br /> |shorts3 = 40E0D0<br /> |socks3 = 40E0D0<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Gençlerbirliği Spor Kulübü''' (pronounced {{IPA-tr|ɟentʃˈlæɾbiɾli.i}}), commonly known as '''Gençlerbirliği''', is a Turkish [[sports club]] based in [[Ankara]]. Formed in 1923, Gençlerbirliği are nicknamed ''Ankara Rüzgârı'' (The Wind of Ankara) or simply ''Gençler'' (The Youth). The club colours are black and red. The [[Association football|football]] team currently plays its home matches at [[Eryaman Stadium]], following the closure of the [[Ankara 19 Mayıs Stadium|Ankara 19 Mayıs]].<br /> <br /> Domestically, the club have won the [[Turkish Cup]] twice, in 1987 and 2001. They have also won the former [[Turkish Football Championship]] twice and the regional [[Ankara Football League]] a record nine times. In Europe, Gençlerbirliği's greatest success came in [[2003–04 UEFA Cup|2004]]. The club reached the fourth round of the [[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]] before losing to eventual champions [[Valencia CF|Valencia]].<br /> <br /> ==History==<br /> [[File:Genclerbirligi squad 1924.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Gençlerbirliği squad in 1924.]]<br /> Gençlerbirliği were founded in a slightly different way compared to many other football clubs, having been established by students from a [[high school]], ''Ankara Erkek Lisesi'' (Sultani Mektebi) now [[Ankara Atatürk Lisesi]] . The students in question (Ramiz Eren, Mennan İz, Mazhar Atacanlı, Sait, Kenan, Nuri, Namık Katoğlu, Namık Ambarcıoğlu, Rıdvan Kırmacı, Hafi Araç, Ruhi, Sarı Ziya and Hakkı) had failed to be selected for their own school team, and asked one of their student friends, Asim, to talk with his father about setting up a football team for them to show how well they could play.<br /> <br /> On 14 March 1923, Asim's father, the member of parliament from [[Muş Province]], established the team for his son and his friends. Since all the members of the team were students he chose the name 'Youth Union' (Turkish: Gençlerbirliği). They elected Sarı Ziya's father Faik Bey as their first chairman.&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.gencler.org/tarihce.php|title=Gençlerbirliği'nin Tarihçesi|website=gencler.org|access-date=14 April 2018|language=tr}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> [[File:16 July 1941 Yeni Sabah.jpg|thumb|left|280px|alt=Turkish newspaper ''Yeni Sabah'' announcing the Turkish championship title of Gençlerbirliği on 16 July 1941|Turkish newspaper ''Yeni Sabah'' announcing the Turkish championship title of Gençlerbirliği on 16 July 1941.]]<br /> <br /> Subsequently, these young students wanted to play against the school team which had not selected them. Gençlerbirliği won the game, played at &quot;Hamit tarlası&quot;, 3–0. According to these young rebellious players this victory forged the identity of their new team.<br /> <br /> They won the regional [[Ankara Football League]] a record nine times between 1923 and 1959, when the league had first level status before the introduction of a nationwide league.&lt;ref name=&quot;Ankara Champions&quot;&gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.rsssf.org/tablest/turk-ankchamp.html|title=Turkey – List of Ankara League Champions|publisher=[[Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation]]|access-date=27 September 2018}}&lt;/ref&gt; Their greatest success domestically were the victories in the former [[Turkish Football Championship]], when they became Turkish champions in [[1941 Turkish Football Championship|1941]] and [[1946 Turkish Football Championship|1946]].&lt;ref name=&quot;Champions&quot;&gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.rsssf.org/tablest/turkchamp.html|title=Turkey – List of Champions|publisher=[[Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation]]|access-date=14 April 2018}}&lt;/ref&gt; Gençler entered the [[Süper Lig|Turkish National League]] in 1959 and played 12 seasons until relegation in the 1969–70 season. They played in the second level until relegation to third level in the 1978–79 season. The club came back to second level after the merger of the third level with second level, at the end of the 1979–80 season. They finished second from last in Group A of the Second League, and had to relegate to the regional league. But, since the number of teams in the second division was increased, Gençlerbirliği were readmitted. The club won Group D in the 1982–83 season and finally returned to the top-flight after 13 years. They relegated again in 1987–88 season. Finally, Gençlerbirliği returned to the top-flight in the 1988–89 season, in their first return attempt. Gençlerbirliği's most successful seasons in the Süper Lig are 1965–66 and 2002–03, when they reached the third place. At the end of the [[2017–18 Süper Lig|2017–18]] season Gençler only reached the 17th place and as a result the club relegated to the second tier [[TFF First League]].<br /> <br /> ==Colours==<br /> There are two rumors about how Gençlerbirliği got their team colours, black and red:<br /> * The young students went to a local haberdashers and the only available colours were black and red. They purchased these colours to sew their own kit. [https://web.archive.org/web/20111017013935/http://turkish-football.com/team_profile.php?teamID=60]<br /> * The outskirts of [[Ankara]] during spring time see plenty of [[poppy]] flowers (''Gelincik'') blooming and Gençlerbirliği selected the red and black of this flower for their colours. Gençlerbirliği merchandise in their store is usually called Gelincik by their <br /> .<br /> <br /> ==Rivalry==<br /> Gençlerbirliği's arch-rival are the neighbouring club [[MKE Ankaragücü|Ankaragücü]] and games between the clubs are considered as the &quot;Derby of the Capital&quot;.<br /> <br /> ==Youth academy and scouting==<br /> Gençlerbirliği have always been one of the teams in Turkey most notable for their talented young footballers that they procure through scouting both in Turkey and throughout Europe and Africa. For example, [[Geremi Njitap|Geremi]] was scouted and raised by the club, transferred to [[Real Madrid C.F.|Real Madrid]] and later [[Chelsea F.C.|Chelsea]]. Another of Gençlerbirliği's young stars [[Isaac Promise]] received the 2005–06 [[Süper Lig|Super League]] Individual Youth player of the Year award.&lt;ref name=Turkish-football.com&gt;[http://www.turkish-football.com/team_profile.php?teamID=60 Genclerbirligi team profile] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111017013935/http://turkish-football.com/team_profile.php?teamID=60 |date=17 October 2011 }} turkish-football.com (English) accessed 27 January 2012&lt;/ref&gt; Also included was [[Arda Güler]], who was sold to Fenerbahce.<br /> <br /> Gençlerbirliği's state-of-the-art youth academy is located in Beştepe, [[Ankara]] with {{convert|50|acre|m2}} of training facilities (Beştepe İlhan Cavcav Tesisleri).<br /> <br /> Gençlerbirliği had been run by [[İlhan Cavcav]] from 1978 until his death in 2017. With Cavcav's help, Gençlerbirliği have become one of the more stable clubs in Turkey. This has been achieved mainly through the departure of the most talented players every season to the other clubs in Turkey. Departing players are usually replaced with much cheaper imports from Turkey, Europe or Africa.<br /> <br /> ==Honours==<br /> ===Domestic competitions===<br /> *'''[[Turkish Football Championship]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' [[1941 Turkish Football Championship|1941]], [[1946 Turkish Football Championship|1946]]<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' [[1950 Turkish Football Championship|1950]]<br /> *'''[[TFF First League]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1982-83, 1988-89<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' [[2018–19 TFF First League|2018-19]]<br /> *'''[[Turkish Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (2):''' 1986–87, [[2000–01 Turkish Cup|2000–01]]<br /> ** ''Runners-up (3):'' [[2002–03 Turkish Cup|2002–03]], [[2003–04 Turkish Cup|2003–04]], [[2007–08 Turkish Cup|2007–08]]<br /> *'''[[Turkish Super Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1987<br /> *'''[[Prime Minister's Cup]]'''<br /> ** ''Runners-up (1):'' 1946<br /> <br /> ===Regional competitions===<br /> *'''[[Ankara Football League]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (10) (record):''' 1929-30, 1930-31, 1931-32, 1932-33, 1934-35, 1939-40, 1940-41, 1945-46, 1949-50, 1950-51<br /> ** ''Runners-up (7):'' 1926, 1926–27, 1929, 1934, 1936–37, 1942–43, 1947–48<br /> *'''Ankara Shield'''<br /> ** '''Winners (3) :''' 1931, 1935, 1940-41<br /> <br /> ===Others===<br /> * '''[[TSYD Cup]]'''<br /> ** '''Winners (16):''' 1969, 1985, 1986, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2019, 2021<br /> <br /> ==European participations==<br /> {{updated|30 September 2004}}<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> ! Competition<br /> ! Pld<br /> ! W<br /> ! D<br /> ! L<br /> ! GF<br /> ! GA<br /> ! GD<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Cup Winners' Cup]]<br /> | 2<br /> | 0<br /> | 0<br /> | 2<br /> | 1<br /> | 4<br /> | –3<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Europa League|UEFA Cup]]<br /> | 14<br /> | 6<br /> | 4<br /> | 4<br /> | 17<br /> | 11<br /> | +6<br /> |-<br /> | [[UEFA Intertoto Cup]]<br /> | 4<br /> | 2<br /> | 0<br /> | 2<br /> | 10<br /> | 7<br /> | +3<br /> |-<br /> ! colspan=1 align-&quot;center&quot; | '''UEFA Total'''<br /> ! 20<br /> ! 8<br /> ! 4<br /> ! 8<br /> ! 28<br /> ! 22<br /> ! +6<br /> |-<br /> | [[Balkans Cup]]<br /> | 6<br /> | 0<br /> | 1<br /> | 5<br /> | 3<br /> | 10<br /> | –7<br /> |-<br /> ! Overall Total<br /> ! 26<br /> ! 8<br /> ! 5<br /> ! 13<br /> ! 31<br /> ! 32<br /> ! –1<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===UEFA Cup Winners' Cup===<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1987–88 European Cup Winners' Cup|1987–88]]<br /> |'''First Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|USSR}} [[FC Dinamo Minsk|Dinamo Minsk]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 1–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; | '''1–4'''<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===UEFA Cup===<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[2001–02 UEFA Cup|2001–02]]<br /> |First Round<br /> |{{flagicon|SWE}} [[Halmstads BK|Halmstad]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#ffd;&quot;| 1–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; | '''1–2'''<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;4&quot;|[[2003–04 UEFA Cup|2003–04]]<br /> |First Round<br /> |{{flagicon|ENG}} [[Blackburn Rovers F.C.|Blackburn Rovers]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 3–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#ffd;&quot;| 1–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; | '''4–2'''<br /> |-<br /> |Second Round<br /> |{{flagicon|POR}} [[Sporting Clube de Portugal|Sporting CP]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#ffd;&quot;| 1–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 3–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; | '''4–1'''<br /> |-<br /> |Third Round<br /> |{{flagicon|ITA}} [[S.S.D. Parma Calcio 1913|Parma]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 3–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 1–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; | '''4–0'''<br /> |-<br /> |'''Fourth Round'''<br /> |{{flagicon|ESP}} [[Valencia CF|Valencia]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 1–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2 (aet)<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; | '''1–2'''<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;2&quot;|[[2004–05 UEFA Cup|2004–05]]<br /> |Second Qualifying Round<br /> |{{flagicon|CRO}} [[HNK Rijeka|Rijeka]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 1–0<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 1–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; | '''2–2 ([[away goals|a]])'''<br /> |-<br /> |First Round<br /> |{{flagicon|GRE}} [[Egaleo F.C.|Egaleo]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#ffd;&quot;| 1–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; | '''1–2'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===UEFA Intertoto Cup===<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;4&quot;|[[1995 UEFA Intertoto Cup|1995]]<br /> | rowspan=4| '''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group 11)<br /> |{{flagicon|FRA}} [[RC Strasbourg Alsace|Strasbourg]]<br /> | {{n/a}}<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 1–4<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; rowspan=4| '''3rd'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|AUT}} [[FC Tirol Innsbruck|Tirol Innsbruck]]<br /> | {{n/a}}<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 2–3<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ISR}} [[Hapoel Petah Tikva F.C.|Hapoel Petah Tikva]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 4–0<br /> | {{n/a}}<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|MLT}} [[Floriana F.C.|Floriana]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 3–0<br /> | {{n/a}}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===Balkans Cup===<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Season<br /> ! Round<br /> ! Club<br /> ! Home<br /> ! Away<br /> ! Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |rowspan=&quot;3&quot;|[[1967–68 Balkans Cup|1967–68]]<br /> | rowspan=3| '''Group Stage'''&lt;br&gt;(Group A)<br /> |{{flagicon|BUL|1967}} [[PFC Beroe Stara Zagora|Beroe Stara Zagora]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot; rowspan=3| '''4th'''<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ALB|1946}} [[KF Vllaznia Shkodër|Vllaznia Shkodër]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#ffd;&quot;| 1–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 0–1<br /> |-<br /> |{{flagicon|ROU|1965}} [[FCV Farul Constanța|Farul Constanța]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 1–2<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 1–3<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ===UEFA Ranking history===<br /> {{see also|UEFA coefficient}}<br /> {{updated|2009}}<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable plainrowheaders sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align:center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Season !! Rank !! Points !! Ref.<br /> |-<br /> |2002||157 {{increase}}||15.362||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method2/trank2002.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 2002 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2023-03-08}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |2003||162 {{decrease}}||15.495||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method2/trank2003.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 2003 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2023-03-08}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |2004||88 {{increase}}||23.656||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method3/trank2004.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 2004 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2023-03-08}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |2005||94 {{decrease}}||23.872||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method3/trank2005.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 2005 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2023-03-08}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |2006||106 {{decrease}}||22.634||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method3/trank2006.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 2006 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2023-03-08}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |2007||106 {{same position}}||21.791||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method3/trank2007.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 2007 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2023-03-08}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |2008||100 {{increase}}||23.469||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method3/trank2008.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 2008 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2023-03-08}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |2009||171 {{decrease}}||7.445||&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|author=Bert Kassies |url=https://kassiesa.net/uefa/data/method4/trank2009.html |title=UEFA Team Ranking 2009 |publisher=Xs4all.nl |access-date=2023-03-08}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Players==<br /> ===Current squad===<br /> {{updated|9 February 2024}}&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupID=3606|title=Kulüp Bilgileri|publisher=TFF}}&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;{{cite web|url=http://genclerbirligi.org.tr/takim/a-takimi/|title=A Takimi|publisher=Gençlerbirliği S.K.}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;!----------------------------- READ THIS NOTICE FIRST BEFORE EDITING ----------------------------------<br /> – Do NOT add new players before their signing is officially announced by the club through their website, including medical and signing the contract. A transfer fee agreed doesn't mean the player will sign.<br /> – Do NOT remove players before their exit is officially announced by the club.<br /> – Do NOT add or change squad numbers until it is official on the Gençlerbirliği S.K. website<br /> – Only add numberless players that are likely to become part of the first team<br /> – Pre-season numbers can be added temporarily with A REFERENCE<br /> – This is Wikipedia, not a football newspaper. Anything unconfirmed and unsourced will be removed on sight<br /> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&gt;<br /> {{Fs start|nonumber=|bg=FF0000|color=000000|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{football squad player|no= 1|nat=TUR |pos=GK|name=[[Ertuğrul Çetin]]|other={{small|on loan from [[Fenerbahçe S.K. (football)|Fenerbahçe]]}}}}<br /> {{football squad player|no= 5|nat=CHN |pos=DF|name=[[Wu Shaocong]]|other={{small|on loan from [[İstanbul Başakşehir F.K.|İstanbul Başakşehir]]}}}}<br /> {{football squad player|no= 6|nat=TUR |pos=MF|name=[[Rahman Buğra Çağıran]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no= 7|nat=SYR |pos=MF|name=[[Aias Aosman]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no= 8|nat=CMR |pos=MF|name=[[James Léa Siliki]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no= 9|nat=MLI |pos=FW|name=[[Mustapha Yatabaré]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=10|nat=NGA |pos=FW|name=[[Olarenwaju Kayode]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=12|nat=TUR |pos=DF|name=[[Oğuzhan Berber]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=13|nat=TUR |pos=GK|name=[[Orkun Özdemir]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=14|nat=SWE |pos=MF|name=[[Elias Durmaz]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=15|nat=CGO |pos=DF|name=[[Francis Nzaba]]|other={{small|on loan from [[İstanbul Başakşehir F.K.|İstanbul Başakşehir]]}}}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=17|nat=TUR |pos=DF|name=[[Yasin Güreler]]}} {{Captain}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=20|nat=TUR |pos=MF|name=Ensar Kemaloğlu}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=21|nat=SWE |pos=MF|name=[[Jimmy Durmaz]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=22|nat=MLI |pos=MF|name=[[Sambou Yatabaré]]}}<br /> {{Fs mid|nonumber=|bg=FF0000|color=000000|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=23|nat=TUR |pos=DF|name=Yiğit Efe Demir|other={{small|on loan from [[Fenerbahçe S.K. (football)|Fenerbahçe]]}}}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=24|nat=TUR |pos=DF|name=[[Alperen Babacan]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=25|nat=TUR |pos=MF|name=Eralp Aydın}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=26|nat=BUL |pos=MF|name=[[Baran Aksaka]]|other={{small|on loan from [[Galatasaray S.K. (football)|Galatasaray]]}}}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=33|nat=TUR |pos=MF|name=Arda Temur}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=35|nat=TUR |pos=MF|name=[[Musa Çağıran]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=42|nat=POR |pos=MF|name=[[Tiago Rodrigues]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=60|nat=TUR |pos=DF|name=[[Özgür Çek]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=61|nat=TUR |pos=FW|name=[[Oltan Karakullukçu]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=87|nat=TUR |pos=MF|name=[[Abdullah Durak]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=88|nat=NGA |pos=MF|name=[[Chukwuma Akabueze]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=89|nat=BRA |pos=FW|name=[[Amilton (footballer, born 1989)|Amilton]]}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=91|nat=TUR |pos=FW|name=Melih Bostan}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=94|nat=COD |pos=FW|name=[[Gaëtan Laura]]|other={{small|on loan from [[Samsunspor]]}}}}<br /> {{football squad player|no=99|nat=TUR |pos=GK|name=Atalay Gökçe}}<br /> {{football squad end}}<br /> <br /> ===Other players under contract===<br /> {{Fs start|nonumber=|bg=FF0000|color=000000|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=FW|name=Miraç Asıltekin}}<br /> {{Fs mid|nonumber=|bg=FF0000|color=000000|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=FW|name=Melih Bostan}}<br /> {{Fs end}}<br /> <br /> ===Out on loan===<br /> {{Fs start|nonumber=|bg=FF0000|color=000000|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{Fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=GK|name=Ebrar Aydın|other={{small|at [[Düzcespor]] until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=DF|name=Ahmet Buğra Güven|other={{small|at [[İnegölspor]] until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=DF|name=Baran Kayikci|other={{small|at Hacettepe 1945 SK until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=DF|name=[[Abdullah Şahindere]]|other={{small|at Hacettepe 1945 SK until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=DF|name=Musa Şahindere|other={{small|at Hacettepe 1945 SK until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=DF|name=Berat Can Sebat|other={{small|at Karabük İdman Yurdu until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=MF|name=Ataberk Gök|other={{small|at Hacettepe 1945 SK until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=MF|name=Mert Kabasakal|other={{small|at Mardin 1969 SK until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{Fs mid|nonumber=|bg=FF0000|color=000000|border=ffffff}}<br /> {{fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=MF|name=Seyit Ali Kahya|other={{small|at Nevşehir Belediyespor until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=MF|name=[[Erdal Öztürk]]|other={{small|at [[Sarıyer S.K.|Sarıyer]] until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=MF|name=Abdussamet Yılmaz|other={{small|at [[Edirnespor]] until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=FW|name=[[Gökhan Altıparmak]]|other={{small|at Hacettepe 1945 SK until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=FW|name=Baran Başyiğit|other={{small|at Orduspor 1967 until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=FW|name=Emirkan Demir|other={{small|at Hacettepe 1945 SK until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=FW|name=Kağan Özkan|other={{small|at [[Kırıkkale Büyük Anadoluspor|Kırıkkalegücü FSK]] until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=|nat=TUR|pos=FW|name=Arda Tuzcu|other={{small|at Arnavutköy Belediyespor until 30 June 2024}}}}<br /> {{Fs end}}<br /> <br /> ==Most capped players==<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !<br /> !Player<br /> !Caps<br /> !Period<br /> |-<br /> |1<br /> |align=&quot;left&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Tevfik Kutlay]]<br /> |'''353'''<br /> |1959–72<br /> |-<br /> |2<br /> |align=&quot;left&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Selçuk Çakmaklı]]<br /> |'''336'''<br /> |1959–72<br /> |-<br /> |3<br /> |align=&quot;left&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Avni Okumuş]]<br /> |'''317'''<br /> |1983–93<br /> |-<br /> |4<br /> |align=&quot;left&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Zeynel Soyuer]]<br /> |'''291'''<br /> |1959–71<br /> |-<br /> |5<br /> |align=&quot;left&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Nihat Baştürk]]<br /> |'''279'''<br /> |1994–2005<br /> |-<br /> |6<br /> |align=&quot;left&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Metin Diyadin]]<br /> |'''265'''<br /> |1988–98<br /> |-<br /> |7<br /> |align=&quot;left&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Orhan Yüksel]]<br /> |'''235'''<br /> |1959–66<br /> |-<br /> |8<br /> |align=&quot;left&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Mehmet Şimşek (footballer)|Mehmet Şimşek]]<br /> |'''228'''<br /> |1993–2001<br /> |-<br /> |9<br /> |align=&quot;left&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[İhsan Temen]]<br /> |'''219'''<br /> |1959-66<br /> |-<br /> |10<br /> |align=&quot;left&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Okan Gedikali]]<br /> |'''207'''<br /> |1982–91<br /> <br /> {{Fb cs footer |s=[http://arsiv.mackolik.com/Takim/7/Genclerbirligi Mackolik news site, in Turkish]|date=April 2020}}<br /> <br /> ==Top goalscorers==<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !<br /> !Player<br /> !Goals (Caps)<br /> !Period<br /> |-<br /> |1<br /> |style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot;|{{flagicon|COD}} [[Andre Kona N'Gole]]<br /> |'''72''' (145)<br /> |1993–2001<br /> |-<br /> |2<br /> |style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Avni Okumuş]]<br /> |'''71''' (317)<br /> |1983–1993<br /> |-<br /> |3<br /> |style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Orhan Yüksel]]<br /> |'''67''' (235)<br /> |1959–1966<br /> |-<br /> |4<br /> |style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Ümit Karan]]<br /> |'''59''' (150)<br /> |1996–2001<br /> |-<br /> |5<br /> |style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot;|{{flagicon|GUI}} [[Souleymane Youla]]<br /> |'''57''' (134)<br /> |2001–2005<br /> |-<br /> |6<br /> |style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot;|{{flagicon|ROU}} [[Bogdan Stancu]]<br /> |'''55''' (139)<br /> |2013-2020<br /> |-<br /> |7<br /> |style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Abdullah Çevrim]]<br /> |'''50''' (154)<br /> |1961–1966<br /> |-<br /> |8<br /> |style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Zeynel Soyuer]]<br /> |'''47''' (291)<br /> |1959–1971<br /> |-<br /> |9<br /> |style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Tevfik Kutlay]]<br /> |'''46''' (353)<br /> |1959–1972<br /> |-<br /> |10<br /> |style=&quot;text-align:left;&quot;|{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Muammer Nurlu]]<br /> |'''44''' (152)<br /> |1983–1989<br /> |-<br /> <br /> {{Fb cs footer |s=[http://arsiv.mackolik.com/Takim/7/Genclerbirligi Mackolik news site, in Turkish]|date= April 2020}}<br /> <br /> ==Former players==<br /> *''See [[:Category:Gençlerbirliği S.K. footballers]]''<br /> <br /> ==Coaches==<br /> {{div col|colwidth=30em}}<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Yüksel Doğanay (1960–70)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Oktay Arıca (1970–71)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Kazım Türesin (1971–72)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Yüksel Doğanay (1972–73)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Fehmi Baştüzel (1973–74)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Tevfik Kutlay (1975)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Avni Bulduk (1975)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Fehmi Baştüzel (1975–76)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Avni Bulduk (1976)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Oktay Arıca (1976–77)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Ruhi Yavuz (1977–78)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Fehmi Baştüzel (1978–81)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Mümtaz Tümer (1981)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Fehmi Baştüzel (1981)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Enver Ürekli (1981)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Ergun Berksoy (1981–95)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Teoman Yamanlar (1981–82)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Kadri Aytaç]] (1982–83)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Tınaz Tırpan]] (30 June 1983 – 31 May 1985)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Erkan Kural (1985–86)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Metin Türel]] (1986–87)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Hüsnü Macurni (1987)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Tınaz Tırpan]] (30 June 1987 – 31 May 1988)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Kadri Aytaç]] (1988)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} İbrahim Aydın (1988)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Teoman Yamanlar (1988)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Erkan Kural (1988–89)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Gündüz Tekin Onay]] (1989–90)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Metin Türel]] (1990)<br /> *{{flagicon|CZE}} [[Jozef Jarabinský]] (1 July 1990 – 30 June 1991)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Aldoğan Argon (1991–92)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Battal Tokyay (1992)<br /> *{{flagicon|RUS}} [[Valeri Nepomniachi]] (1 July 1992 – 30 June 1993)<br /> *{{flagicon|TKM}} [[Kurban Berdyev|Gurban Berdyýew]] (1993–94)<br /> *{{flagicon|PER}} [[Augusto Palacios]] (1994)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Zafer Göncüler (1994–95)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Metin Türel]] (1995)<br /> *{{flagicon|BEL}} [[Georges Heylens]] (1995–96)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Metin Türel]] (1996)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Sadi Tekelioğlu (1996–97)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Teoman Yamanlar (1997)<br /> *{{flagicon|CRO}} [[Luka Peruzović]] (1 July 1997 – 21 Oct 1997)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Yılmaz Vural]] (19 Nov 1997 – 30 June 1998)<br /> *{{flagicon|SVK}} [[Karol Pecze]] (1998–00)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Samet Aybaba]] (6 Jan 2000 – 11 April 2001)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Hasan Gül (2001)<br /> *{{flagicon|BEL}} [[Walter Meeuws]] (1 July 2001 – 10 Nov 2001)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Erdoğan Arıca]] (2001–30 June 2002)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Ersun Yanal]] (1 July 2002 – 30 June 2004)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Erdoğan Arıca]] (2004)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Oğuz Çetin]] (1 Oct 2004 – 23 Dec 2004)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Ziya Doğan]] (1 Jan 2005 – 31 Aug 2005)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Mesut Bakkal]] (Sept 1, 2005 – 30 June 2007)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Fuat Çapa]] (1 July 2007 – 19 Sep 2007)<br /> *{{flagicon|GER}} [[Reinhard Stumpf]] (31 Aug 2007 – 29 Oct 2007)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Bülent Korkmaz]] (29 Oct 2007 – 29 Jan 2008)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Mesut Bakkal]] (29 Jan 2008 – 3 Nov 2008)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Samet Aybaba]] (6 Nov 2008 – 31 May 2009)<br /> *{{flagicon|GER}} [[Thomas Doll]] (1 July 2009 – 17 Oct 2010)<br /> *{{flagicon|GER}} [[Ralf Zumdick]] (18 Oct 2010 – 26 Apr 2011)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Giray Bulak]] (26 May 2011 – 8 June 2011)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Fuat Çapa]] (11 Jun 2011 – 20 May 2013)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Metin Diyadin]] (14 Jun 2013 – 20 Oct 2013)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Mehmet Özdilek]] (22 Oct 2013 – 26 May 2014)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Kemal Özdeş]] (28 May 2014 – 10 Jul 2014)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Mustafa Kaplan]] (10 Jul 2014 – 15 Sep 2014)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Osman Nuri Işılar (15 Sep 2014 – 23 Sep 2014)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[İrfan Buz]] (23 Sep 2014 – 16 Feb 2015)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Mesut Bakkal]] (17 Feb 2015 – 25 May 2015)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Mustafa Kaplan]] (25 May 2015 – 9 Jun 2015)<br /> *{{flagicon|SCO}} [[Stuart Baxter]] (9 Jun 2015 – 24 Aug 2015)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Mehmet Özdilek]] (1 Sep 2015 – 13 Dec 2015)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Yılmaz Vural]] (24 Dec 2015 – 29 Dec 2015)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[İbrahim Üzülmez]] (31 Dec 2015 – 7 Nov 2016)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Ümit Özat]] (8 Nov 2016 – 30 Aug 2016)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Mesut Bakkal]] (30 Aug 2017 – 20 Nov 2017)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Ümit Özat]] (20 Nov 2017 – 15 May 2018)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} Sezai Yıldırım (15 May 2018 – 23 May 2018)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Erkan Sözeri]] (23 May 2018 – 5 Mar 2019)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[İbrahim Üzülmez]] (5 Mar 2019 – 30 May 2019)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Mustafa Kaplan]] (18 Jun 2019 – 29 Oct 2019)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Hamza Hamzaoğlu]] (31 Oct 2019 – 29 July 2020)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}}{{flagicon|BRA}} [[Márcio Nobre|Mert Nobre]] (3 Aug 2020 – 10 Nov 2020)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Mustafa Kaplan]] (14 Nov 2020 – 1 Feb 2021)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Mehmet Altıparmak]] (1 Feb 2021 - 8 Mar 2021)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Özcan Bizati]] (12 Mar 2021 - 31 May 2021)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Metin Diyadin]] (30 Jul 2021 - 12 Sep 2022)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Taşkın Aksoy]] (27 Sep 2022 - 1 Nov 2022)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Mustafa Dalcı]] (15 Nov 2022 - 4 Apr 2023)<br /> *{{flagicon|TUR}} [[Sinan Kaloğlu]] (5 Apr 2023 - Present)<br /> <br /> {{Div col end}}&lt;!--{{Fb cs footer |s=[http://arsiv.mackolik.com/Takim/7/Genclerbirligi Mackolik news site, in Turkish]|date=April 2020}}--&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Presidents==<br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;10&quot;|&amp;nbsp;<br /> |valign=&quot;top&quot;|<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !rowspan=&quot;1&quot;|Name<br /> !rowspan=&quot;1&quot;|Years<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Münif Kemal Ak]]<br /> |align=left|1923–36<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Saffet Gürol]]<br /> |align=left|1936–43<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Namık Ambarlıoğlu]]<br /> |align=left|1943–44<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Fevzi Magat]]<br /> |align=left|1944–46<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Namık Katoğlu]]<br /> |align=left|1947–48<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Yusuf Bahri]]<br /> |align=left|1948–49<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Orhan Şeref Apak]]<br /> |align=left|1949–50<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Reşat Taşer]]<br /> |align=left|1950–52<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> |width=&quot;30&quot;|&amp;nbsp;<br /> |valign=&quot;top&quot;|<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !rowspan=&quot;1&quot;|Name<br /> !rowspan=&quot;1&quot;|Years<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Nuri Togay]]<br /> |align=left|1952–55<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Mümtaz Tarhan]]<br /> |align=left|1955–57<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Ahmet Salih Korur]]<br /> |align=left|1957–58<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Orhan Şeref Apak]]<br /> |align=left|1958–61<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Turhan Ogan]]<br /> |align=left|1961–63<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[İbrahim Sıtkı Hatipoğlu]]<br /> |align=left|1964–65<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Muslihittin Yılmaz Mete]]<br /> |align=left|1965–66<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[İsmet Sezgin]]<br /> |align=left|1966–67<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> |width=&quot;30&quot;|&amp;nbsp;<br /> |valign=&quot;top&quot;|<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !rowspan=&quot;1&quot;|Name<br /> !rowspan=&quot;1&quot;|Years<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Hadi Özbay]]<br /> |align=left|1967–68<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Necip Türegen]]<br /> |align=left|1968–69<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Mehmet Ali Tuzcuoğlu]]<br /> |align=left|1969–70<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Adil Evrensel]]<br /> |align=left|1970–72<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Sezai Diblan]]<br /> |align=left|1972–74<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Hasan Şengel]]<br /> |align=left|1976–77<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[İlhan Cavcav]]<br /> |align=left|1977–2017<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Murat Cavcav]]<br /> |align=left|2017–2021<br /> |-<br /> |align=left|[[Niyazi Akdaş]]<br /> |align=left|2021–<br /> |}<br /> <br /> {{Fb cs footer |s=[http://www.genclerbirligi.org.tr/ Gençlerbirliği SK Official Website]|date=July 2011}}<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Hacettepe S.K.|Hacettepe SK]], the reserve team of Gençlerbirliği.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==Further reading==<br /> * Bora, Tanıl (2001). ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20050427082419/http://www.pandora.com.tr/urun.asp?id=94172 Ankara Rüzgarı]''. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları [[International Standard Book Number|ISBN]]-10 9753333935 {{in lang|tr}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *{{oweb|http://www.genclerbirligi.org.tr/}}<br /> *[http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3606 Gençlerbirliği] on TFF.org<br /> <br /> {{Gençlerbirliği S.K.}}<br /> {{Gençlerbirliği S.K. squad}}<br /> {{TFF First League}}<br /> {{Süper Lig clubs}}<br /> {{Turkish Cup}}<br /> {{Turkish clubs in European football}}<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Genclerbirligi S.K.}}<br /> [[Category:Gençlerbirliği S.K.| ]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1923]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1923 establishments in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:Yenimahalle, Ankara]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]<br /> [[Category:Sports clubs and teams in Ankara]]</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&diff=1214079444 2024-03-16T20:56:50Z

<p>Delbatros: Please keep out!!! https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598</p> <hr /> <div>{{pp|small=yes}}<br /> {{short description|Turkish sports club}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Karşıyaka<br /> | image = Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png<br /> | image_size = 170px<br /> | fullname = Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü<br /> | nickname = Kaf Kaf, Kaf Sin Kaf, The 35 and half<br /> | colours = {{colour box|#00FF00}}{{colour box|#FF0000}} Green&amp;nbsp;– Red<br /> | founded = {{Start date and years ago|df=yes|1912|11|1}}<br /> | ground = [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]]<br /> | capacity = 15,000|<br /> | chairman = İlker Mehmet Ergüllü&lt;ref&gt;https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> | manager = [[Erkan Sözeri]]<br /> | league = [[TFF Third League ]]<br /> | season = 2022-23<br /> | position = [[TFF Third League ]], Group 1, 7th<br /> | website = http://www.ksk.org.tr/<br /> |pattern_la1 =<br /> |pattern_b1 = _greenstripes<br /> |pattern_ra1 =<br /> |leftarm1 = FF0000<br /> |body1 = FF0000<br /> |rightarm1 = FF0000<br /> |shorts1 = FF0000<br /> |socks1 = FF0000<br /> |pattern_la2 =<br /> |pattern_b2 =<br /> |pattern_ra2 =<br /> |leftarm2 = FF0000<br /> |body2 = 00AA00<br /> |rightarm2 = FF0000<br /> |shorts2 = FF0000<br /> |socks2 = FF0000<br /> |pattern_la3 =<br /> |pattern_b3 =<br /> |pattern_ra3 =<br /> |leftarm3 = <br /> |body3 = <br /> |rightarm3 = <br /> |shorts3 = <br /> |socks3 = <br /> | current = 2023-24 [[TFF Third League]] Group 2<br /> | kit_alt1 = Red and Green vertical boxes with white shorts and socks<br /> }}<br /> '''Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü''' (English: Karşıyaka Sports Club) also known as '''Karşıyaka''' is a Turkish sports club located in [[Karşıyaka]], [[İzmir]]. Founded in 1912, they are İzmir's oldest club. Like all others in Turkey; the &quot;SK&quot; suffix refers to ''sports club'', as besides football the club has sports branches in [[Karşıyaka Basket|basketball]], [[Karşıyaka Women's Volleyball Team|volleyball]], [[handball]], [[tennis]], [[Swimming (sport)|swimming]], [[sailing (sport)|sailing]], [[billiards]], and [[bowling]]. The club's football team currently competes in the [[TFF Third League]], the fourth tier of the Turkish football league system. The basketball team currently competes in the [[Turkish Basketball League]] and the women's volleyball team in the Turkish Women's Second League.<br /> <br /> Karşıyaka has a very large fanbase in Northern İzmir, and have a fierce rivalry with [[Göztepe S.K.|Göztepe]]; the match between the two teams is collectively known as the [[Göztepe–Karşıyaka rivalry|İzmir Derby]]. Other rivalries are with [[Altay S.K.|Altay]] and [[Bucaspor]].<br /> [[File:Karsiyaka 1912.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Karşıyaka in 1912.]]<br /> <br /> ==European participations==<br /> {{updated|29 September 1992}}<br /> <br /> '''Statistics''':<br /> <br /> {|class=&quot;wikitable sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Competition!!Pld!!W!!D!!L!!GF!!GA!!GD<br /> |-<br /> |align=center|[[Balkans Cup]]<br /> |2||1||0||1||5||6||{{nowrap|–1}}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;'''Pld''' = Matches played; '''W''' = Matches won; '''D''' = Matches drawn; '''L''' = Matches lost; '''GF''' = Goals for; '''GA''' = Goals against; '''GD''' = Goal Difference. &lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> '''[[Balkans Cup]]:'''<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Season<br /> !Round<br /> !Club<br /> !Home<br /> !Away<br /> !Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1992–93 Balkans Cup|1992-93]]<br /> | '''Quarter-finals'''<br /> |{{flagicon|BUL}} [[FC Etar (Veliko Tarnovo)|Etar]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 4–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 1–5<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''5–6'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Current squad==<br /> {{updated|For the 2023-24 season [[TFF Third League]] Group 2|&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageID=535&amp;kulupID=3598 | title=KARŞIYAKA - Club Details TFF }}&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> {{fs start}}<br /> {{fs player|no=1|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=[[Haydar Yılmaz]]}}{{Football squad player|nat=TUR|pos=DF|name=Ferdi Burgaz|no=3}}<br /> {{fs player|no=4|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Erdi̇nç Çepoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=5|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Alpay Koldaş}}<br /> {{fs player|no=6|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Emre Keleşoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=8|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Efe Tatli|other={{small|on loan from [[Fatih Karagümrük S.K.]]}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=9|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Fatih Taşdelen}}<br /> {{fs player|no=10|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Emre Gemici}}<br /> {{fs player|no=11|pos=MF|nat=GER|name=Yasi̇n Ozan}}<br /> {{fs player|no=15|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=Hasan Sürmeli̇}}<br /> {{fs player|no=17|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Enes Nalbantoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=18|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=Enes Kalyoncu}}<br /> {{fs mid}}<br /> {{fs player|no=20|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Hakan Erçeli̇k}}<br /> {{fs player|no=21|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Mustafa Durgun}}<br /> {{fs player|no=22|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Bi̇lal Ceylan|other={{small|on loan from [[Beşiktaş J.K.]]}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=24|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Sefa Küpeli̇}}<br /> {{fs player|no=25|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Ömer Alper Tatlisu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=33|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Emre Can Heptazeler}}<br /> {{fs player|no=41|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Mertcan Koç}}<br /> {{fs player|no=77|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Fati̇h Çi̇plak}}<br /> {{fs player|no=80|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Adem Büyük|other=}}<br /> {{fs player|no=94|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Bariş Sağir}}<br /> {{fs player|no=99|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Cenk Ahmet Alkılıç}}<br /> {{fs end}}<br /> <br /> == League participations in football ==<br /> * [[Turkish Super League|Turkish Premier Division]]: 1958–64, 1966–67, 1970–72, 1987–91, 1992–94, 1995–96<br /> * [[TFF First League|Turkish First Division]]: 1964–66, 1967–70, 1972–73, 1980–87, 1991–92, 1994–95, 1996–01, 2003–2016<br /> * [[TFF Second League|Turkish Second Division]]: 1973–80, 2001–03, 2016–18<br /> * [[TFF Third League|Turkish Third Division]]: 2018–present<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> {{Commons category|Karşıyaka SK}}<br /> * [[Karşıyaka Basket|Pınar Karşıyaka]]<br /> * [[Karşıyaka Women's Volleyball Team]]<br /> * [[Göztepe-Karşıyaka rivalry]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *{{oweb|http://www.ksk.org.tr/}}<br /> *[http://www.tff.org.tr/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3598 Karşıyaka] on TFF.org<br /> <br /> {{Karşıyaka S.K.}}<br /> {{TFF Third League}}<br /> {{Football in Turkey}}<br /> <br /> {{Authority control}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=February 2021}}<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Karsiyaka S. K.}}<br /> [[Category:Karşıyaka S.K.| ]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1912]]<br /> [[Category:Multi-sport clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1912 establishments in the Ottoman Empire]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Turkey-footyclub-stub}}</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gebzespor&diff=1214079114 2024-03-16T20:54:35Z

<p>Delbatros: </p> <hr /> <div>{{short description|Turkish sports club}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> |clubname = Gebzespor<br /> |image = [[Image:Gebze.jpg|250px]]<br /> |fullname = Gebzespor Kulübü<br /> |nickname = Violets<br /> |founded = 19 May 1955<br /> |ground = Alaettin Kurt Stadium, [[Gebze]]<br /> |capacity = 15,462<br /> |chairman = Resul Tat<br /> |manager = Sertaç Gezer<br /> |league = [[Turkish Regional Amateur League]]<br /> |season = 2022-23<br /> |position = [[Turkish Regional Amateur League]], Group 14, 2nd<br /> |pattern_la1 =<br /> |pattern_b1 = _whitestripes<br /> |pattern_ra1 =<br /> |leftarm1 = 800080<br /> |body1 = 800080<br /> |rightarm1 = 800080<br /> |shorts1 = 800080<br /> |socks1 = 800080<br /> |pattern_la2 =<br /> |pattern_b2 = _keciorengucu1920t<br /> |pattern_ra2 =<br /> |leftarm2 = ffffff<br /> |body2 = ffffff<br /> |rightarm2 = ffffff<br /> |shorts2 = ffffff<br /> |socks2 = ffffff<br /> |body3 = 800080<br /> |rightarm3 = 800080<br /> |socks3 = 800080<br /> |leftarm3 = 800080<br /> |shorts3 = 800080<br /> |pattern_b3 =<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Gebzespor''' is a Turkish [[sports]] club located in [[Gebze]], [[Kocaeli Province]]. The football club plays in the [[Turkish Regional Amateur League]]. They have a local rivalry with [[Kocaelispor]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.ultras-tifo.net/photo-news/4046-kocaelispor-gebzespor-23012016.html | title=Kocaelispor - Gebzespor 23.01.2016 }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==League participations==<br /> * [[TFF Second League]] (5): 2006–11<br /> * [[TFF Third League]] (24): 1984-2006, 2011-12, 2018-19<br /> * [[Turkish Regional Amateur League|TFF Regional Amateur League]] (12):<br /> 2012-18, 2019-<br /> * [[Turkish Amateur League]] (29): 1955-84<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3616 Gebzespor on TFF.org]<br /> * {{Facebook|1955gebzespor}}<br /> * {{Instagram|gebzesporresmi}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Gebzespor| ]]<br /> [[Category:Sport in Gebze]]<br /> [[Category:Sport in İzmit]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1955]]<br /> [[Category:1955 establishments in Turkey]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Turkey-footyclub-stub}}</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gebzespor&diff=1214079001 2024-03-16T20:53:46Z

<p>Delbatros: </p> <hr /> <div>{{short description|Turkish sports club}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> |clubname = Gebzespor<br /> |image = [[Image:Gebze.jpg|250px]]<br /> |fullname = Gebzespor Kulübü<br /> |nickname = Violets<br /> |founded = 19 May 1955<br /> |ground = Alaettin Kurt Stadium, [[Gebze]]<br /> |capacity = 15,462<br /> |chairman = Resul Tat<br /> |manager = Sertaç Gezer<br /> |league = [[Turkish Regional Amateur League]]<br /> |season = 2022-23<br /> |position = [[Turkish Regional Amateur League]], Group 14, 2nd<br /> |pattern_la1 =<br /> |pattern_b1 = _whitestripes<br /> |pattern_ra1 =<br /> |leftarm1 = 800080<br /> |body1 = 800080<br /> |rightarm1 = 800080<br /> |shorts1 = 800080<br /> |socks1 = 800080<br /> |pattern_la2 =<br /> |pattern_b2 = _keciorengucu1920t<br /> |pattern_ra2 =<br /> |leftarm2 = ffffff<br /> |body2 = ffffff<br /> |rightarm2 = ffffff<br /> |shorts2 = ffffff<br /> |socks2 = ffffff<br /> |body3 = 800080<br /> |rightarm3 = 800080<br /> |socks3 = 800080<br /> |leftarm3 = 800080<br /> |shorts3 = 800080<br /> |pattern_b3 =<br /> }}<br /> <br /> '''Gebzespor''' is a Turkish [[sports]] club located in [[Gebze]], [[Kocaeli Province]]. The football club plays in the [[Turkish Regional Amateur League]].<br /> <br /> They have a local rivalry with [[Kocaelispor]].&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web | url=http://www.ultras-tifo.net/photo-news/4046-kocaelispor-gebzespor-23012016.html | title=Kocaelispor - Gebzespor 23.01.2016 }}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==League participations==<br /> * [[TFF Second League]] (5): 2006–11<br /> * [[TFF Third League]] (24): 1984-2006, 2011-12, 2018-19<br /> * [[Turkish Regional Amateur League|TFF Regional Amateur League]] (12):<br /> 2012-18, 2019-<br /> * [[Turkish Amateur League]] (29): 1955-84<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *[http://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3616 Gebzespor on TFF.org]<br /> * {{Facebook|1955gebzespor}}<br /> * {{Instagram|gebzesporresmi}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Gebzespor| ]]<br /> [[Category:Sport in Gebze]]<br /> [[Category:Sport in İzmit]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1955]]<br /> [[Category:1955 establishments in Turkey]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Turkey-footyclub-stub}}</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delbatros&diff=1214075613 2024-03-16T20:29:21Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Copyright? */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --&gt;<br /> ==Welcome!==<br /> [[File:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|[[Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''']]]]<br /> Hello, Delbatros, and '''''[[Help:Getting started|welcome to Wikipedia]]'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:<br /> * [[Help:Introduction|Introduction]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]<br /> * [[Help:Editing|How to edit a page]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]]<br /> * [[Help:Your first article|Your first article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community]]<br /> * Feel free to [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|make test edits in the sandbox]]<br /> * and check out the [[Wikipedia:Task Center|Task Center]], for ideas about what to work on.<br /> <br /> I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]] using four [[tilde]]s (&lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our [[Help:Contents|'''help pages''']], and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on [[User talk:Randykitty|my talk page]] or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!&lt;!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --&gt; [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 12:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Excuse me, I want to create an article, but it has been saved as a draft. Can you help me?<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == About [[Mersin İdman Yurdu]] ==<br /> <br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hi, and thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Delbatros|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Mersin İdman Yurdu]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into [[:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]. This is known as a &quot;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves|cut-and-paste move]]&quot;, and it is undesirable because it splits the [[Help:Page history|page history]], which is [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|legally required for attribution]]. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.<br /> <br /> In most cases for registered users, once your account is [[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed|four days old and has ten edits]], you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|&quot;Move&quot; tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at [[Wikipedia:Requests for history merge]]. Thank you. &lt;!-- Template:uw-c&amp;pmove --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Storchy|Storchy]] ([[User talk:Storchy|talk]]) 05:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. Since the page belongs to the Turkish football club, I am doing this according to the information in Turkish Wikipedia. Can you help me? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == esenlikler ==<br /> <br /> tr viki'de son değişikliklerde dolaşırken bazı olmamış maddelere denk geldim. sizi de [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metehan_%C3%96LMEZ&amp;diff=28770562&amp;oldid=28770548 şurda] gördüğüm için yazayım diye düşündüm.<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_K%C3%BCr%C5%9Fad_YILMAZ<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahit_Ergene_Ortaokulu<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkan_a%C5%9Fireti<br /> <br /> bunlara hızlı sil etiketi koyar mısınız? ----[[User:Modern primat|modern_primat]] [[Special:Contributions/Modern_primat|ඞඞඞ]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Modern primat|TALK]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)<br /> ==Concern regarding [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, Delbatros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months [[WP:G13|may be deleted]], so if you wish to retain the page, please [[Special:EditPage/Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit it]] again&amp;#32;or [[WP:USERFY|request]] that it be moved to your userspace.<br /> <br /> If the page has already been deleted, you can [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13|request it be undeleted]] so you can continue working on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. [[User:FireflyBot|FireflyBot]] ([[User talk:FireflyBot|talk]]) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)<br /> ==Your draft article, [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]<br /> <br /> Hello, Delbatros. It has been over six months since you last edited the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] submission or [[WP:Drafts|draft]] page you started, &quot;[[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|Mersin Talim Yurdu]]&quot;. <br /> <br /> In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]], the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code. <br /> <br /> If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at [[WP:REFUND/G13|this link]]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! &lt;!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <br /> <br /> '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&amp;mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&amp;mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&amp;mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.&lt;!-- Template:uw-3rr --&gt; [[Special:Contributions/105.8.2.55|105.8.2.55]] ([[User talk:105.8.2.55|talk]]) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please stop now! The revision you reverted contains copyright, why do you still insist on adding it back to the article? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{U|Hey man im josh}}, Please help me, There is a persistent copyright violation in the [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] article, please intervene. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, thank you so much. Please do not allow copyrighted images to be added to articles. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You have not answered the questions below. Please answer below. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Copyright?==<br /> OK, what's the problem?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214013229] [[:File:KSK logo.png]] and [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]], what's the difference? What is your copyright problem? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The problem is he's an idiot and he has no idea (if he can say &quot;son of a bitch&quot; without repercussion, I can say idiot). And if you're protecting the article, at least revert it to stable. [[Special:Contributions/102.182.46.145|102.182.46.145]] ([[User talk:102.182.46.145|talk]]) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If anyone calls anyone else an idiot or son of a bitch they're going to get blocked without any further warning, so we're clear. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You call me idiot and make me angry. Anyway, instead of causing a war, why didn't you send a message and tell me that you were trying to bring back the copyright violating image? Why do you continue to vandalize with different IP numbers? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is not allowed to upload copyrighted visual materials on Commons and there is already a logo available here. It is not nice to try to upload it in a way that will damage the article by violating the copyright rule. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The copyright rules allow something called [[:c:Commons:Licensing#Simple_design]], and we could always claim fair use, so the logo is allowed, but the thing I don't understand is why are you inserting an almost identical image? There has been a logo on that page for years. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I cannot write in the article, can you write please? The club's president has recently changed. Name of the new president: İlker Mehmet Ergüllü<br /> :Reference: [https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953], [https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598] [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You're on the verge of being blocked for [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], and abuse, and you don't seem to get it. You really need to stick to the point. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] You won't get good answers to any of your questions. I told you, he has no idea. Battleground mentality and lack of competence is all he is. And you're giving him the impression that he won a war here right now and he's having an orgasm over it. He thinks he's the best warrior in the wikiworld, and he defeated his enemy with 22 reverts and he got no repercussions for it, and it's even protected with his desired version, so warring like crazy with 20+ edits for 2 hours must be the correct thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/197.184.161.74|197.184.161.74]] ([[User talk:197.184.161.74|talk]]) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Please answer the question I asked and stop causing tension. You're the one who caused the war, not me. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Look, I have been trying to bring back the logo that has been around for years, in accordance with the rules. An anonymous user tried to vandalize add an image uploaded to commons that causes copyright violation to the article. I am doing the right thing.<br /> :::This is the logo I'm trying to bring back:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_Spor_Kul%C3%BCb%C3%BC_(logo).png<br /> :::An anonymous vandal user tried to add: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSK_logo.png<br /> :::Now I ask you: Is the revision that I have been trying to bring back to the article for years more accurate? Or is the revision that includes the copyrighted image that the anonymous user tried to add by vandalism more accurate?<br /> :::In fact, the logo was uploaded to en:wiki in accordance with the rules in 2021, and there is no copyright problem, but why would the image uploaded to commons be added to the article in a way that would cause a copyright problem?<br /> :::It was deleted again from commons in the past due to copyright reasons. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Someone tried to update the logo to the current one the club uses. There's no copyright difference between the two, and it's not removed from Commons, instead of edit warring here, try to remove it from Commons first if you can. You have no idea what you're doing, and nothing justifies 22 reverts and all the things you've done in just a few hours. You just need to &quot;win a war&quot;, that's all you think about. [[Special:Contributions/41.150.252.84|41.150.252.84]] ([[User talk:41.150.252.84|talk]]) 14:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm going to agree with the IP user. There's no meaningful differences between these logos in terms of copyright, which makes the copyright claim spurious. You should resolve the deletion process at commons first. Edit-warring like that is out of order, and will get you blocked. Even after the protection expires, even if you're reverted. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, The nomination for deletion in the Commons will be concluded on the same grounds. The anonymous user's incessant vandalism is completely damaging to the article and a waste of users' time. I'm trying to prevent and stop vandalism. I made a long statement, I think I did the right thing. I think that I will not be blocked or victimized because I am trying to stop and prevent vandalism. Because according to the rules, the necessary intervention against vandalism does not require any obstacle, and since I am trying to stop the vandalism, logically I should not be blocked. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::You have failed to demonstrate how this was vandalism. If it was a doctored image, or the wrong image, or even if there was a meaningful difference for the purposes of copyright, then you could argue that. But this is not vandalism. It's edit-warring, and that's you've been doing. Going forward you need to not do that. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In the past, it was deleted from commons due to copyright reasons and it was re-uploaded in the same way. There is no explanation for the vandalism you did. You are the one who started a war by vandalizing instead of talking about the issue. Do not think that you can escape the damage you caused with different IP numbers. I told you to stop and you didn't stop, even though I replied to you in the message thread above, you did not respond. First, explain the damage you caused, and I made my comment on the subject with a long explanation. You are just trying to create tension and cover up your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Updating an image is not vandalism. Updating an image is usually considered a good thing. Where is the evidence it was previously deleted due to copyright? And I ask again, why is the image you restored so different that it follows different rules? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Please review the revisions here.<br /> :::::::An attempt was made to add visual here: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20827359]<br /> :::::::Here, the revision was removed for the same reason: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20837090]<br /> :::::::I have been interested in this article for a long time and I have patrol rights on tr:wiki. It has been withdrawn due to copyright reasons. Wait, I will bring you 2 users and let them make the necessary explanation. I'm not doing anything wrong, you can confirm that. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::You will need to explain why you think [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]] is so different, when it is more or less identical. Either both of these are public domain due to their simplicity, or neither of them are public domain. If both are available then we could use either of the images. If neither is free then we could use a fair use rationale, and retain the apparently updated [[:File:KSK logo.png]] through a local upload. However arguing that one is a copyright violation and the other isn't doesn't make any sense. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please stop this anonymous vandalism, this is getting very annoying. &gt;:(<br /> :::::::::Considering that my long explanation is now more understandable, I expect you not to allow the copyrighted image added during the deletion candidacy period in the commons to be included in the article. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delbatros&diff=1214075490 2024-03-16T20:28:35Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Copyright? */ Reply</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --&gt;<br /> ==Welcome!==<br /> [[File:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|[[Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''']]]]<br /> Hello, Delbatros, and '''''[[Help:Getting started|welcome to Wikipedia]]'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:<br /> * [[Help:Introduction|Introduction]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]<br /> * [[Help:Editing|How to edit a page]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]]<br /> * [[Help:Your first article|Your first article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community]]<br /> * Feel free to [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|make test edits in the sandbox]]<br /> * and check out the [[Wikipedia:Task Center|Task Center]], for ideas about what to work on.<br /> <br /> I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]] using four [[tilde]]s (&lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our [[Help:Contents|'''help pages''']], and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on [[User talk:Randykitty|my talk page]] or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!&lt;!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --&gt; [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 12:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Excuse me, I want to create an article, but it has been saved as a draft. Can you help me?<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == About [[Mersin İdman Yurdu]] ==<br /> <br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hi, and thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Delbatros|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Mersin İdman Yurdu]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into [[:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]. This is known as a &quot;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves|cut-and-paste move]]&quot;, and it is undesirable because it splits the [[Help:Page history|page history]], which is [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|legally required for attribution]]. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.<br /> <br /> In most cases for registered users, once your account is [[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed|four days old and has ten edits]], you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|&quot;Move&quot; tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at [[Wikipedia:Requests for history merge]]. Thank you. &lt;!-- Template:uw-c&amp;pmove --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Storchy|Storchy]] ([[User talk:Storchy|talk]]) 05:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. Since the page belongs to the Turkish football club, I am doing this according to the information in Turkish Wikipedia. Can you help me? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == esenlikler ==<br /> <br /> tr viki'de son değişikliklerde dolaşırken bazı olmamış maddelere denk geldim. sizi de [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metehan_%C3%96LMEZ&amp;diff=28770562&amp;oldid=28770548 şurda] gördüğüm için yazayım diye düşündüm.<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_K%C3%BCr%C5%9Fad_YILMAZ<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahit_Ergene_Ortaokulu<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkan_a%C5%9Fireti<br /> <br /> bunlara hızlı sil etiketi koyar mısınız? ----[[User:Modern primat|modern_primat]] [[Special:Contributions/Modern_primat|ඞඞඞ]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Modern primat|TALK]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)<br /> ==Concern regarding [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, Delbatros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months [[WP:G13|may be deleted]], so if you wish to retain the page, please [[Special:EditPage/Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit it]] again&amp;#32;or [[WP:USERFY|request]] that it be moved to your userspace.<br /> <br /> If the page has already been deleted, you can [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13|request it be undeleted]] so you can continue working on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. [[User:FireflyBot|FireflyBot]] ([[User talk:FireflyBot|talk]]) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)<br /> ==Your draft article, [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]<br /> <br /> Hello, Delbatros. It has been over six months since you last edited the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] submission or [[WP:Drafts|draft]] page you started, &quot;[[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|Mersin Talim Yurdu]]&quot;. <br /> <br /> In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]], the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code. <br /> <br /> If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at [[WP:REFUND/G13|this link]]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! &lt;!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <br /> <br /> '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&amp;mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&amp;mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&amp;mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.&lt;!-- Template:uw-3rr --&gt; [[Special:Contributions/105.8.2.55|105.8.2.55]] ([[User talk:105.8.2.55|talk]]) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please stop now! The revision you reverted contains copyright, why do you still insist on adding it back to the article? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{U|Hey man im josh}}, Please help me, There is a persistent copyright violation in the [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] article, please intervene. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, thank you so much. Please do not allow copyrighted images to be added to articles. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You have not answered the questions below. Please answer below. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Copyright?==<br /> OK, what's the problem?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214013229] [[:File:KSK logo.png]] and [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]], what's the difference? What is your copyright problem? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The problem is he's an idiot and he has no idea (if he can say &quot;son of a bitch&quot; without repercussion, I can say idiot). And if you're protecting the article, at least revert it to stable. [[Special:Contributions/102.182.46.145|102.182.46.145]] ([[User talk:102.182.46.145|talk]]) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If anyone calls anyone else an idiot or son of a bitch they're going to get blocked without any further warning, so we're clear. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You call me idiot and make me angry. Anyway, instead of causing a war, why didn't you send a message and tell me that you were trying to bring back the copyright violating image? Why do you continue to vandalize with different IP numbers? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is not allowed to upload copyrighted visual materials on Commons and there is already a logo available here. It is not nice to try to upload it in a way that will damage the article by violating the copyright rule. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The copyright rules allow something called [[:c:Commons:Licensing#Simple_design]], and we could always claim fair use, so the logo is allowed, but the thing I don't understand is why are you inserting an almost identical image? There has been a logo on that page for years. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I cannot write in the article, can you write please? The club's president has recently changed. Name of the new president: İlker Mehmet Ergüllü<br /> :Reference: [https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953], [https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598] [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You're on the verge of being blocked for [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], and abuse, and you don't seem to get it. You really need to stick to the point. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] You won't get good answers to any of your questions. I told you, he has no idea. Battleground mentality and lack of competence is all he is. And you're giving him the impression that he won a war here right now and he's having an orgasm over it. He thinks he's the best warrior in the wikiworld, and he defeated his enemy with 22 reverts and he got no repercussions for it, and it's even protected with his desired version, so warring like crazy with 20+ edits for 2 hours must be the correct thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/197.184.161.74|197.184.161.74]] ([[User talk:197.184.161.74|talk]]) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Please answer the question I asked and stop causing tension. You're the one who caused the war, not me. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Look, I have been trying to bring back the logo that has been around for years, in accordance with the rules. An anonymous user tried to vandalize add an image uploaded to commons that causes copyright violation to the article. I am doing the right thing.<br /> :::This is the logo I'm trying to bring back:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_Spor_Kul%C3%BCb%C3%BC_(logo).png<br /> :::An anonymous vandal user tried to add: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSK_logo.png<br /> :::Now I ask you: Is the revision that I have been trying to bring back to the article for years more accurate? Or is the revision that includes the copyrighted image that the anonymous user tried to add by vandalism more accurate?<br /> :::In fact, the logo was uploaded to en:wiki in accordance with the rules in 2021, and there is no copyright problem, but why would the image uploaded to commons be added to the article in a way that would cause a copyright problem?<br /> :::It was deleted again from commons in the past due to copyright reasons. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Someone tried to update the logo to the current one the club uses. There's no copyright difference between the two, and it's not removed from Commons, instead of edit warring here, try to remove it from Commons first if you can. You have no idea what you're doing, and nothing justifies 22 reverts and all the things you've done in just a few hours. You just need to &quot;win a war&quot;, that's all you think about. [[Special:Contributions/41.150.252.84|41.150.252.84]] ([[User talk:41.150.252.84|talk]]) 14:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm going to agree with the IP user. There's no meaningful differences between these logos in terms of copyright, which makes the copyright claim spurious. You should resolve the deletion process at commons first. Edit-warring like that is out of order, and will get you blocked. Even after the protection expires, even if you're reverted. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, The nomination for deletion in the Commons will be concluded on the same grounds. The anonymous user's incessant vandalism is completely damaging to the article and a waste of users' time. I'm trying to prevent and stop vandalism. I made a long statement, I think I did the right thing. I think that I will not be blocked or victimized because I am trying to stop and prevent vandalism. Because according to the rules, the necessary intervention against vandalism does not require any obstacle, and since I am trying to stop the vandalism, logically I should not be blocked. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::You have failed to demonstrate how this was vandalism. If it was a doctored image, or the wrong image, or even if there was a meaningful difference for the purposes of copyright, then you could argue that. But this is not vandalism. It's edit-warring, and that's you've been doing. Going forward you need to not do that. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In the past, it was deleted from commons due to copyright reasons and it was re-uploaded in the same way. There is no explanation for the vandalism you did. You are the one who started a war by vandalizing instead of talking about the issue. Do not think that you can escape the damage you caused with different IP numbers. I told you to stop and you didn't stop, even though I replied to you in the message thread above, you did not respond. First, explain the damage you caused, and I made my comment on the subject with a long explanation. You are just trying to create tension and cover up your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Updating an image is not vandalism. Updating an image is usually considered a good thing. Where is the evidence it was previously deleted due to copyright? And I ask again, why is the image you restored so different that it follows different rules? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Please review the revisions here.<br /> :::::::An attempt was made to add visual here: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20827359]<br /> :::::::Here, the revision was removed for the same reason: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20837090]<br /> :::::::I have been interested in this article for a long time and I have patrol rights on tr:wiki. It has been withdrawn due to copyright reasons. Wait, I will bring you 2 users and let them make the necessary explanation. I'm not doing anything wrong, you can confirm that. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::::You will need to explain why you think [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]] is so different, when it is more or less identical. Either both of these are public domain due to their simplicity, or neither of them are public domain. If both are available then we could use either of the images. If neither is free then we could use a fair use rationale, and retain the apparently updated [[:File:KSK logo.png]] through a local upload. However arguing that one is a copyright violation and the other isn't doesn't make any sense. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::::Please stop this anonymous vandalism, this is getting very annoying. &gt;:(<br /> :::::::::Considering that my long explanation is now more understandable, I expect you not to allow the copyrighted image added during the deletion candidacy period in the commons to be included in the article. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]] ([[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]) 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&diff=1214074285 2024-03-16T20:19:22Z

<p>Delbatros: </p> <hr /> <div>{{pp|small=yes}}<br /> {{short description|Turkish sports club}}<br /> {{Infobox football club<br /> | clubname = Karşıyaka<br /> | image = Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png<br /> | image_size = 170px<br /> | fullname = Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü<br /> | nickname = Kaf Kaf, Kaf Sin Kaf, The 35 and half<br /> | colours = {{colour box|#00FF00}}{{colour box|#FF0000}} Green&amp;nbsp;– Red<br /> | founded = {{Start date and years ago|df=yes|1912|11|1}}<br /> | ground = [[Alsancak Mustafa Denizli Stadium]]<br /> | capacity = 15,000|<br /> | chairman = İlker Mehmet Ergüllü&lt;ref&gt;https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> | manager = [[Erkan Sözeri]]<br /> | league = [[TFF Third League ]]<br /> | season = 2022-23<br /> | position = [[TFF Third League ]], Group 1, 7th<br /> | website = http://www.ksk.org.tr/<br /> |pattern_la1 =<br /> |pattern_b1 = _greenstripes<br /> |pattern_ra1 =<br /> |leftarm1 = FF0000<br /> |body1 = FF0000<br /> |rightarm1 = FF0000<br /> |shorts1 = FF0000<br /> |socks1 = FF0000<br /> |pattern_la2 =<br /> |pattern_b2 =<br /> |pattern_ra2 =<br /> |leftarm2 = FF0000<br /> |body2 = 00AA00<br /> |rightarm2 = FF0000<br /> |shorts2 = FF0000<br /> |socks2 = FF0000<br /> |pattern_la3 =<br /> |pattern_b3 =<br /> |pattern_ra3 =<br /> |leftarm3 = <br /> |body3 = <br /> |rightarm3 = <br /> |shorts3 = <br /> |socks3 = <br /> | current = 2023-24 [[TFF Third League]] Group 2<br /> | kit_alt1 = Red and Green vertical boxes with white shorts and socks<br /> }}<br /> '''Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü''' (English: Karşıyaka Sports Club) also known as '''Karşıyaka''' is a Turkish sports club located in [[Karşıyaka]], [[İzmir]]. Founded in 1912, they are İzmir's oldest club. Like all others in Turkey; the &quot;SK&quot; suffix refers to ''sports club'', as besides football the club has sports branches in [[Karşıyaka Basket|basketball]], [[Karşıyaka Women's Volleyball Team|volleyball]], [[handball]], [[tennis]], [[Swimming (sport)|swimming]], [[sailing (sport)|sailing]], [[billiards]], and [[bowling]]. The club's football team currently competes in the [[TFF Third League]], the fourth tier of the Turkish football league system. The basketball team currently competes in the [[Turkish Basketball League]] and the women's volleyball team in the Turkish Women's Second League.<br /> <br /> Karşıyaka has a very large fanbase in Northern İzmir, and have a fierce rivalry with [[Göztepe S.K.|Göztepe]]; the match between the two teams is collectively known as the [[Göztepe–Karşıyaka rivalry|İzmir Derby]]. Other rivalries are with [[Altay S.K.|Altay]] and [[Bucaspor]].<br /> [[File:Karsiyaka 1912.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Karşıyaka in 1912.]]<br /> <br /> ==European participations==<br /> {{updated|29 September 1992}}<br /> <br /> '''Statistics''':<br /> <br /> {|class=&quot;wikitable sortable&quot; style=&quot;text-align: center;&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Competition!!Pld!!W!!D!!L!!GF!!GA!!GD<br /> |-<br /> |align=center|[[Balkans Cup]]<br /> |2||1||0||1||5||6||{{nowrap|–1}}<br /> |}<br /> <br /> &lt;small&gt;'''Pld''' = Matches played; '''W''' = Matches won; '''D''' = Matches drawn; '''L''' = Matches lost; '''GF''' = Goals for; '''GA''' = Goals against; '''GD''' = Goal Difference. &lt;/small&gt;<br /> <br /> '''[[Balkans Cup]]:'''<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Season<br /> !Round<br /> !Club<br /> !Home<br /> !Away<br /> !Aggregate<br /> |-<br /> |[[1992–93 Balkans Cup|1992-93]]<br /> | '''Quarter-finals'''<br /> |{{flagicon|BUL}} [[FC Etar (Veliko Tarnovo)|Etar]]<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#dfd;&quot;| 4–1<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center; background:#fdd;&quot;| 1–5<br /> | style=&quot;text-align:center;&quot;| '''5–6'''<br /> |}<br /> <br /> ==Current squad==<br /> {{updated|For the 2023-24 season [[TFF Third League]] Group 2|&lt;ref&gt;{{cite web |url=https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageID=535&amp;kulupID=3598 | title=KARŞIYAKA - Club Details TFF }}&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> {{fs start}}<br /> {{fs player|no=1|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=[[Haydar Yılmaz]]}}{{Football squad player|nat=TUR|pos=DF|name=Ferdi Burgaz|no=3}}<br /> {{fs player|no=4|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Erdi̇nç Çepoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=5|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Alpay Koldaş}}<br /> {{fs player|no=6|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Emre Keleşoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=8|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Efe Tatli|other={{small|on loan from [[Fatih Karagümrük S.K.]]}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=9|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Fatih Taşdelen}}<br /> {{fs player|no=10|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Emre Gemici}}<br /> {{fs player|no=11|pos=MF|nat=GER|name=Yasi̇n Ozan}}<br /> {{fs player|no=15|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=Hasan Sürmeli̇}}<br /> {{fs player|no=17|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Enes Nalbantoğlu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=18|pos=GK|nat=TUR|name=Enes Kalyoncu}}<br /> {{fs mid}}<br /> {{fs player|no=20|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Hakan Erçeli̇k}}<br /> {{fs player|no=21|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Mustafa Durgun}}<br /> {{fs player|no=22|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Bi̇lal Ceylan|other={{small|on loan from [[Beşiktaş J.K.]]}}}}<br /> {{fs player|no=24|pos=MF|nat=TUR|name=Sefa Küpeli̇}}<br /> {{fs player|no=25|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Ömer Alper Tatlisu}}<br /> {{fs player|no=33|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Emre Can Heptazeler}}<br /> {{fs player|no=41|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Mertcan Koç}}<br /> {{fs player|no=77|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Fati̇h Çi̇plak}}<br /> {{fs player|no=80|pos=FW|nat=TUR|name=Adem Büyük|other=}}<br /> {{fs player|no=94|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Bariş Sağir}}<br /> {{fs player|no=99|pos=DF|nat=TUR|name=Cenk Ahmet Alkılıç}}<br /> {{fs end}}<br /> <br /> == League participations in football ==<br /> * [[Turkish Super League|Turkish Premier Division]]: 1958–64, 1966–67, 1970–72, 1987–91, 1992–94, 1995–96<br /> * [[TFF First League|Turkish First Division]]: 1964–66, 1967–70, 1972–73, 1980–87, 1991–92, 1994–95, 1996–01, 2003–2016<br /> * [[TFF Second League|Turkish Second Division]]: 1973–80, 2001–03, 2016–18<br /> * [[TFF Third League|Turkish Third Division]]: 2018–present<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> {{Commons category|Karşıyaka SK}}<br /> * [[Karşıyaka Basket|Pınar Karşıyaka]]<br /> * [[Karşıyaka Women's Volleyball Team]]<br /> * [[Göztepe-Karşıyaka rivalry]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *{{oweb|http://www.ksk.org.tr/}}<br /> *[http://www.tff.org.tr/Default.aspx?pageId=535&amp;kulupID=3598 Karşıyaka] on TFF.org<br /> <br /> {{Karşıyaka S.K.}}<br /> {{TFF Third League}}<br /> {{Football in Turkey}}<br /> <br /> {{Authority control}}<br /> {{Use dmy dates|date=February 2021}}<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Karsiyaka S. K.}}<br /> [[Category:Karşıyaka S.K.| ]]<br /> [[Category:Football clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:Association football clubs established in 1912]]<br /> [[Category:Multi-sport clubs in Turkey]]<br /> [[Category:1912 establishments in the Ottoman Empire]]<br /> [[Category:Süper Lig clubs]]<br /> <br /> <br /> {{Turkey-footyclub-stub}}</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delbatros&diff=1214031910 2024-03-16T15:40:16Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Copyright? */Opps</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --&gt;<br /> ==Welcome!==<br /> [[File:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|[[Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''']]]]<br /> Hello, Delbatros, and '''''[[Help:Getting started|welcome to Wikipedia]]'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:<br /> * [[Help:Introduction|Introduction]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]<br /> * [[Help:Editing|How to edit a page]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]]<br /> * [[Help:Your first article|Your first article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community]]<br /> * Feel free to [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|make test edits in the sandbox]]<br /> * and check out the [[Wikipedia:Task Center|Task Center]], for ideas about what to work on.<br /> <br /> I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]] using four [[tilde]]s (&lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our [[Help:Contents|'''help pages''']], and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on [[User talk:Randykitty|my talk page]] or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!&lt;!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --&gt; [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 12:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Excuse me, I want to create an article, but it has been saved as a draft. Can you help me?<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == About [[Mersin İdman Yurdu]] ==<br /> <br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hi, and thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Delbatros|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Mersin İdman Yurdu]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into [[:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]. This is known as a &quot;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves|cut-and-paste move]]&quot;, and it is undesirable because it splits the [[Help:Page history|page history]], which is [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|legally required for attribution]]. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.<br /> <br /> In most cases for registered users, once your account is [[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed|four days old and has ten edits]], you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|&quot;Move&quot; tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at [[Wikipedia:Requests for history merge]]. Thank you. &lt;!-- Template:uw-c&amp;pmove --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Storchy|Storchy]] ([[User talk:Storchy|talk]]) 05:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. Since the page belongs to the Turkish football club, I am doing this according to the information in Turkish Wikipedia. Can you help me? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == esenlikler ==<br /> <br /> tr viki'de son değişikliklerde dolaşırken bazı olmamış maddelere denk geldim. sizi de [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metehan_%C3%96LMEZ&amp;diff=28770562&amp;oldid=28770548 şurda] gördüğüm için yazayım diye düşündüm.<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_K%C3%BCr%C5%9Fad_YILMAZ<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahit_Ergene_Ortaokulu<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkan_a%C5%9Fireti<br /> <br /> bunlara hızlı sil etiketi koyar mısınız? ----[[User:Modern primat|modern_primat]] [[Special:Contributions/Modern_primat|ඞඞඞ]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Modern primat|TALK]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)<br /> ==Concern regarding [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, Delbatros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months [[WP:G13|may be deleted]], so if you wish to retain the page, please [[Special:EditPage/Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit it]] again&amp;#32;or [[WP:USERFY|request]] that it be moved to your userspace.<br /> <br /> If the page has already been deleted, you can [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13|request it be undeleted]] so you can continue working on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. [[User:FireflyBot|FireflyBot]] ([[User talk:FireflyBot|talk]]) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)<br /> ==Your draft article, [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]<br /> <br /> Hello, Delbatros. It has been over six months since you last edited the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] submission or [[WP:Drafts|draft]] page you started, &quot;[[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|Mersin Talim Yurdu]]&quot;. <br /> <br /> In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]], the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code. <br /> <br /> If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at [[WP:REFUND/G13|this link]]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! &lt;!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <br /> <br /> '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&amp;mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&amp;mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&amp;mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.&lt;!-- Template:uw-3rr --&gt; [[Special:Contributions/105.8.2.55|105.8.2.55]] ([[User talk:105.8.2.55|talk]]) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please stop now! The revision you reverted contains copyright, why do you still insist on adding it back to the article? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{U|Hey man im josh}}, Please help me, There is a persistent copyright violation in the [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] article, please intervene. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, thank you so much. Please do not allow copyrighted images to be added to articles. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You have not answered the questions below. Please answer below. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Copyright?==<br /> OK, what's the problem?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214013229] [[:File:KSK logo.png]] and [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]], what's the difference? What is your copyright problem? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The problem is he's an idiot and he has no idea (if he can say &quot;son of a bitch&quot; without repercussion, I can say idiot). And if you're protecting the article, at least revert it to stable. [[Special:Contributions/102.182.46.145|102.182.46.145]] ([[User talk:102.182.46.145|talk]]) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If anyone calls anyone else an idiot or son of a bitch they're going to get blocked without any further warning, so we're clear. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You call me idiot and make me angry. Anyway, instead of causing a war, why didn't you send a message and tell me that you were trying to bring back the copyright violating image? Why do you continue to vandalize with different IP numbers? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is not allowed to upload copyrighted visual materials on Commons and there is already a logo available here. It is not nice to try to upload it in a way that will damage the article by violating the copyright rule. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The copyright rules allow something called [[:c:Commons:Licensing#Simple_design]], and we could always claim fair use, so the logo is allowed, but the thing I don't understand is why are you inserting an almost identical image? There has been a logo on that page for years. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I cannot write in the article, can you write please? The club's president has recently changed. Name of the new president: İlker Mehmet Ergüllü<br /> :Reference: [https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953], [https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598] [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You're on the verge of being blocked for [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], and abuse, and you don't seem to get it. You really need to stick to the point. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] You won't get good answers to any of your questions. I told you, he has no idea. Battleground mentality and lack of competence is all he is. And you're giving him the impression that he won a war here right now and he's having an orgasm over it. He thinks he's the best warrior in the wikiworld, and he defeated his enemy with 22 reverts and he got no repercussions for it, and it's even protected with his desired version, so warring like crazy with 20+ edits for 2 hours must be the correct thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/197.184.161.74|197.184.161.74]] ([[User talk:197.184.161.74|talk]]) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Please answer the question I asked and stop causing tension. You're the one who caused the war, not me. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Look, I have been trying to bring back the logo that has been around for years, in accordance with the rules. An anonymous user tried to vandalize add an image uploaded to commons that causes copyright violation to the article. I am doing the right thing.<br /> :::This is the logo I'm trying to bring back:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_Spor_Kul%C3%BCb%C3%BC_(logo).png<br /> :::An anonymous vandal user tried to add: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSK_logo.png<br /> :::Now I ask you: Is the revision that I have been trying to bring back to the article for years more accurate? Or is the revision that includes the copyrighted image that the anonymous user tried to add by vandalism more accurate?<br /> :::In fact, the logo was uploaded to en:wiki in accordance with the rules in 2021, and there is no copyright problem, but why would the image uploaded to commons be added to the article in a way that would cause a copyright problem?<br /> :::It was deleted again from commons in the past due to copyright reasons. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Someone tried to update the logo to the current one the club uses. There's no copyright difference between the two, and it's not removed from Commons, instead of edit warring here, try to remove it from Commons first if you can. You have no idea what you're doing, and nothing justifies 22 reverts and all the things you've done in just a few hours. You just need to &quot;win a war&quot;, that's all you think about. [[Special:Contributions/41.150.252.84|41.150.252.84]] ([[User talk:41.150.252.84|talk]]) 14:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm going to agree with the IP user. There's no meaningful differences between these logos in terms of copyright, which makes the copyright claim spurious. You should resolve the deletion process at commons first. Edit-warring like that is out of order, and will get you blocked. Even after the protection expires, even if you're reverted. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, The nomination for deletion in the Commons will be concluded on the same grounds. The anonymous user's incessant vandalism is completely damaging to the article and a waste of users' time. I'm trying to prevent and stop vandalism. I made a long statement, I think I did the right thing. I think that I will not be blocked or victimized because I am trying to stop and prevent vandalism. Because according to the rules, the necessary intervention against vandalism does not require any obstacle, and since I am trying to stop the vandalism, logically I should not be blocked. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::You have failed to demonstrate how this was vandalism. If it was a doctored image, or the wrong image, or even if there was a meaningful difference for the purposes of copyright, then you could argue that. But this is not vandalism. It's edit-warring, and that's you've been doing. Going forward you need to not do that. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In the past, it was deleted from commons due to copyright reasons and it was re-uploaded in the same way. There is no explanation for the vandalism you did. You are the one who started a war by vandalizing instead of talking about the issue. Do not think that you can escape the damage you caused with different IP numbers. I told you to stop and you didn't stop, even though I replied to you in the message thread above, you did not respond. First, explain the damage you caused, and I made my comment on the subject with a long explanation. You are just trying to create tension and cover up your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Updating an image is not vandalism. Updating an image is usually considered a good thing. Where is the evidence it was previously deleted due to copyright? And I ask again, why is the image you restored so different that it follows different rules? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Please review the revisions here.<br /> :::::::An attempt was made to add visual here: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20827359]<br /> :::::::Here, the revision was removed for the same reason: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20837090]<br /> :::::::I have been interested in this article for a long time and I have patrol rights on tr:wiki. It has been withdrawn due to copyright reasons. Wait, I will bring you 2 users and let them make the necessary explanation. I'm not doing anything wrong, you can confirm that. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Delbatros&diff=1214031128 2024-03-16T15:35:37Z

<p>Delbatros: /* Copyright? */</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --&gt;<br /> ==Welcome!==<br /> [[File:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|thumb|[[Help:Getting started|'''Welcome!''']]]]<br /> Hello, Delbatros, and '''''[[Help:Getting started|welcome to Wikipedia]]'''''! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:<br /> * [[Help:Introduction|Introduction]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]<br /> * [[Help:Editing|How to edit a page]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style|Simplified Manual of Style]]<br /> * [[Help:Your first article|Your first article]]<br /> * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community]]<br /> * Feel free to [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|make test edits in the sandbox]]<br /> * and check out the [[Wikipedia:Task Center|Task Center]], for ideas about what to work on.<br /> <br /> I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Please [[Wikipedia:Signatures|sign your name]] on [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk pages]] using four [[tilde]]s (&lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our [[Help:Contents|'''help pages''']], and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on [[User talk:Randykitty|my talk page]] or place '''{{Tlc|Help me}}''' on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!&lt;!-- Template:Welcome_cookie --&gt; [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 12:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> Excuse me, I want to create an article, but it has been saved as a draft. Can you help me?<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == About [[Mersin İdman Yurdu]] ==<br /> <br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hi, and thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Delbatros|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Mersin İdman Yurdu]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into [[:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]. This is known as a &quot;[[Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves|cut-and-paste move]]&quot;, and it is undesirable because it splits the [[Help:Page history|page history]], which is [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia|legally required for attribution]]. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.<br /> <br /> In most cases for registered users, once your account is [[Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed|four days old and has ten edits]], you should be able to move an article yourself using the [[Help:Moving a page|&quot;Move&quot; tab]] at the top of the page (the tab may be [[:File:Vector hidden move button.png|hidden in a dropdown menu]] for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]] from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested moves]] to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at [[Wikipedia:Requests for history merge]]. Thank you. &lt;!-- Template:uw-c&amp;pmove --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Storchy|Storchy]] ([[User talk:Storchy|talk]]) 05:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> The name of a football club has changed in recent months. I wanted to move the page to a new name, but when I couldn't, I wanted to create a new page by redirecting and transfer the information to the new page. Since the page belongs to the Turkish football club, I am doing this according to the information in Turkish Wikipedia. Can you help me? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 05:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)<br /> <br /> == esenlikler ==<br /> <br /> tr viki'de son değişikliklerde dolaşırken bazı olmamış maddelere denk geldim. sizi de [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metehan_%C3%96LMEZ&amp;diff=28770562&amp;oldid=28770548 şurda] gördüğüm için yazayım diye düşündüm.<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_K%C3%BCr%C5%9Fad_YILMAZ<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahit_Ergene_Ortaokulu<br /> <br /> https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkan_a%C5%9Fireti<br /> <br /> bunlara hızlı sil etiketi koyar mısınız? ----[[User:Modern primat|modern_primat]] [[Special:Contributions/Modern_primat|ඞඞඞ]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Modern primat|TALK]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)<br /> ==Concern regarding [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, Delbatros. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months [[WP:G13|may be deleted]], so if you wish to retain the page, please [[Special:EditPage/Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit it]] again&amp;#32;or [[WP:USERFY|request]] that it be moved to your userspace.<br /> <br /> If the page has already been deleted, you can [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13|request it be undeleted]] so you can continue working on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. [[User:FireflyBot|FireflyBot]] ([[User talk:FireflyBot|talk]]) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)<br /> ==Your draft article, [[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu]]==<br /> [[File:Information icon4.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]<br /> <br /> Hello, Delbatros. It has been over six months since you last edited the [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] submission or [[WP:Drafts|draft]] page you started, &quot;[[Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|Mersin Talim Yurdu]]&quot;. <br /> <br /> In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia [[WP:mainspace|mainspace]], the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Mersin Talim Yurdu|edit the submission}} and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code. <br /> <br /> If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at [[WP:REFUND/G13|this link]]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.<br /> <br /> Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! &lt;!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --&gt;&lt;!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --&gt; [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)<br /> <br /> [[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about [[WP:EPTALK|how this is done]]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. <br /> <br /> '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''&amp;mdash;especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|reverts]] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&amp;mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&amp;mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.&lt;!-- Template:uw-3rr --&gt; [[Special:Contributions/105.8.2.55|105.8.2.55]] ([[User talk:105.8.2.55|talk]]) 11:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :Please stop now! The revision you reverted contains copyright, why do you still insist on adding it back to the article? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::{{U|Hey man im josh}}, Please help me, There is a persistent copyright violation in the [[Karşıyaka S.K.]] article, please intervene. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, thank you so much. Please do not allow copyrighted images to be added to articles. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::You have not answered the questions below. Please answer below. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> ==Copyright?==<br /> OK, what's the problem?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_S.K.&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=1214013229] [[:File:KSK logo.png]] and [[:File:Karşıyaka Spor Kulübü (logo).png]], what's the difference? What is your copyright problem? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> <br /> :The problem is he's an idiot and he has no idea (if he can say &quot;son of a bitch&quot; without repercussion, I can say idiot). And if you're protecting the article, at least revert it to stable. [[Special:Contributions/102.182.46.145|102.182.46.145]] ([[User talk:102.182.46.145|talk]]) 13:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::If anyone calls anyone else an idiot or son of a bitch they're going to get blocked without any further warning, so we're clear. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You call me idiot and make me angry. Anyway, instead of causing a war, why didn't you send a message and tell me that you were trying to bring back the copyright violating image? Why do you continue to vandalize with different IP numbers? [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :It is not allowed to upload copyrighted visual materials on Commons and there is already a logo available here. It is not nice to try to upload it in a way that will damage the article by violating the copyright rule. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::The copyright rules allow something called [[:c:Commons:Licensing#Simple_design]], and we could always claim fair use, so the logo is allowed, but the thing I don't understand is why are you inserting an almost identical image? There has been a logo on that page for years. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :I cannot write in the article, can you write please? The club's president has recently changed. Name of the new president: İlker Mehmet Ergüllü<br /> :Reference: [https://www.ntvspor.net/futbol/karsiyaka-da-yeni-baskan-belli-oldu-65d4da5f15d2e00063220953], [https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageId=28&amp;kulupId=3598] [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::You're on the verge of being blocked for [[WP:EW|edit-warring]], and abuse, and you don't seem to get it. You really need to stick to the point. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::@[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] You won't get good answers to any of your questions. I told you, he has no idea. Battleground mentality and lack of competence is all he is. And you're giving him the impression that he won a war here right now and he's having an orgasm over it. He thinks he's the best warrior in the wikiworld, and he defeated his enemy with 22 reverts and he got no repercussions for it, and it's even protected with his desired version, so warring like crazy with 20+ edits for 2 hours must be the correct thing to do. [[Special:Contributions/197.184.161.74|197.184.161.74]] ([[User talk:197.184.161.74|talk]]) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Please answer the question I asked and stop causing tension. You're the one who caused the war, not me. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::Look, I have been trying to bring back the logo that has been around for years, in accordance with the rules. An anonymous user tried to vandalize add an image uploaded to commons that causes copyright violation to the article. I am doing the right thing.<br /> :::This is the logo I'm trying to bring back:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_Spor_Kul%C3%BCb%C3%BC_(logo).png<br /> :::An anonymous vandal user tried to add: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KSK_logo.png<br /> :::Now I ask you: Is the revision that I have been trying to bring back to the article for years more accurate? Or is the revision that includes the copyrighted image that the anonymous user tried to add by vandalism more accurate?<br /> :::In fact, the logo was uploaded to en:wiki in accordance with the rules in 2021, and there is no copyright problem, but why would the image uploaded to commons be added to the article in a way that would cause a copyright problem?<br /> :::It was deleted again from commons in the past due to copyright reasons. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::Someone tried to update the logo to the current one the club uses. There's no copyright difference between the two, and it's not removed from Commons, instead of edit warring here, try to remove it from Commons first if you can. You have no idea what you're doing, and nothing justifies 22 reverts and all the things you've done in just a few hours. You just need to &quot;win a war&quot;, that's all you think about. [[Special:Contributions/41.150.252.84|41.150.252.84]] ([[User talk:41.150.252.84|talk]]) 14:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::I'm going to agree with the IP user. There's no meaningful differences between these logos in terms of copyright, which makes the copyright claim spurious. You should resolve the deletion process at commons first. Edit-warring like that is out of order, and will get you blocked. Even after the protection expires, even if you're reverted. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::{{U|Zzuuzz}}, The nomination for deletion in the Commons will be concluded on the same grounds. The anonymous user's incessant vandalism is completely damaging to the article and a waste of users' time. I'm trying to prevent and stop vandalism. I made a long statement, I think I did the right thing. I think that I will not be blocked or victimized because I am trying to stop and prevent vandalism. Because according to the rules, the necessary intervention against vandalism does not require any obstacle, and since I am trying to stop the vandalism, logically I should not be blocked. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::You have failed to demonstrate how this was vandalism. If it was a doctored image, or the wrong image, or even if there was a meaningful difference for the purposes of copyright, then you could argue that. But this is not vandalism. It's edit-warring, and that's you've been doing. Going forward you need to not do that. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::In the past, it was deleted from commons due to copyright reasons and it was re-uploaded in the same way. There is no explanation for the vandalism you did. You are the one who started a war by vandalizing instead of talking about the issue. Do not think that you can escape the damage you caused with different IP numbers. I told you to stop and you didn't stop, even though I replied to you in the message thread above, you did not respond. First, explain the damage you caused, and I made my comment on the subject with a long explanation. You are just trying to create tension and cover up your vandalism. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> ::::::Updating an image is not vandalism. Updating an image is usually considered a good thing. Where is the evidence it was previously deleted due to copyright? And I ask again, why is the image you restored so different that it follows different rules? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] &lt;sup&gt;[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)<br /> :::::::Please review the revisions here.<br /> :::::::An attempt was made to add visual here: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;direction=prev&amp;oldid=20817773]<br /> :::::::Here, the revision was removed for the same reason: [https://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kar%C5%9F%C4%B1yaka_SK&amp;oldid=20827359]<br /> :::::::I have been interested in this article for a long time and I have patrol rights on tr:wiki. It has been withdrawn due to copyright reasons. Wait, I will bring you 2 users and let them make the necessary explanation. I'm not doing anything wrong, you can confirm that. [[User:Delbatros|Delbatros]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Delbatros#top|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)</div>

Delbatros